Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment Standards Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Office of Personnel Management.
Final regulation.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing final regulations on a plain language rewrite of its regulations regarding the employment of relatives as part of a broader review of OPM's regulations. The purpose of the revision is to make the regulations more readable.
Mr. Scott A. Wilander by telephone at (202) 606-0830; by TTY at (202) 418-3134; by fax at (202) 606-0390; or by e-mail at
OPM published for comment on September 22, 2003, (at 68 FR 55012) proposed regulations revising Part 310 to make it more readable. We also proposed to eliminate subpart A because it merely restates the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 3110 which outline the legal restrictions on the employment of relatives.
We received comments from two agencies on this proposal. Both agencies questioned the use of a question-and-answer format for regulations under Title 5, and indicated that they preferred the existing demonstrative statements for titles throughout the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). We agree with this view and have adopted the agencies' recommendations.
Both agencies also opposed dropping provisions of the regulations that repeat the law. They believed it was beneficial to include these provisions, if only to provide a one-stop-shopping service so that readers would not have to consult both the law and the regulations. We can appreciate this view and, as a result, in general we leave what we perceive to be critical parts of relevant law in regulation. We do not consider that to be necessary or appropriate in this instance, however, because OPM has no particular responsibility for administering this law.
One agency questioned whether the exception that permits the employment of relatives under certain circumstances “not to exceed 1 month,” means 30 or 31 days. The agency suggested changing this provision in the regulations to read 30 days. We have adopted this suggestion.
This agency also suggested dividing the proposed rule into two parts to address two important points: (1) Legal restrictions on the employment of relatives; and (2) Exceptions to the legal restrictions on the employment of relatives. We believe this is a good suggestion and have adopted it.
Finally, one agency suggested making clear in the first sentence of proposed section 310.101 that the restriction on the employment of relatives applies to public officials. We have done so.
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with E.O. 12866.
I certify that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects only Federal employees.
Government employees.
5 U.S.C. 3110.
Section 3110 of title 5, United States Code, sets forth the legal restrictions on the employment of relatives.
Subsection (d) of 5 U.S.C. 3110 authorizes the Office of Personnel Management to prescribe regulations authorizing the temporary employment of relatives, in certain conditions, notwithstanding the restrictions. This regulation sets forth exceptions to the restrictions. When necessary to meet urgent needs resulting from an emergency posing an immediate threat to life or property, or a national emergency as defined in § 230.402(a)(1) of this title, a public official may employ relatives to meet those needs without regard to the restrictions on the employment of relatives in 5 U.S.C. 3110. Such appointments are temporary and may not exceed 30 days, but the agency may extend such an appointment for one additional 30-day period if the emergency need still exists at the time of the extension.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to adopt model milestones for the conduct of NRC adjudicatory proceedings, to require a presiding officer to refer to the model milestones as a starting point for establishing a hearing schedule in an adjudicatory proceeding, and to manage the case in accordance with that schedule.
Geary Mizuno, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-1639, e-mail
In Spring 2001, the NRC published for public comment a proposed rule that would substantially revise the NRC's procedures for the conduct of adjudications (66 FR 19610; April 16, 2001). The proposed rule included 10 CFR 2.332 and 2.334, requiring the presiding officer to establish a hearing schedule and manage the case in accordance with that schedule.
In the statement of considerations (SOC) for the proposed Part 2 rule, the Commission requested comment on whether, in addition to proposed 10 CFR 2.332 and 2.334, either flexible milestones or firm schedules should be established in the NRC's rules of practice in 10 CFR Part 2 (66 FR 19610, 19620). Several commenters on the proposed rule supported the adoption by rule of binding schedules. However, one commenter opposed the adoption of flexible milestones or firm schedules. In the SOC for the final rule, 69 FR 2182 (January 14, 2004), the Commission stated that it would not establish by rulemaking generally-applicable milestones for the conduct of proceedings. Instead, it adopted provisions in 10 CFR 2.332 and 2.334 requiring a presiding officer to establish a schedule for the conduct of proceedings, to manage the case in accordance with that schedule, and to notify the Commission when it appears there will be a delay in the overall schedule of sixty (60) days or more.
Although the Commission decided not to adopt, as part of the final Part 2 rulemaking, generally-applicable schedules or milestones for the conduct of NRC adjudications, the Commission continued to evaluate the matter. The Commission's considerations were directed towards identifying possible alternatives for governing the pace and timing of adjudicatory proceedings in a manner which fully recognizes the rights of all parties to a fair hearing process and meets the Commission's goal for effective and timely adjudicatory processes. After reviewing several alternatives the Commission has decided to adopt model milestones and changes to the generally-applicable procedures in Subpart C of Part 2 that would govern how these milestones are to be used by presiding officers.
The purpose of the model milestones and accompanying changes to Subpart C are to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of NRC adjudications, while ensuring that the rights of all parties to fair, effective, and timely adjudications are maintained. The model milestones would be used to establish an initial schedule for an adjudication from which the presiding officer could depart, where appropriate, because of the circumstances of the particular proceeding. The model milestones are tailored to the different types of licensing and regulatory activities the NRC conducts and would better focus the limited resources of involved parties and the NRC. In addition, the model milestones will provide the presiding officer with the flexibility to manage the process reasonably and fairly in establishing initial schedules. The model milestones will also allow for the necessary adaptability in the hearing process by permitting departures from unnecessary interim steps to the major milestones. Thus, the model milestones will increase stakeholder confidence in the independence and fairness of the adjudicatory process by providing the presiding officer with a starting point to create a hearing schedule while maintaining flexibility to consider the individual and unique considerations inherent in any adjudication, and authorizing departures from the hearing schedule as unexpected circumstances arise.
The Commission looked at several alternatives to the concept of model milestones including: Model schedules, binding schedules, binding milestones, and case-by-case imposition by the Commission. Model schedules set forth specific days or periods of time for both the conduct and completion of hearing activities and actions, or the filing of certain specified types of motions. Thus, in contrast to the concept of model milestones, the underlying consideration in the development of the model schedules was the need for detailed and specific guidance to presiding officers on the time periods to be accorded to each discrete step of the hearing. Binding schedules would contain the added requirement that the presiding officer report to the Commission any deviation from the applicable model schedule. Binding milestones would apply the more general and flexible milestones, as described above, to the proceedings but would require the presiding officer to report to the Commission when there was a deviation from the applicable model milestone. Finally, case-by-case oversight by the Commission was considered where the Commission would monitor the presiding officer's actions, and require the Commission's concurrence for certain issues.
Model schedules were rejected as an alternative because of the numerous advantages to utilizing model milestones, as compared with the alternative of model schedules. Model schedules are more detailed and prescriptive and departures from the model schedule must be justified and may themselves become the subject of collateral litigation. In addition, the wide variation of participants, the number of contentions, and other case-specific circumstances and considerations may make it difficult to adhere to a strict set of model schedules.
Binding milestones and binding schedules were rejected because the Commission deemed them too inflexible. Case-specific issues and circumstances require presiding officers to have the flexibility to handle cases on an individual basis without requiring Commission approval for each proposed alteration to the case schedule. In addition, unexpected occurrences or circumstances in the proceedings may require adjustments to the case schedule during the proceedings which would be more efficiently dealt with by the presiding officer without requiring Commission approval.
The Commission rejected the alternative of case-by-case imposition by the Commission because it interfered with matters normally left to the presiding officer. In addition, it would involve substantial expenditure of resources by the Commission. Finally, the Commission determined the goals of a more efficient and fair adjudication process could be accomplished in a less intrusive manner.
Compared with the four alternatives discussed above, model milestones allow for the necessary flexibility to adjust to the specific requirements of each individual hearing and will allow for strong case management and control by the presiding officer. Model milestones merely provide a starting point for the proceedings while
Because these amendments constitute minor administrative changes to the regulations, the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act do not apply.
In addition, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) provides that when an agency finds good cause that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the rulemaking is exempt from notice and comment requirements. In the present case, the model milestones are largely drawn from the time periods specifically provided in the January 14, 2004 revisions to 10 CFR Part 2, on which the public has already had an opportunity to comment as part of that rulemaking. Additionally, as noted above, the Commission adopted provisions in 10 CFR 2.332 and 2.334 requiring a presiding officer to establish a schedule for the conduct of proceedings, to manage the case against that schedule, and to notify the Commission when it appears there will be slippage in the overall schedule. Thus, the present rulemaking merely provides the starting point for the presiding officer to base the schedule of proceedings. Public notice and comment was already provided for the implementation of a schedule and for the time periods. Thus, additional notice and comment procedures would be duplicative and unnecessary.
The new provisions in §§ 2.332 and 2.334, requiring presiding officers to establish a hearing schedule for a proceeding based upon the applicable model milestones and to manage the case against that hearing schedule, are applicable to all proceedings commencing on or after the effective date of the final rule. For a proceeding in which a notice of hearing or a notice of opportunity for hearing are published in the
10 CFR 2.332(a) would be amended to add language requiring the scheduling order, created by the hearing officer, to also establish when the oral phase of the hearing will commence.
10 CFR 2.332(a)(2) would remove the term “and hearings” because the scheduling order is now required to establish the limits to commence the oral phase of the hearing under paragraph (a). Thus the language in (a)(2) permitting the scheduling order to contain such information is unnecessary.
A new 10 CFR 2.332(b) is added to require the presiding officer to utilize the applicable model milestones in Appendix B of this part as a starting point to establish the scheduling order. This section provides that appropriate modifications by the presiding officer may be made based upon all relevant information. The flexibility provided by this section allows the presiding officer to consider all relevant information, which includes but is not limited to the number of contentions admitted, the complexity of the issues presented, relevant considerations which a party may bring to the attention of the presiding officer, the NRC staff's schedule for completion of its safety and environmental evaluations (paragraph (d) of this section), and the NRC's interest in providing a fair and expeditious resolution of the issues sought to be adjudicated by the parties in the proceeding.
10 CFR 2.334(a) contains conforming changes which reflect the change in 10 CFR 2.332(b). 10 CFR 2.332(b) now requires the presiding officer to utilize the applicable model milestones in Appendix B to this part as a starting point to create the hearing schedule.
The language in former 10 CFR 2.332(b) would be transferred to 10 CFR 2.334(b). The language is otherwise unchanged except for a modification to refer to “hearing schedule,” as opposed to “schedule.”
10 CFR 2.334(b) is renumbered 10 CFR 2.334(c). In addition, an added provision requires the presiding officer assigned to the proceeding to provide written notification to the Commission any time during the course of the proceeding when it appears that there will be a delay of greater than forty-five (45) days in meeting any of the dates for major activities in the hearing schedule established by the presiding officer under 10 CFR 2.332(a). This requirement ensures that the Commission is kept well informed regarding any potential delays in the hearing schedule and encourages the parties and presiding officer to adhere to the established hearing schedule if possible. An additional conforming change to refer to “hearing schedule” is also made.
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix B contains four model milestones for adjudicatory hearings: The generic hearing track (Subpart L), license transfer (Subpart M), enforcement action (Subpart G), and enforcement action (Subpart N). In establishing a schedule, the presiding officer is required by 10 CFR 2.332 to use these milestones as a starting point, make appropriate modifications to the milestones, and set detailed schedules (
10 CFR 2.334 allows the presiding officer to modify the hearing schedule from the initial milestones upon a finding by the presiding officer or the Commission of good cause. Factors such as whether the requesting party has exercised due diligence to adhere to the schedule, whether the requested change is the result of unavoidable circumstances, whether the other parties have agreed to the change, and the overall effect of the change on the schedule of the case are taken into account. In addition, the presiding officer is required by 10 CFR 2.334 to provide written notification to the Commission any time during the course of the proceeding when it appears that there will be a delay of greater than forty-five (45) days in meeting any of the dates for major activities in the hearing schedule established by the presiding officer under 10 CFR 2.332(a). Finally, 10 CFR 2.334 requires the presiding officer to provide written notification if completion of the record or the issuance of the initial decision will be delayed more than sixty (60) days beyond the time specified in the hearing schedule established under 10 CFR 2.332(a). The model milestones reflect electronic filing and service in accordance with 10 CFR 2.305.
This model set of milestones applies to hearings in enforcement proceedings conducted under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G. As required by 10 CFR 2.332 and 2.334, the presiding officer establishes, by order, a schedule for the conduct of the proceeding. The model milestones are based on the Commission's Rules of Practice in 10 CFR Part 2, Subparts B, C, and G. The model milestones are based upon the following assumptions: (i) The issues to be litigated will involve both disputes over fact and issues of compliance with the Commission's regulations and requirements; and (ii) no petitions to intervene are filed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.309(a)-(b). In some cases, preparation of direct testimony and motions for summary disposition can proceed once initial mandatory disclosures have been made. The time periods set forth in the model milestones reflect these assumptions.
This model set of milestones applies to hearings conducted under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L, including those on applications for combined licenses (COLs), renewed licenses, and license amendments. While such proceedings differ insofar as the scope and complexity of the NRC staff reviews for the requested actions may vary, such differences will be reflected in the staff's schedule for issuing its review documents in a particular type of action. Because the milestones are keyed to the staff's review schedule, separate milestones need not be identified for proceedings on the different types of actions. As required by 10 CFR 2.332 and 2.334, the presiding officer establishes, by order, a schedule for the conduct of each proceeding. The model milestones include only the most significant events in the proceeding and are based upon the following assumptions: (i) The issues to be litigated will involve both disputes over fact and issues of compliance with the Commission's regulations and requirements; (ii) an oral hearing under 10 CFR 2.1207 will be held rather than a written hearing under 10 CFR 2.1208; and (iii) the final Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and final environmental document will be issued simultaneously.
This model set of milestones applies to hearings on license transfer proceedings conducted under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart M. Subpart M governs all adjudicatory proceedings on an application for the direct or indirect transfer of control of an NRC license when the transfer requires prior approval of the NRC under the Commission's regulations, governing statutes, or pursuant to a license condition. As required by 10 CFR 2.332 and 2.334, the presiding officer establishes, by order, a schedule for the conduct of each proceeding. The model milestones are based on the Commission's Rules of Practice in 10 CFR Part 2, Subparts C and M. The model milestones include only the most significant events in the proceeding, and are based upon the following assumptions: (i) The issues to be litigated will involve both disputes over fact and issues of compliance with the Commission's regulations and requirements; (ii) the parties do not file a joint request under 10 CFR 2.1308 for a hearing consisting of written comments; (iii) the final Safety Evaluation Report (SER) is not necessary to resolve the issues to be litigated; (iv) the Commission itself does not serve as the presiding officer; and (v) the Commission does not order further taking of testimony after the presiding officer certifies the record to the Commission under 10 CFR 2.1319(f).
This model set of milestones applies to hearings on enforcement proceedings conducted under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart N. Subpart N provides simplified procedures for the expeditious resolution of disputes among parties in an informal hearing process. As required by 10 CFR 2.332 and 2.334, the presiding officer establishes, by order, a schedule for the conduct of each proceeding. The model milestones are based on the Commission's Rules of Practice in 10 CFR Part 2, Subparts B, C, and N. The model milestones are based upon the following assumptions: (i) The issues to be litigated will involve both disputes over fact and issues of compliance with the Commission's regulations and requirements; and (ii) no petitions to intervene are filed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.309(a)-(b). The only discovery provided is the mandatory disclosure made by each party pursuant to 10 CFR 2.336.
The National Technology Transfer Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113), requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC is requiring the presiding officer to refer to the model milestones as a starting point for establishing a hearing schedule and managing the case against that schedule. This action does not constitute the establishment of a government-unique standard as defined in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 (1998).
The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1) provides a categorical exclusion for amendments to certain parts of this chapter including 10 CFR Part 2. Therefore, neither an
This final rule does not contain new or amended information collection requirements and, therefore is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
A regulatory analysis has not been prepared for this final rule because this rule is considered minor and not a substantial amendment; it has no economic impact on NRC licensees or the public.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), does not apply to a final rule for which a proposed rule was not issued, and thus is not applicable to this rulemaking.
The NRC has determined that the backfit rules (§§ 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76) do not apply to this direct final rule because this amendment does not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR Chapter I. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required.
In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB.
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct material, Classified information, Environmental protection, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Sex discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal.
Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub. L. 87-615, 76 Stat. 409 (42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552; sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); sec. 114(f), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2213, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10143(f)), sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42 U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 183i, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Sections 2.105 also issued under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200-2.206 also issued under secs. 161 b, I, o, 182, 186, 234, 68 Stat. 948-951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201 (b), (I), (o), 2236, 2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5846). Section 2.205(j) also issued under Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 90, as amended by section 3100(s), Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note). Sections 2.600-2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 2.700a, 2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. Sections 2.754, 2.760, 2.770, 2.780 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 557. Section 2.764 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 2.790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat. 936, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133), and 5 U.S.C. 552. Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85-256, 71 Stat. 579, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2039). Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Subpart L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Subpart M also issued under sec. 184 (42 U.S.C. 2234) and sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Appendix A also issued under sec. 6, Pub. L. 91-560, 84 Stat. 1473 (42 U.S.C. 2135).
(a)
(2) The date or dates for prehearing conferences; and
(b)
(a) Unless the Commission directs otherwise in a particular proceeding, the presiding officer assigned to the proceeding shall, based on information and projections provided by the parties and the NRC staff, take appropriate action to maintain the hearing schedule established by the presiding officer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.332(a) of this part for the completion of the evidentiary record and, as appropriate, the issuance of its initial decision.
(b)
(1) Whether the requesting party has exercised due diligence to adhere to the schedule;
(2) Whether the requested change is the result of unavoidable circumstances; and
(3) Whether the other parties have agreed to the change and the overall effect of the change on the schedule of the case.
(c) The presiding officer shall provide written notification to the Commission any time during the course of the proceeding when it appears that there
These model milestones would apply to enforcement proceedings conducted under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G. As required by 10 CFR 2.332 and 2.334, the presiding officer establishes, by order, a schedule for the conduct of the proceeding. In establishing a schedule, the presiding officer should use these milestones as a starting point, make appropriate modifications to the milestones, and set detailed schedules (
The model milestones are based upon the following assumptions: (i) the issues to be litigated will involve both disputes over fact and issues of compliance with the Commission's regulations and requirements; and (ii) no petitions to intervene are filed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.309(a)-(b). The model milestones reflect electronic filing and service in accordance with 10 CFR 2.305. In some cases, preparation of direct testimony and motions for summary disposition can proceed once initial mandatory disclosures have been made. The time periods set forth in the model milestones reflect these assumptions.
These model milestones would apply to proceedings conducted under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L, including those on applications for combined licenses (COLs), renewed licenses, and license amendments. While such proceedings differ insofar as the scope and complexity of the NRC staff reviews for the requested actions may vary, such differences will be reflected in the staff's schedule for issuing its review documents in a particular type of action. Because the milestones are keyed to the staff's review schedule, separate milestones are not identified for proceedings on the different types of actions.
As required by 10 CFR 2.332 and 2.334, the presiding officer establishes, by order, a schedule for the conduct of each proceeding. In establishing a schedule, the presiding officer should use these milestones as a starting point, make appropriate modifications to the milestones, and set detailed schedules (
The model milestones include only the most significant events in the proceeding and are based upon the following assumptions: (I) the issues to be litigated will involve both disputes over fact and issues of compliance with the Commission's regulations and requirements; (ii) an oral hearing under 10 CFR 2.1207 will be held rather than a written hearing under 10 CFR 2.1208; and (iii) the final Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and final environmental document will be issued simultaneously. The model milestones reflect electronic filing and service in accordance with 10 CFR 2.305.
These model milestones would apply to proceedings conducted under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart M on applications for license transfer. As required by 10 CFR 2.332 and 2.334, the presiding officer establishes, by order, a schedule for the conduct of each proceeding. In establishing a schedule, the presiding officer should use these milestones as a starting point, make appropriate modifications to the milestones, and set detailed schedules (
The model milestones include only the most significant events in the proceeding, and are based upon the following assumptions: (i) The issues to be litigated will involve both disputes over fact and issues of compliance with the Commission's regulations and requirements; (ii) the parties do not file a joint request under 10 CFR 2.1308 for a hearing consisting of written comments; (iii) the final Safety Evaluation Report (SER) is not necessary to resolve the issues to be litigated; (iv) the Commission itself does not serve as the presiding officer; and (v) the Commission does not order further taking of testimony after the presiding officer certifies the record to the Commission under 10 CFR 2.1319(f). The model milestones reflect electronic filing and service in accordance with 10 CFR 2.305.
These model milestones would apply to enforcement proceedings conducted under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart N. As required by 10 CFR 2.332 and 2.334, the presiding officer establishes, by order, a schedule for the conduct of each proceeding. In establishing a schedule, the presiding officer should use these milestones as a starting point, make appropriate modifications to the milestones, and set detailed schedules based upon all relevant information. The model milestones are based on the Commission's Rules of Practice in 10 CFR Part 2, Subparts B, C, and N.
The model milestones are based upon the following assumptions: (i) The issues to be litigated will involve both disputes over fact and issues of compliance with the Commission's regulations and requirements; and (ii) no petitions to intervene are filed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.309(a)-(b). The model milestones reflect electronic filing and service in accordance with 10 CFR 2.305. The only discovery provided is the mandatory disclosure made by each party pursuant to 10 CFR 2.336.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard has changed the drawbridge operation regulations that govern the operation of the S35 Bridge, mile 0.0, across Cheesequake Creek at Morgan, South Amboy, New Jersey. This final rule allows the bridge to open on the hour only from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., May 1 through October 31. In addition, this rule allows the bridge owner to require a 4-hour advance notice for openings from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. all year, and all day from November 1 through April 30. This rule is expected to relieve the bridge owner of the burden of crewing the bridge at all times while still providing for the reasonable needs of navigation.
This rule is effective May 20, 2005.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket (CGD01-04-126) and are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Mr. Gary Kassof, Bridge Administrator, First Coast Guard District, (212) 668-7165.
On December 17, 2004, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Cheesequake Creek, New Jersey, in the
The S35 Bridge has a vertical clearance of 25 feet at mean high water and 30 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operation regulations listed at 33 CFR 117.709(a), require the bridge to open on signal; except that, from May 15 through October 15 from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour. From December 1 through March 31 from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels.
Cheesequake Creek is navigated predominately by small recreational vessels between April and November only. The bridge seldom opens during the winter months December through March.
The bridge owner, New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), requested that the drawbridge operation regulations for the S35 Bridge be changed to allow the bridge to open on the hour only from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., May 1 through October 31. The hourly openings are currently in effect from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., May 15 through October 15.
In addition, this final rule allows the bridge owner to require a 4-hour advance notice for bridge openings from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. all year round and all day from November 1 through April 30. Bridge openings during the on-call time period may be obtained by calling the number posted at the bridge.
The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking and as a result, no changes have been made to this final rule.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3), of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue to open for vessel traffic during the time periods vessel traffic has historically required the bridge to open.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue to open for vessel traffic during the time periods vessel traffic has historically required the bridge to open.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
No small entities requested Coast Guard assistance and none was given.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This final rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this final rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. It has been determined that this final rule does not significantly impact the environment.
Bridges.
33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
(a) The draw of the of the S35 Bridge, at mile 0.0, at Morgan, South Amboy, New Jersey, shall operate as follows:
(1) From May 1 through October 31 from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour. From 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. the Draw shall open on signal. From 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. the draw shall open after at least a 4-hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
(2) From November 1 through April 30 the draw shall open on signal after at least a 4-hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is removing the existing drawbridge operation regulation for the draw of the Maxwell Highway Bridge, mile 17.6, near Imola, CA. The drawbridge has been removed from the waterway. Therefore, the regulation controlling the operation of the drawbridge is no longer necessary.
This rule is effective April 20, 2005.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of the docket CGD 11-05-025, and are available for inspection or copying at the office of the Eleventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Section, Building 50-3, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA 94501-5100, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District, telephone (510) 437-3516.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The Maxwell Drawbridge has been removed and replaced by a fixed, high-level bridge. Since the drawbridge no longer exists, the operating schedule in 33 CFR 117.169(c) is no longer needed and is being removed.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the
On February 4, 2002 the Coast Guard issued a permit for a fixed, high-level bridge to replace the Maxwell Highway drawbridge, mile 17.6, near Imola, CA. Land traffic has been shifted to the replacement bridge and the drawbridge, governed by 33 CFR 117.169(c), has been removed.
This final rule removes paragraph (c), regarding the Maxwell Highway Drawbridge, from section 117.169.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
A special operating regulation exists for this drawbridge. This drawbridge has been removed from the waterway, making the regulation unnecessary. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule, to remove an obsolete drawbridge regulation, will have no impact on any small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in the preamble.
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not cause an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Paragraph (32)(e) excludes the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges from the environmental documentation requirements of NEPA.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(e), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule.
Bridges.
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is changing the regulation governing the operation of the SR 661 (Houma Nav Canal) swing bridge across the Houma Navigation Canal, mile 36.0, in Houma, Louisiana. An increase in traffic during the noontime time period has facilitated a request to allow the bridge to remain closed to navigation for two (2), 30-minute periods in the middle of the day. These closures will allow local workers to transit the area with minimal delays during the noontime lunch period.
This rule is effective May 20, 2005.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket [CGD08-05-004] and are available for inspection or copying at the office of the Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3396, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Bridge Administration Branch maintains the public docket for this rulemaking.
Mr. David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, at (504) 589-2965.
On January 28, 2005, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Houma Navigation Canal, Houma, LA,” in the
The U.S. Coast Guard, at the request of the State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD), and supported by the Terrebonne Parish Council, is modifying the existing operating schedule of the SR 661 (Houma Nav Canal) swing bridge across the Houma Navigation Canal, mile 36.0, in Houma, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. The modification of the existing regulations will allow the bridge to remain closed to navigation for two (2), 30-minute periods in the middle of the day to allow for local workers to transit the area with minimal delays during the noontime lunch period.
Currently, the bridge opens on signal; except that, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.
Approximately 9,500 vehicles cross the bridge daily, 6% of which cross the bridge during the requested noon closure times. The bridge averages 932 openings a month. The requested two (2), 30-minute closures will delay approximately 133 additional tows a month for a maximum of 30 minutes. The average length of a bridge opening is approximately nine minutes, delaying an average of 44 vehicles per opening during the noontime bridge openings.
Navigation at the site of the bridge consists primarily of tugboats with
Four letters were received with regards to the NPRM. Oil States Industries in Houma wrote in support of the changes. The Terrebonne Parish Council wrote in support of the changes. The National Resources Conservation Service offered no comments. Trico Marine Operators wrote in support of the changes but suggested that the words “except Federal holidays” be eliminated, as many private entities do not observe some or all of these Federal holidays. Based upon this comments, no changes were made to the proposed regulation.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
This rule allows vessels ample opportunity to transit this waterway with proper notification before and after the peak vehicular traffic periods. According to the vehicle traffic surveys, the public at large is better served by the additional closure times during the noontime lunch periods.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in the preamble.
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not cause an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of
Bridges.
33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
The draw of SR 661 (Houma Nav Canal) bridge, mile 36.0, at Houma, shall open on signal; except that, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels Monday through Friday except Federal holidays from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., from 11:45 a.m. to 12:15 p.m., from 12:45 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations for the Amtrak Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge, mile 3.4, across the Connecticut River, Connecticut. This deviation from the regulations allows scheduled bridge openings every two hours between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. each day from April 11, 2005 through April 30, 2005. This deviation is necessary in order to facilitate electrical repairs at the bridge.
This deviation is effective from April 11, 2005 through April 30, 2005.
Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at (212) 668-7195.
The Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge, at mile 3.4, across the Connecticut River has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 19 feet at mean high water and 22 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.205(b).
The owner of the bridge, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), requested a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operating regulations to facilitate scheduled electrical repairs at the bridge.
Under this temporary deviation the Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge shall open on signal at 8 a.m., 10 a.m., 12 p.m., 2 p.m., and 4 p.m. from April 11, 2005 through April 30, 2005. From 4 p.m. to 8 a.m. the draw shall open on signal as soon as practicable for all non-commercial vessels that can not pass under the closed draws, but in no case shall the delay be more than 20 minutes from the time the opening was requested.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is changing the regulation governing the operation of the SR 315 (Bayou Dularge) bascule bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 59.9 west of Harvey Lock, in Houma, Louisiana. An increase in traffic during the noontime time period facilitated a request to allow the bridge to remain closed to navigation for two (2), 30-minute periods in the middle of the day. These closures will allow local workers to transit the area with minimal delays during the noontime lunch period.
This rule is effective May 20, 2005.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket [CGD08-05-003] and are available for inspection or copying at the office of the Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3396, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Bridge Administration Branch maintains the public docket for this rulemaking.
Mr. David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, at (504) 589-2965.
On January 28, 2005, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Houma, LA,” in the
The U. S. Coast Guard, at the request of the State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD), and supported by the Terrebonne Parish Council, is modifying
Currently, the bridge opens on signal; except that, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels Monday through Friday except Federal holidays from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.
Approximately 11,500 vehicles cross the bridge daily, 7% of which cross the bridge during the requested noon closure times. The bridge averages 288 openings a month. The requested two (2), 30-minute closures will delay approximately 35 additional tows a month for a maximum of 30 minutes. The average length of a bridge opening is approximately seven minutes, delaying an average of 92 vehicles per opening during the noontime bridge openings.
Navigation at the site of the bridge consists primarily of tugboats with barges. Alternate routes east and west through the bridge are not readily accessible; however, the bridge, in the closed-to-navigation position provides a vertical clearance of 40 feet above high water, elevation 3.8 feet Mean Sea Level.
Four letters were received with regards to the NPRM. Oil States Industries in Houma wrote in support of the changes. The Terrebonne Parish Council wrote in support of the changes. The National Resources Conservation Service offered no comments. Trico Marine Operators wrote in support of the changes but suggested that the words “except Federal holidays” be eliminated, as many private entities do not observe some or all of these Federal holidays. Based upon this comments, no changes were made to the proposed regulation.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
This rule allows vessels ample opportunity to transit this waterway with proper notification before and after the peak vehicular traffic periods. According to the vehicle traffic surveys, the public at large is better served by the additional closure times during the noontime lunch periods.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in the preamble.
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not cause an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This final rule involves modifying the existing drawbridge operation regulation for a benefit of all modes of transportation. It will not have any impact on the environment.
Bridges.
33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
(c) The draw of the SR 315 (Bayou Dularge) bridge, mile 59.9 west of Harvey Lock, at Houma, shall open on signal; except that, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels Monday through Friday except Federal holidays from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., from 11:45 a.m. to 12:15 p.m., from 12:45 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
This final rule adopts, without changes, the interim rule published on April 7, 2000, which changed the speed limit in Tongass Narrows. This final rule extends the speed limit area northward in Tongass Narrows to Channel Island, allows the take-off and landing of floatplanes, and allows smaller vessels to transit crowded areas to Tongass Narrows more quickly, relieving congestion. This final rule also re-designates the safety zone in Ketchikan Harbor as an anchorage ground. Vessels transiting the anchorage ground, other than those engaged in anchoring evolutions are required to proceed through the anchorage by the most direct route without delay or sudden course change. The new rule makes the final approach, anchoring, and departure of very large passenger vessels, safer for the vessels involved.
This rule is effective May 20, 2005.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of the docket and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, Juneau, Alaska, telephone 907-463-2470, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
LT Gary Koehler, Chief of Port Operations, Marine Safety Office, Juneau, Alaska, 907-463-2470.
On March 25, 1999, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Anchorage ground, safety zone, speed limit, Tongass Narrows and Ketchikan, AK” in the
On June 1, 1999 an interim rule was published entitled “Anchorage Ground, Safety Zone, Speed Limit, Tongass Narrows and Ketchikan, AK” in the
On April 7, 2000 a revised interim rule was published entitled “Anchorage Ground, Safety Zone, Speed Limit, Tongass Narrows and Ketchikan, AK” in
During 1999 and 2000 the Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation Administration held a series of public meetings in Ketchikan, Alaska, to assess maritime traffic, congestion, safety, and wake concerns in Tongass Narrows. The individuals and groups represented at these meetings included recreational vessel operators, passenger vessel operators, commercial fishing vessel operators, commercial kayak operators, floatplane operators, charter vessel operators, and local residents.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposed changes to the seven-knot speed limit on Tongass Narrows. The existing speed limit did not address the needs of floatplane traffic, may have unnecessarily slowed the transits of smaller vessels, and did not apply in the northern portions of Tongass Narrows where traffic congestion and wake from larger vessels had become a concern. The proposed changes extended the speed zone northward to Channel Island, but exempted vessels of 26 feet or less in length.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also proposed to re-designate the safety
The interim rule published in 1999 revised the safety zone in Ketchikan Harbor as well as the 7-knot speed limit in Tongass Narrows. It re-designated the safety zone in Ketchikan Harbor as an anchorage ground and required transiting vessels, other than those engaged in anchoring evolutions, to proceed through the anchorage by the most direct route without delay or sudden course changes.
The interim rule published in 2000 revised the published 1999 interim rule by extending the speed limit exemption to include all small vessels of 23 feet or less, registered length. This change allowed an increased number of small vessels that create little wake to transit crowded areas of Tongass Narrows more quickly, thereby relieving congestion.
The Coast Guard received comments from 21 persons regarding the 1999 interim rule. The comments included oral comments made at the August 27th, 1999 public meeting and four letters. No comments were received concerning the anchorage area and this portion of the interim rule remains unchanged. Numerous comments criticized the speed limit exemption for being unnecessarily restrictive. Responses to these comments on the 1999 interim rule are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The most frequent comments addressed the exemption for “non-commercial open skiffs.” Of the 21 persons that commented on the 1999 interim rule (several persons commented on multiple aspects), 10 commented on this exemption, stating that the term “non-commercial, open skiff” created confusion as to when a vessel was considered “open” vice enclosed. The Coast Guard agreed and the term “non-commercial, open skiff” was removed.
Nine comments were received concerning the vessel length exemption from the 7-knot speed limit based on vessel length of less than 20 feet. Seven of the comments favored increasing the size of vessels exempted to 26 feet and one favored increasing the size to 25 feet. Two comments favored keeping the size of vessel exempted from the 7-knot speed limit at 20 feet or less. Additionally, five comments favored an exemption for non-displacement hull vessels. The Coast Guard agreed that the 20-foot vessel length exemption could be increased without adversely affecting the safety of the waterway and without causing a significant increase in vessel wakes. However, numerous comments that were received as a result of the notice of proposed rulemaking concerned the impact of any rule that split the charter fishing vessel fleet. Commenters were concerned that such a split would provide an unfair economic advantage to certain portions of the charter fishing vessel fleet. According to data obtained by the Coast Guard from the State of Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, there are 167 charter vessels that routinely operate in and around Tongass Narrows. This data, which is depicted in the following table, indicates:
This table reflects the adjusted number of charter vessels that are registered as operating on Tongass Narrows. The numbers have been adjusted to remove those vessels that are home ported in areas other than Ketchikan or Metlakatla or that are located at outlying lodges and could not reasonably be expected to participate in the daily charters out of Tongass Narrows (
One comment noted that the regulatory marker in the western channel should be located outside the cable crossing area. The published position of the western channel regulatory marker is outside of the charted cable crossing area. The buoy tender that services this buoy has checked the actual location of the regulatory marker. Two comments were received that favored extending the northern boundary of the seven-knot speed zone northward to Channel Island as a way to control wake damage to private and commercial property caused by large vessels transiting this area. The Coast Guard disagreed that the boundary should be extended any further than Tongass Narrows Buoy 9. The overwhelming majority of 129 comments received in 1998 favored a slight extension of the 7-knot speed limit zone but these comments did not support extending the zone as far north as Channel Island. In light of all comments received, the Coast Guard believed that the present northerly boundary of the 7-knot speed limit zone, located at Tongass Narrows Buoy 9, is appropriate and made no changes.
Two comments were received on making the speed limit seasonal to align with the summer tourist season. One facility operator stated that if the rule were made seasonal, it would increase the risk of a large wake parting a line on an oil barge during transfer operations, thereby potentially increasing the chances of an oil spill. During the entire rule making process, the majority of the comments favored the existence of the year round 7-knot rule. The consensus expressed was that if the 7-knot speed limit were seasonal, the risk on the waterway would not be reduced in the
One comment favored the creation of a high-speed traffic corridor through the middle of the waterway. Other commenters felt that creating a high-speed corridor would unreasonably increase the risk to vessels operating on Tongass Narrows. This proposal was not adopted. No comments were received concerning the 2000 interim rule, which revised the 1999 interim rule to reflect the above comments.
Since no comments were received concerning the proposed revisions to the 1999 interim rule as contained in the 2000 revised interim rule, the final rule shall adopt the language contained in the 2000 revised interim rule. By exempting “vessels of 23 feet registered length or less,” the traffic congestion in the affected areas of Tongass Narrows should be eased and the safety of the small vessel operators enhanced. With the exemption for these small vessels, they will be able to depart from, or transit through the congested areas more quickly. This in turn should ease congestion and reduce navigational conflicts that have arisen between slow moving small boats and cruise ships and other large waterway users and will allow them to spend less time on the water during periods of inclement weather. Large wakes should not become a problem as the exemption is still limited to smaller vessels and because Tongass Narrows regularly experiences substantial wave action that is equivalent to the wake from these smaller vessels. The impacts to the charter fleet are considered minimal because the revised interim rule exempts only 12 of 152 charter vessels that are over 20 feet in length. The finale rule retains the 7-knot speed limit for all other vessels except floatplanes and public law enforcement and emergency response vessels.
The analysis we conducted in connection with the interim rule remains unchanged, and the Analysis Documentation prepared for the interim rule remains in the docket. This Final Rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Please consult the Regulatory Evaluation provided in the interim rule for further information.
Navigation (water), Waterways.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement.
The Captain of the Port Portland, OR will begin, on May 5, 2005, enforcing a small area of the greater Large Passenger Vessel Security and Safety Zones that were established in September 2003. The zones provide for the security and safety of large passenger vessels in the navigable waters of Portland, OR and adjacent waters. These security and safety zones will be enforced for passenger cruise ships only and only from the mouth of the Columbia River at buoy 14 upriver to, and including, Astoria, OR, until further notice.
This notice of enforcement for 33 CFR 165.1318 will be effective commencing May 5, 2005.
LT Tad Drozdowski, c/o Captain of the Port Portland, OR 6767 North Basin Avenue Portland, OR 97217 at (503) 240-9301 to obtain information concerning enforcement of this rule.
On September 12, 2003, the Coast Guard published a final rule (68 FR 53677) establishing regulations in 33 CFR 165.1318 for the security and safety of large passenger vessels in the navigable waters of Portland, OR and adjacent waters of Oregon and Washington. These security and safety zones provide for the regulation of vessel traffic in the vicinity of certain large passenger vessels (as defined in § 165.1318 (b)) and exclude persons and vessels from the immediate vicinity of these large passenger vessels.
On May 5, 2005, for passenger cruise ships only, the Captain of the Port, Portland, OR will begin enforcing only the area of the Large Passenger Vessel Safety and Security Zones, which were established in 33 CFR 165.1318, from the mouth of the Columbia River at buoy 14 upriver to, and including, Astoria, OR. Entry into these zones is prohibited unless otherwise exempted or excluded under the final rule or unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designee. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local agencies in enforcing this security zone. These security and safety zones will be enforced until further notice.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; notice of administrative change.
EPA is updating the materials submitted by the Territory of Guam that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the Territory of Guam State Implementation Plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this update have been previously submitted by the territorial agency and approved by EPA. This update affects the SIP materials that are available for public inspection at the Office of the Federal Register (OFR), Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information, and the Regional Office.
SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations and on line at EPA Region IX's Web site:
Julie A. Rose, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4126,
Each State is required to have a SIP that contains the control measures and strategies that will be used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms. The control measures and strategies must be formally adopted by each State after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them. They are then submitted to EPA as SIP revisions on which EPA must formally act.
Once these control measures are approved by EPA after notice and comment, they are incorporated into the SIP and are identified in Part 52, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 52). The actual State regulations which are approved by EPA are not reproduced in their entirety in 40 CFR part 52, but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that the citation of a given State regulation with a specific effective date has been approved by EPA. This format allows both EPA and the public to know which measures are contained in a given SIP and insures that the State is enforcing the regulations. It also allows EPA and the public to take enforcement action, should a State not enforce its SIP-approved regulations.
The SIP is a living document that the State can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the State. From time to time, therefore, EPA 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, as a result of consultations between EPA and OFR. 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 new SIP compilations contain the federally-approved portion of regulations submitted by each State agency. These regulations have all been approved by EPA through previous rule making actions in the
Each compilation contains two parts. Part 1 contains the regulations and Part 2 contains nonregulatory provisions that have been EPA-approved. Each part consists of a table of identifying information for each regulation and each nonregulatory provision. The table of identifying information corresponds to the table of contents published in 40 CFR part 52 for each State and Territory. The Regional EPA Offices have the primary responsibility for ensuring accuracy and updating the compilations. The Region IX EPA Office developed and will maintain the compilation for the Territory of Guam. A copy of the full text of each State's current compilation will also be maintained at the Office of the Federal Register and EPA's Air Docket and Information Center.
In order to better serve the public, EPA is revising the organization of the “Identification of plan section” including additional information that will make it clearer as to what provisions constitute the enforceable elements of the SIP.
The revised Identification of plan section will contain five subsections: (a) Purpose and scope, (b) Incorporation by reference, (c) EPA approved regulations, (d) EPA approved source specific permits, 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 paragraph (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 provide a smooth transition to the new SIP processing system, EPA is retaining the original Identification of plan section, previously appearing in the CFR as the first section of part 52 for subpart AAA, Guam.
Today's rule constitutes a “housekeeping” exercise to ensure that all revisions to State programs that have occurred are accurately reflected in 40 CFR part 52. State SIP revisions are controlled by EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51. When EPA receives a formal SIP revision request, the Agency must publish the proposed revision in the
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) that, 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 that 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
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 Territory of Guam 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 the Territory of Guam.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) This section identified the original “Implementation Plan for Compliance With the Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Territory of Guam” and all revisions submitted by the Territory of Guam that were federally approved prior to January 1, 2005.
(a)
(b)
(2) EPA Region IX 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 January 1, 2005.
(3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Region IX EPA Office at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Washington, DC; or 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) [Reserved].
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation re-establishes a time-limited tolerance for combined residues of the fungicide propiconazole and its metabolites in or on blueberry at 1.0 parts per million (ppm) for an additional 2-1/2 year period. This tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31, 2007. This action is in response to EPA's granting of an emergency exemption under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide on blueberries. Section 408(l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA section 18.
This regulation is effective April 20, 2005. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 20, 2005.
To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit III. of the
Andrea Conrath, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-9356; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111)
• Animal production (NAICS code 112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
In addition to using EDOCKET
EPA issued a final rule, published in the
EPA received a request to extend the use of propiconazole on blueberry for this year's growing season due to the continued problems with controlling mummy berry disease (
EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of propiconazole in or on blueberry. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in section 408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, and decided that the necessary tolerance under section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. The data and other relevant material have been evaluated and discussed in the final rule published in the
Although the prior blueberry tolerance has expired and was revoked by operation of law on December 31, 2003, under section 408(l)(5) of the FFDCA, residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on blueberry after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA and the application occurred prior to the revocation of the tolerance.
In 2002, the Natural Resource Defense Council and various other parties filed objections with EPA to the time-limited tolerance for propiconazole on blueberries as well as to dozens of other tolerances for 14 pesticides. The objections to the expired blueberry tolerance are now moot. EPA will be issuing a denial of the objections to the propiconazole blueberry tolerance on those grounds in a few weeks in conjunction with its resolution of the objections as to the tolerances for the pesticides not previously addressed. Prior to issuing this tolerance for propiconazole on blueberries, EPA reviewed the substance of the objections as to the prior propiconazole blueberry tolerance and the arguments made therein do not convince EPA that there are safety concerns as to the re-established blueberry tolerance. A full explanation of EPA's analysis of the objections to the propiconazole blueberry tolerance will be included as part of the document responding to the remaining objections.
This action re-establishes a time-limited tolerance for the combined residues of the fungicide propiconazole and its metabolite determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid and expressed as the parent compound in or on blueberry. This tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31, 2007. This action is in response to EPA's granting of an emergency exemption under Section 18 authorizing use of the pesticide on blueberries. Although this blueberry tolerance will expire and is revoked by operation of law on December 31, 2007, under section 408(l)(5) of the FFDCA, residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on blueberry after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA and the application occurred prior to the revocation of the tolerance. EPA will take action to revoke this tolerance earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d) of the FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the FFDCA. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP-2005-0092 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before June 20, 2005.
1.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14th St., NW., Washington, DC 20005. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 564-6255.
2.
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
This final rule establishes a time-limited tolerance under section 408 of the FFDCA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission restricts eligibility for the Direct Broadcast Satellite license authorizing use of channels 23 and 24 at the 61.5
Effective December 3, 2004.
Diane Conley, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0786; Selina Khan, Satellite Division, International Bureau, (202) 418-7282.
This is a summary of the Commission's Auction of Direct Broadcast Satellite Licenses Order (“
1. In the
2. The Commission first adopted competitive bidding rules for the DBS service in 1995. Revision of Rules and Policies for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service,
3. On March 3, 2003, the Commission issued a public notice announcing an auction of DBS licenses (the
4. In an Order released on January 15, 2004, the Commission declined to adopt any eligibility restrictions for the three available licenses at the 175° W.L., 166° W.L., and 157° W.L. orbit locations. The Commission deferred the matter of eligibility for the fourth license—the 61.5° W.L. license—to a separate order. Auction of Direct Broadcast Satellite Licenses,
5. The Commission concludes that it is appropriate to restrict the eligibility of entities currently operating satellites at orbit locations capable of providing DBS service to the 50 U.S. states, their wholly owned subsidiaries, and entities they control, to acquire, own, or control the license for the two channels at 61.5° W.L. until four years after the award of the initial license. The two channels at 61.5° W.L. are unique because they are the only remaining unassigned DBS channels in the 12 GHz band that are assigned to the United States under the International Telecommunication Union Region 2 Band Plan that can provide service to the eastern continental United States with a sufficiently high look angle that the signal is not blocked by terrestrial obstacles. Because the 61.5° channels are the last two available that can serve all of the eastern United States plus most of the rest of the country, they could be important to increasing the number of options or choices available to subscribers of DBS or multichannel video programming distribution services. Increased choices in the DBS marketplace could yield important public interest benefits, including greater price competition, the development of additional new services, and technological innovation. Enhanced DBS competition has the potential to bring such benefits to consumers both in markets in which DBS operators compete with cable systems and in markets in which they do not. Whether an additional DBS competitor provides a choice of similar programs at a lower price or provides a different group of program options, or other kinds of DBS, broadband and other types of services, consumers will benefit from those increased options.
6. The Commission concludes that it is reasonable to specify four years as the period during which it will not allow any entity operating satellites at DBS orbit locations capable of serving the 50 states to acquire the 61.5° W.L. license because DBS licensees are required to complete construction of their first satellite within four years of authorization. The purpose of the eligibility restriction is to promote the development of an additional DBS provider, and the Commission wishes to assign the 61.5° W.L. license to an entity that will use the license to provide DBS service, not to an entity that will resell the license to a previously ineligible party soon after acquiring it. The best way to ensure that entities do not acquire the license with the intention of reselling it to a previously ineligible party is to prohibit such resale before the construction of the first satellite authorized under the license is completed. Thus, the Commission will require compliance with the four-year milestone before the 61.5° W.L. license may be transferred to a company that is operating at orbit locations capable of providing DBS service to the 50 states.
7. Entities prohibited from acquiring, owning, or controlling the license for the two channels at 61.5° W.L. until four years after the award of the initial license are also prohibited from leasing the subject spectrum during the same time period. Those parties that will be considered to have a controlling interest will be individuals and entities with either
8. The Commission does not anticipate any significant competitive problems from cable system ownership of the 61.5° W.L. license, and therefore it concludes that it is not appropriate or necessary to restrict cable operators from acquiring this license.
9. The Commission finds that it is not in the public interest to avoid mutual exclusivity entirely with respect to the 61.5° W.L. license and therefore 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(6)(E) does not require it to do so.
10. Because the Commission has no evidence before it to suggest that Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. (“Dominion”), would be required to turn over the 61.5° W.L. channels to EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. (“EchoStar”) if it were to win the license for them, Dominion's current lease arrangement with EchoStar should not by itself disqualify Dominion from acquiring the license for the 61.5° W.L. channels. The Commission will review specific allegations that leasing has led to a de facto transfer of control on a case-by-case basis.
11. For the reasons stated above, the Commission concludes that it will further the public interest to prohibit firms currently operating satellites at orbit locations capable of providing DBS service to the 50 U.S. states, as well as their wholly owned subsidiaries and entities they control, from acquiring, owning, or controlling the license for the two channels currently available at the 61.5° W.L. orbit location until four years after the award of the initial license. In addition, the Commission concludes that such entities should be prohibited from leasing these channels during the same period.
12. The Commission has sent a copy of this Order in a report sent to Congress and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
13. Accordingly,
14.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Final rule.
This final rule announces NHTSA's determination for model year (MY) 2006 high-theft vehicle lines that are subject to the parts-marking requirements of the Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard, and high-theft MY 2006 lines that are exempted from the parts-marking requirements because the vehicles are equipped with antitheft devices determined to meet certain statutory criteria pursuant to the statute relating to motor vehicle theft prevention.
Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Consumer Standards Division, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.
The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-519, amended the law relating to the partsmarking of major component parts on designated high-theft vehicle lines and other motor vehicles. The Anti Car Theft Act amended the definition of “passenger motor vehicle” in 49 U.S.C. 33101(10) to include a “multipurpose passenger vehicle or light duty truck when that vehicle or truck is rated at not more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.” Since “passenger motor vehicle” was previously defined to include passenger cars only, the effect of the Anti Car Theft Act is that certain multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) and light-duty truck (LDT) lines may be determined to be high-theft vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541).
The purpose of the theft prevention standard is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle theft by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard seeks to facilitate such tracing by requiring that vehicle identification numbers (VINs), VIN derivative numbers, or other symbols be placed on major component vehicle parts. The theft prevention standard requires motor vehicle manufacturers to inscribe or affix VINs onto covered original equipment major component parts, and to inscribe or affix a symbol identifying the manufacturer and a common symbol identifying the replacement component parts for those original equipment parts, on all vehicle lines selected as high-theft.
The Anti Car Theft Act also amended 49 U.S.C. 33103 to require NHTSA to promulgate a parts-marking standard applicable to major parts installed by manufacturers of “passenger motor vehicles (other than light duty trucks) in not more than one-half of the lines not designated under 49 U.S.C. 33104 as high-theft lines.” NHTSA lists each of the selected lines not designated under 49 U.S.C. 33104 as high-theft lines in Appendix B to Part 541. Since section 33103 did not specify marking of replacement parts for below-median lines, the agency does not require marking of replacement parts for these lines. NHTSA published a final rule amending 49 CFR Part 541 to include the definitions of MPV and LDT, and
49 U.S.C. 33104(a)(3) specifies that NHTSA shall select high-theft vehicle lines, with the agreement of the manufacturer, if possible. Section 33104(d) provides that once a line has been designated as likely high-theft, it remains subject to the theft prevention standard unless that line is exempted under section 33106. Section 33106 provides that a manufacturer may petition to have a high-theft line exempted from the requirements of section 33104, if the line is equipped with an antitheft device as standard equipment. The exemption is granted if NHTSA determines that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective as compliance with the theft prevention standard in reducing and deterring motor vehicle thefts.
The agency annually publishes the names of the lines which were previously listed as high-theft, and the lines which are being listed for the first time and will be subject to the theft prevention standard beginning in a given model year in Appendix A to Part 541. It also identifies in Appendix A-I to Part 541 those lines that are exempted from the theft prevention standard for a given model year under section 33104. Additionally, this listing identifies those lines (except light-duty trucks) in Appendix B to Part 541 that have theft rates below the 1990/1991 median theft rate but are subject to the requirements of this standard under section 33103.
On March 3, 2004, the final listing of high-theft lines for the MY 2005 vehicle lines was published in the
For MY 2006, there were also no new vehicle lines identified as likely to be high-theft lines, in accordance with the procedures published in 49 CFR Part 542. However, subsequent to the MY 2005 listing, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., (Toyota) notified the agency that the Lexus LX470 vehicle line was found to have a gross vehicle weight rating that exceeded the weight limitation imposed by the theft prevention standard since the beginning of its introduction into the U.S. market. Accordingly, the Toyota Lexus LX470 has been deleted from Appendix A.
The vehicle lines listed as being subject to the parts-marking standard have previously been designated as high-theft lines in accordance with the procedures set forth in 49 CFR Part 542. Under these procedures, manufacturers evaluate new vehicle lines to conclude whether those new lines are likely to be high theft. The manufacturer submits these evaluations and conclusions to the agency, which makes an independent evaluation; and, on a preliminary basis, determines whether the new line should be subject to the parts-marking requirements. NHTSA informs the manufacturer in writing of its evaluations and determinations, together with the factual information considered by the agency in making them. The manufacturer may request the agency to reconsider the preliminary determinations. Within 60 days of the receipt of these requests, the agency makes its final determination. NHTSA informs the manufacturer by letter of these determinations and its response to the request for reconsideration. If there is no request for reconsideration, the agency's determination becomes final 45 days after sending the letter with the preliminary determination. Each of the new lines on the high-theft list has been the subject of a final determination under either 49 U.S.C. 33103 or 33104.
The list of lines that have been exempted by the agency from the parts-marking requirements of Part 541 includes a high-theft line newly exempted in full beginning with MY 2006. The vehicle line newly exempted in full is the Ford Motor Company's (Ford) Thunderbird. The agency granted Ford's petition for an exemption of its Thunderbird carline from the parts-marking requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard beginning with the 2006 model year (70 FR 12780, March 15, 2005). The agency also granted Nissan's petition for an exemption of its [confidential nameplate] line from the parts-marking requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard beginning with the [confidential] model year (69 FR 59300, October 4, 2004). However, on November 15, 2004, Nissan formally notified the agency of its decision not to use the exemption for this line at this time. Subsequent to publishing the 2005 final rule, Mazda Motor Corporation (Mazda) petitioned the agency for an exemption of the Mazda MX-5 Miata vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. The agency granted Mazda's petition for an exemption of its MX-5 Miata vehicle line beginning with the 2005 model year (69 FR 58592, September 30, 2004).
Subsequent to publishing the 2005 final rule, General Motor's notified the agency of its plans to change the nameplate of the Buick Regal to Buick LaCrosse and the Chevrolet Venture to Chevrolet Uplander beginning with the 2005 model year. General Motors also notified the agency of its plans to change the nameplate for the Buick LeSabre to the Buick Lucerne vehicle line beginning with MY 2006. Accordingly, Appendix A-I has been amended. The vehicle lines listed as being exempt from the standard have previously been exempted in accordance with the procedures of 49 CFR Part 543 and 49 U.S.C. 33106.
Similarly, the low-theft lines listed as being subject to the parts-marking standard have previously been designated in accordance with the procedures set forth in 49 U.S.C. 33103.
Therefore, NHTSA finds for good cause that notice and opportunity for comment on these listings are unnecessary. Further, public comment on the listing of selections and exemptions is not contemplated by 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331.
For the same reasons, since this revised listing only informs the public of previous agency actions and does not impose additional obligations on any party, NHTSA finds for good cause that the amendment made by this notice should be effective as soon as it is published in the
NHTSA has analyzed this rule and determined that it is not “significant” within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The agency has also considered this notice under Executive Order 12866. As already noted, there has been no selections made in this final rule in accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 33104, and therefore, no manufacturers been informed that its lines are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 541 for MY 2006. Further, this listing does not actually exempt lines from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 541; it only informs the general public of all such previously granted exemptions. Since the only purpose of this final listing is to inform the public of actions for MY 2006 that the agency has already taken, a full regulatory evaluation has not been prepared.
The agency has also considered the effects of this listing under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As noted above, the effect of this final rule is simply to inform the public of those lines that are already subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 541 for MY
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the agency has considered the environmental impacts of this rule, and determined that it will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined that this final rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This final rule does not have a retroactive effect. In accordance with section 33118 when the Theft Prevention Standard is in effect, a State or political subdivision of a State may not have a different motor vehicle theft prevention standard for a motor vehicle or major replacement part. 49 U.S.C. 33117 provides that judicial review of this rule may be obtained pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32909. Section 32909 does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
Administrative practice and procedure, Labeling, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 U.S.C. 33102-33104 and 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA), NOAA, announces temporary restrictions consistent with the requirements of the ALWTRP's implementing regulations. These regulations apply to lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishermen in an area totaling approximately 1,052 square nautical miles (nm
Effective beginning at 0001 hours April 22, 2005, through 2400 hours May 6, 2005.
Copies of the proposed and final Dynamic Area Management (DAM) rules, Environmental Assessments (EAs), Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) meeting summaries, and progress reports on implementation of the ALWTRP may also be obtained by writing Diane Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast Region, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Diane Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast Region, 978-281-9300 x6503; or Kristy Long, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-1401.
Several of the background documents for the ALWTRP and the take reduction planning process can be downloaded from the ALWTRP web site at
The ALWTRP was developed pursuant to section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of three endangered species of whales (right, fin, and humpback) due to incidental interaction with commercial fishing activities. In addition, the measures identified in the ALWTRP would provide conservation benefits to a fourth species (minke), which are neither listed as endangered nor threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ALWTRP, implemented through regulations codified at 50 CFR 229.32, relies on a combination of fishing gear modifications and time/area closures to reduce the risk of whales becoming entangled in commercial fishing gear (and potentially suffering serious injury or mortality as a result).
On January 9, 2002, NMFS published the final rule to implement the ALWTRP's DAM program (67 FR 1133). On August 26, 2003, NMFS amended the regulations by publishing a final rule, which specifically identified gear modifications that may be allowed in a DAM zone (68 FR 51195). The DAM program provides specific authority for NMFS to restrict temporarily on an expedited basis the use of lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear in areas north of 40° N. lat. to protect right whales. Under the DAM program, NMFS may: (1) require the removal of all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear for a 15-day period; (2) allow lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing within a DAM zone with
A DAM zone is triggered when NMFS receives a reliable report from a qualified individual of three or more right whales sighted within an area (75 nm
On April 5, 2005, an aerial survey reported a sighting of nine right whales in the proximity 41°31′ N. lat. and 69°37′ W. long. This position lies southeast of Chatham, MA. After conducting an investigation, NMFS ascertained that the report came from a qualified individual and determined that the report was reliable. Thus, NMFS has received a reliable report from a qualified individual of the requisite right whale density to trigger the DAM provisions of the ALWTRP.
Once a DAM zone is triggered, NMFS determines whether to impose restrictions on fishing and/or fishing gear in the zone. This determination is based on the following factors, including but not limited to: the location of the DAM zone with respect to other fishery closure areas, weather conditions as they relate to the safety of human life at sea, the type and amount of gear already present in the area, and a review of recent right whale entanglement and mortality data.
NMFS has reviewed the factors and management options noted above relative to the DAM under consideration. As a result of this review, NMFS prohibits lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear in this area during the 15-day restricted period unless it is modified in the manner described in this temporary rule. In April, the DAM zone overlaps SAM West and the Great South Channel Critical Habitat, and is bounded by the following coordinates:
41°45′ N., 69°55.8′ W. (NW Corner)
41°45′ N., 69°33′ W.
41° 40′ N., 69°45′ W.
41°09′ N., 69°14.4′ W.
41°09′ N., 70°07′ W.
41°14.4′ N., 70 07′ W. and follow the Nantucket coastline eastward, northward and then southward to
41°18′ N., 70°07′ W.
41°39.6′ N., 70°07′ W. and follow the Cape Cod coastline eastward and then northward to
41°45′ N., 69°55.8′ W. (NW Corner)
In May, the DAM Zone overlaps SAM East and the Great South Channel Critical Habitat, and is bounded by the following coordinates:
41°52.8′ N., 69°57.5′ W. (NW Corner)
41°52.8′ N., 69°24′ W.
41°48.9′ N., 69°24′ W.
41°40′ N., 69°45′ W.
41°09′ N., 69°14.4′ W.
41°09′ N., 70°07′ W.
41°14.4′ N., 70°07′ W. and follow the Nantucket coastline eastward, northward and then southward to41°18′ N., 70°07′ W.
41°39.6′ N., 70°07′ W. and follow the Cape Cod coastline eastward and then northward back to NW Corner
In addition to those gear modifications currently implemented under the ALWTRP at 50 CFR 229.32, the following gear modifications are required in the DAM zone. If the requirements and exceptions for gear modification in the DAM zone, as described below, differ from other ALWTRP requirements for any overlapping areas and times, then the more restrictive requirements will apply in the DAM zone. Special note for gillnet fisherman: After May 1, a portion of this DAM zone overlaps the Northeast multispecies seasonal Georges Bank Closure Area found at 50 CFR 648.80(g). Due to this closure, sink gillnet gear is prohibited from this portion of the DAM zone during the month of May.
Fishermen utilizing lobster trap/pot gear within the portion of the Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters and Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all of the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:
1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;
2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;
3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per trawl; and
4. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 600 lb (272.4 kg) must be placed at all buoys.
Fishermen utilizing lobster trap/pot gear within the portion of the Offshore Lobster Waters Area that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all of the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:
1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;
2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;
3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per trawl; and
4. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) must be placed at all buoys.
Fishermen utilizing anchored gillnet gear within the portion of the Other Northeast Gillnet Waters that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:
1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;
2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;
3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per string;
4. Each net panel must have a total of five weak links with a maximum breaking strength of 1,100 lb (498.8 kg). Net panels are typically 50 fathoms (91.4 m) in length, but the weak link requirements would apply to all variations in panel size. These weak links must include three floatline weak links. The placement of the weak links on the floatline must be: one at the center of the net panel and one each as close as possible to each of the bridle ends of the net panel. The remaining two weak links must be placed in the center of each of the up and down lines at the panel ends; and
5. All anchored gillnets, regardless of the number of net panels, must be securely anchored with the holding power of at least a 22-lb (10.0-kg) Danforth-style anchor at each end of the net string.
The restrictions will be in effect beginning at 0001 hours April 22, 2005, through 2400 hours May 6, 2005, unless terminated sooner or extended by NMFS
The restrictions will be announced to state officials, fishermen, ALWTRT members, and other interested parties through e-mail, phone contact, NOAA website, and other appropriate media immediately upon filing with the
In accordance with section 118(f)(9) of the MMPA, the Assistant Administrator (AA) for Fisheries has determined that this action is necessary to implement a take reduction plan to protect North Atlantic right whales.
Environmental Assessments for the DAM program were prepared on December 28, 2001, and August 6, 2003. This action falls within the scope of the analyses of these EAs, which are available from the agency upon request.
NMFS provided prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on the regulations establishing the criteria and procedures for implementing a DAM zone. Providing prior notice and opportunity for comment on this action, pursuant to those regulations, would be impracticable because it would prevent NMFS from executing its functions to protect and reduce serious injury and mortality of endangered right whales. The regulations establishing the DAM program are designed to enable the agency to help protect unexpected concentrations of right whales. In order to meet the goals of the DAM program, the agency needs to be able to create a DAM zone and implement restrictions on fishing gear as soon as possible once the criteria are triggered and NMFS determines that a DAM restricted zone is appropriate. If NMFS were to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment upon the creation of a DAM restricted zone, the aggregated right whales would be vulnerable to entanglement which could result in serious injury and mortality. Additionally, the right whales would most likely move on to another location before NMFS could implement the restrictions designed to protect them, thereby rendering the action obsolete. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the AA finds that good cause exists to waive prior notice and an opportunity to comment on this action to implement a DAM restricted zone to reduce the risk of entanglement of endangered right whales in commercial lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear as such procedures would be impracticable.
For the same reasons, the AA finds that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay in effective date. If NMFS were to delay for 30 days the effective date of this action, the aggregated right whales would be vulnerable to entanglement, which could cause serious injury and mortality. Additionally, right whales would likely move to another location between the time NMFS approved the action creating the DAM restricted zone and the time it went into effect, thereby rendering the action obsolete and ineffective. Nevertheless, NMFS recognizes the need for fishermen to have time to either modify or remove (if not in compliance with the required restrictions) their gear from a DAM zone once one is approved. Thus, NMFS makes this action effective 2 days after the date of publication of this document in the
NMFS determined that the regulations establishing the DAM program and actions such as this one taken pursuant to those regulations are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program of the U.S. Atlantic coastal states. This determination was submitted for review by the responsible state agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Following state review of the regulations creating the DAM program, no state disagreed with NMFS' conclusion that the DAM program is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program for that state.
The DAM program under which NMFS is taking this action contains policies with federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132. Accordingly, in October 2001 and March 2003, the Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, Department of Commerce, provided notice of the DAM program and its amendments to the appropriate elected officials in states to be affected by actions taken pursuant to the DAM program. Federalism issues raised by state officials were addressed in the final rules implementing the DAM program. A copy of the federalism Summary Impact Statement for the final rules is available upon request (
The rule implementing the DAM program has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1361
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Proposed rule with request for comments.
NCUA proposes to revise its member business loans (MBL) rule to clarify the minimum capital requirements a federally insured corporate credit union (Corporate CU) must meet to make unsecured MBLs to its members other than member credit unions and corporate credit union service organizations (Corporate CUSOs). NCUA also proposes to revise the definition of “construction or development loan” to include loans for renovating or developing property owned by a borrower for income-producing purposes and the definition of “net worth” to be more consistent with how that phrase is defined in the Federal Credit Union Act (Act) and NCUA's prompt corrective action regulation (PCA). Additionally, NCUA is soliciting comments on how best to amend the MBL rule to enable credit unions to participate more fully in government guaranteed loan programs.
Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2005.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• NCUA Web site:
• E-mail: Address to
• Fax: (703) 518-6319. Use the subject line described above for e-mail.
• Mail: Address to Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.
Frank Kressman, Staff Attorney, at the above address, or telephone: (703) 518-6540.
In addition to making regulatory changes as the need arises, NCUA also reviews all its existing regulations every three years. This review is conducted on a rolling basis so that a third of the regulations are reviewed each year. This helps NCUA update its regulations to address current regulatory concerns. NCUA provides notice to the public of those regulations under review so the public has an opportunity to comment. The following proposed revisions to the MBL rule are the result of this review and comments received on a previous MBL rulemaking.
MBLs made by Corporate CUs to member credit unions and Corporate CUSOs are exempt from the MBL rule. 12 CFR 704.7(e)(1), (2); 12 CFR part 723. MBLs made by Corporate CUs to other members, however, are subject to the MBL rule. Accordingly, in those instances where the MBL rule applies, a Corporate CU must comply with the rule's collateral and security requirements. 12 CFR 723.7.
For example, one of the conditions a credit union must meet to make unsecured MBLs is to be “well capitalized as defined by § 702.102(a)(1)” of the PCA rule. 12 CFR 723.7(c)(1); 12 CFR part 702. The PCA rule, however, does not apply to Corporate CUs. 12 U.S.C. 1790d(m); 12 CFR 702.1(c). Rather, Corporate CUs generally must maintain a minimum capital ratio of four percent or a different minimum capital ratio under special circumstances. 12 CFR 704.3(d), (e). Accordingly, NCUA proposes to amend the MBL rule's capital requirements for unsecured MBLs to accommodate the differences between the more general capital requirements for natural person credit unions and those for Corporate CUs.
The MBL rule defines the phrase “net worth” slightly differently than it is defined in the Act and PCA. 12 U.S.C. 1790d(o)(2); 12 CFR 702.2(f). To avoid confusion, NCUA proposes to revise the definition of “net worth” in the MBL rule to be the same as in PCA. The PCA rule's definition of “net worth” is an expanded version of the Act's. The PCA and Act definitions both state that secondary capital accounts are counted in the net worth of low income credit unions.
The MBL rule's current definition of “construction or development loans” is limited to financing arrangements for
In October 2004, NCUA amended the MBL rule to permit credit unions to make SBA guaranteed loans under SBA's less restrictive lending requirements instead of under the more restrictive MBL rule. 69 FR 62563 (October 27, 2004). Before issuing the amendment, NCUA reviewed the SBA's loan programs in which credit unions can participate and determined they provide reasonable criteria for credit union participation and compliance within the bounds of safety and soundness. Additionally, NCUA has determined that these SBA programs are ideally suited to the mission of many credit unions to satisfy their members' business loans needs.
NCUA solicited public comment on the amendment before issuing it. A number of commenters suggested NCUA expand the scope of the amendment to include other government guaranteed loan programs. Some commenters specifically named the Farm Service Agency and United States Department of Agriculture loan programs. Others suggested all government guaranteed loan programs be included.
NCUA has made clear it is willing to consider other government guaranteed loan programs as it becomes apparent there is demand for the program among credit unions. Since October 2004, NCUA has learned there may be such demand. Accordingly, NCUA is soliciting comment on how best to broaden the MBL rule to enable credit unions to participate more fully in other government guaranteed loan programs that the current MBL rule might otherwise restrict.
NCUA is interested in comments on whether to broaden the MBL rule in this regard, and, if so, if it is better to expand it to permit only specifically identified programs or to permit all such programs. NCUA is particularly interested in comments that address the benefits of specific programs and any safety and soundness or operational concerns associated with them.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a proposed rule may have on a substantial number of small credit unions (those under ten million dollars in assets). This rule clarifies capital requirements for making unsecured MBLs, revises definitions for consistency and practical application and solicits comments on expanding the MBL rule regarding government guaranteed loan programs, without imposing any additional regulatory burden. This rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions, and, therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
NCUA has determined that the proposed rule would not increase paperwork requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and regulations of the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. The proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the connection between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
The NCUA has determined that this proposed rule would not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
NCUA's goal is to promulgate clear and understandable regulations that impose minimal regulatory burden. We request your comments on whether the proposed rule is understandable and minimally intrusive.
Credit, Credit unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated above, NCUA proposes to amend 12 CFR part 723 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 723 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1756, 1757, 1757A, 1766, 1785, 1789.
2. Revise § 723.7(c)(1) to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) You are a natural person credit union that is well capitalized as defined by § 702.102(a)(1) of this chapter or you are a corporate credit union that maintains a minimum capital ratio as required by § 704.3(d) of this chapter or a different ratio as permitted under § 704.3(e) of this chapter;
3. Revise the definitions of “Construction or development loan” and “Net worth” in § 723.21 to read as follows:
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge operating regulations governing the operation of the William T. Morrisey Boulevard Bridge, at mile 0.0, across Dorchester Bay at Boston, Massachusetts. This change to the drawbridge operation regulations would allow the bridge to remain in the closed position from November 1, 2005 through May 10, 2006. This action is necessary to facilitate necessary maintenance at the bridge.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 20, 2005.
You may mail comments to Commander (obr), First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, or deliver them to the same address between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (617) 223-8364. The First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Mr. John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, (617) 223-8364.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments or related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-05-020), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at the address under
The William T. Morrisey Boulevard Bridge, at mile 0.0 across Dorchester Bay, has a vertical clearance of 12 feet at mean high water and 22 feet at mean low water. The existing regulations at 33 CFR 117.597 require the draw to open on signal from April 16 through October 14, except that the draw need not open for vessel traffic from 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. except on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays observed in the locality. From October 15 through April 15, the draw shall open on signal if at least twenty-four hours notice is given.
The bridge owner, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), asked the Coast Guard to temporarily change the drawbridge operation regulations to allow the bridge to remain in the closed position from November 1, 2005 through May 10, 2006, to facilitate electrical rehabilitation construction at the bridge.
This proposed change would suspend the existing drawbridge operation regulations, listed at 33 CFR 117.597, and add a temporary regulation that allows the bridge to remain in the closed position from November 1, 2005 through May 10, 2006, to facilitate electrical rehabilitation construction at the bridge.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation, under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
This conclusion is based on the fact that the only known users of the waterway, the Dorchester Yacht Club, will not be affected by this rule during the time the bridge is closed.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under section 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This conclusion is based on the fact that the only known users of the waterway, the Dorchester Yacht Club, will not be affected by this rule during the time the bridge is closed.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact us in writing at, Commander (obr), First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 408 Atlantic
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environment documentation because it has been determined that the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges are categorically excluded.
Bridges.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
2. From November 1, 2005 through May 10, 2006, § 117.597 is suspended.
3. From November 1, 2005 through May 10, 2006, § 117.T602 is temporarily added to read as follows:
The draw of the William T. Morrisey Boulevard Bridge, mile 0.0, at Boston, need not open for the passage of vessel traffic from November 1, 2005 through May 10, 2006.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge operating regulations governing the operation of the Carlton Bridge, mile 14.0, across the Kennebec River between Bath and Woolwich, Maine. This proposed rule would allow the bridge to open on signal every three hours at 6 a.m., 9 a.m., 12 p.m., 3 p.m., and 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday, from July 5 through December 17, 2005, and again
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 20, 2005.
You may mail comments and related material to Commander (obr), First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02110, or deliver them to the same address between 6:30 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except, Federal holidays. The telephone number is (617) 223-8364. The First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, (617) 223-8364.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments or related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-05-034), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at the address under
The Carlton Bridge has a vertical clearance of 10 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.525.
The owner of the bridge, Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT), requested a temporary change to the drawbridge operation regulations to allow the bridge to open on signal every three hours at 6 a.m., 9 a.m., 12 p.m., 3 p.m., and 6 p.m., only, Monday through Saturday, from July 5 through December 17, 2005, and again from April 1 through June 30, 2006, to facilitate rehabilitation construction at the bridge.
From 6 p.m. through 6 a.m. the draw would open on signal after at least a two-hour notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
The bridge would open on signal for Labor Day weekend, Friday, September 2, 2005 through Monday, September 5, 2005, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and from 5 p.m. through 8 a.m., the draw would open after a two-hour notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
From December 18, 2005 through March 31, 2006, the bridge would operate in accordance with its normal winter schedule.
In addition, this proposed rule would allow five three-day bridge closures as follows: September 7 through September 9; September 20 through September 22; October 4 through October 6; October 18 through October 20; and November 1 through November 3, 2005.
This proposed change would suspend § 117.525(a) and temporarily add a new paragraph (c).
Under the new paragraph the Carlton Bridge would open on signal every three hours at 6 a.m., 9 a.m., 12 p.m., 3 p.m., and 6 p.m., only, Monday through Saturday, from July 5 through December 17, 2005, and again from April 1 through June 30, 2006. From 6 p.m. through 6 a.m. the draw shall open on signal after at least a two-hour notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
The bridge would open on signal for Labor Day weekend, Friday, September 2, 2005 through Monday, September 5, 2005, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and from 5 p.m. through 8 a.m. the draw would open after a two-hour notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
From December 18, 2005 through March 31, 2006, the bridge would operate in accordance with its existing winter schedule, which has been in effect since 2001.
In addition, the draw would also be allowed to remain closed for five three-day closures as follows: September 7 through September 9; September 20 through September 22; October 4 through October 6; October 18 through October 20; and November 1 through November 3, 2005.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security.
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation, under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS, is unnecessary.
This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue to open on signal for all vessel traffic at three-hour intervals from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under section 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This conclusion is based on the fact that the bridge will continue to open on signal for all vessel traffic at three-hour intervals from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environment documentation because it has been determined that the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges are categorically excluded.
Bridges.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
2. From July 5, 2005 through June 30, 2006, § 117.525(a) is suspended and a new paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
(c) (1) The Carlton Bridge, mile 14.0, shall open on signal at 6 a.m., 9 a.m., 12 p.m., 3 p.m., and 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday, from July 5, 2005 through December 17, 2005, and from April 1, 2006 through June 30, 2006. From 6 p.m. through 6 a.m. the draw shall open on signal after at least a two-hour notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
(2) The draw shall open on signal on Labor Day weekend, Friday, September 2, 2005 through Monday, September 5, 2005, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and from 5 p.m. through 8 a.m., the draw shall open after a two-hour notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
(3) From December 18, 2005 through March 31, 2006, the bridge shall open on signal, except that, from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m., the draw shall open on signal after a twenty-four hour notice is given and from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., on Saturday and Sunday, after an eight-hour notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.
(4) The draw of the Carlton Bridge may remain in the closed position for five three-day closure periods as follows: September 7 through September 9; September 20 through September 22; October 4 through October 6; October 18 through October 20; and November 1 through November 3, 2005.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary security zones in portions of the waters around Stapleton Homeport Pier in Upper New York Bay, as well as the New York City Passenger Ship Terminal and Intrepid Museum in the Hudson River and around each participating Fleet Week vessel. This action is necessary to safeguard Naval vessels, Coast Guard vessels, and critical port infrastructure from sabotage, subversive act, or other threats. This rule does not apply to any vessel engaged in the enforcement of these security zones, other law enforcement, port security, or search and rescue activity. This rule would prohibit entry into or movement within these security zones without authorization from the Captain of the Port of New York.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 16, 2005.
You may mail comments and related material to Lieutenant Junior Grade Scott White, Coast Guard Activities New York Waterways Management Division, 212 Coast Guard Drive, room 310, Staten Island, NY 10301. Coast Guard Activities New York Waterways Management Division maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Activities New York Waterways Management Division between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant Junior Grade Scott White, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Activities New York at (718) 354-4228.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD01-05-025], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than8
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard Activities New York at the address under
Following the terrorist attacks in New York on September 11, 2001, the Ports of New York and New Jersey have been in a heightened state of threat awareness and port security readiness. Highly publicized events that occur in concentrated areas within the greater New York Metropolitan region have resulted in the elevation of Maritime Security (MARSEC) conditions and an increase in port security measures to abate credible and potential threats against the maritime community and public at large.
Fleet Week 2005 will bring a large composition of U.S. and foreign military vessels to the Port of New York for the purpose of promoting military and naval heritage. The event allows for public access to these vessels as they are moored at the port facilities of the New York City Passenger Ship Terminal, Intrepid Museum, and Stapleton Homeport Pier. Such a high profile event with large a large number of people could present a potential target for terrorist or subversive actions.
The establishment of these security zones is necessary to protect participating vessels, regional infrastructure, and the public from waterborne attack and subversive activity.
The Coast Guard is proposing the establishment of the following temporary security zones: all waters of Upper New York Bay within approximately 400 yards of the Stapleton Homeport Pier in Staten Island, NY; all waters of the Hudson River within approximately 400 yards of Piers 86, 88, 90, and 92 at the New York City Passenger Ship Terminal and Intrepid Museum, in Manhattan, NY; and a moving security zone in all waters of the Port of New York/New Jersey within a 500-yard radius of each participating vessel in the 2005 Fleet Week Parade of Ships between Ambrose Light (LLNR 720) and the George Washington Bridge (river mile 11.0) on the Hudson River. Additionally, these temporary moving security zones would be effective during any time that a participating Fleet Week 2005 vessel is underway, including, but not limited to, outbound transits, shifting of mooring or anchorage locations, and special dignitary voyages.
Hence, with this proposed rule, no vessel or person would be allowed within 500 yards of any Fleet Week 2005 participating vessel unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene-patrol personnel. These personnel comprise commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard.
The Captain of the Port would also authorize other Federal, State, or local law enforcement vessels to enter the security zones that would be established by this rule. The Captain of the Port will seek the enforcement assistance of other Federal, State, or local law enforcement vessels to assist in ensuring the enforcement of this rule.
Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard or other designated on-scene patrol personnel, Federal, State, or local law enforcement vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel must proceed as directed.
The zones described above are necessary to protect the Naval, foreign flagged, and Coast Guard vessels participating in Fleet Week 2005, the Stapleton Homeport Pier, the New York City Passenger Ship Terminal; the Intrepid Museum, others in the maritime community, and the surrounding communities from subversive or terrorist attack against the vessels and piers that could potentially cause serious negative impact to vessels, the port, or the environment and result in numerous casualties.
This proposed rule would not create a security zone around vessels engaged in the enforcement of these security zones, other law enforcement, port security, or search and rescue activity. The Captain of the Port does not expect
No person or vessel may enter or remain in a prescribed security zone at any time without the permission of the Captain of the Port, New York. Each person or vessel in a security zone must obey any direction or order of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port may take possession and control of any vessel in a security zone and/or remove any person, vessel, article or thing from a security zone.
Any violation of any security zone (established herein) is punishable by, among others, civil penalties where each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation, criminal penalties, in rem liability against the offending vessel, and license sanctions. This regulation is established under the authority contained in 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1225 and 1226.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This conclusion is based on the fact that the zones are temporary in nature; the zones implicate relatively small portions of the waterway; and vessels will be able to transit around the security zones at all times or after a limited wait while the parade passes their location.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Upper New York Bay and the Hudson River in which entry will be prohibited by these security zones.
These security zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The zones are temporary in nature; the zones implicate relatively small portions of the waterways; and vessels will be able to transit around the security zones at all times or after waiting for a limited duration while the parade column passes their location.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Junior Grade Scott White, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Activities New York at (718) 354-4228. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. We invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. From 8 a.m., May 25, 2005, to 8 p.m. June 1, 2005, add temporary § 165.T01-053 to read as follows:
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(c)
(2) No vessel or person is allowed within 500 yards of a vessel protected by the security zone described in Paragraph (a)(3), unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene-patrol personnel.
(3) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene-patrol personnel. These personnel comprise commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard, as well as all uniformed Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel assisting with event patrol. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard or other Federal, State, or local law enforcement vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel must proceed as directed.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On February 1, 2005, the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD), submitted; a request to redesignate the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area of Atlanta, Georgia, to attainment; and a request for EPA approval of a Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a 10-year maintenance plan for the 13-county Atlanta area, including new motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for the year 2015. In addition, Georgia has requested that EPA make a determination that certain Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) SIP submittal requirements related to attainment demonstrations and reasonable further progress are not applicable requirements for the purposes of this redesignation request because the Atlanta area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS based on ambient air monitoring data for the 3-
EPA is proposing to determine that the Atlanta area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This proposal is based on three years of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for 2002 through 2004 ozone seasons. On the basis of this proposal, EPA is also proposing to determine that certain attainment demonstration and reasonable further progress requirements along with other related requirements of part D of Title I of the CAA are not applicable to the Atlanta area.
EPA is also proposing approval of both the 1-hour ozone redesignation request and the 10-year maintenance plan SIP revision, including the new 2015 MVEBs. EPA's proposed approval of the 1-hour ozone redesignation request is based on its determination that the Atlanta area has met the five criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the CAA, including a demonstration that the Atlanta area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing approval of the 10-year maintenance plan SIP revision, including the new 2015 MVEBs, because EPA has determined that the plan complies with the requirements of Section 175A of the Act.
Finally, in this proposed rulemaking, EPA is providing information on the status of its transportation conformity adequacy determination for new motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for the year 2015 that are contained Georgia's the 10-year 1-hour ozone maintenance plan SIP submittal for the Atlanta area.
Written comments must be received on or before May 20, 2005.
Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID No. RO4-OAR-2005-GA-0002; RO4-OAR-2005-GA-0003, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Scott M. Martin, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division 12th floor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
Scott M. Martin, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9036. Mr. Martin can also be reached via electronic mail at
The use of “we,” “us,” or “our” in this document refers to EPA.
Today, EPA is proposing four actions and providing status information on a fifth matter. First, EPA is proposing to determine that the Atlanta area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard NAAQS based on air quality monitoring data for the 2003 through 2004 ozone season. Second, EPA is proposing to determine that certain CAA SIP submittal requirements related to attainment demonstrations and reasonable further progress are not applicable to the Atlanta area because the area is attaining the 1-hour ozone standard. If an area has in fact attained
Fifth, in support of the transportation conformity process, EPA is providing information on the status of its transportation conformity adequacy determination for new motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for the year 2015 that are contained Georgia's the 10-year 1-hour ozone maintenance plan SIP submittal for the Atlanta area.
Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, each ozone area designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS prior to enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments, such as the Atlanta area, was designated nonattainment by operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 amendments. Under section 181(a) of the Act, each ozone area designated nonattainment under section 107(d) was also classified by operation of law as “marginal,” “moderate,” “serious,” “severe,” or “extreme,” depending on the severity of the area's air quality problem. These nonattainment designations and classifications were codified in 40 CFR Part 81 (see 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). The design value for an area, which characterizes the severity of the air quality problem, is represented by the highest design value at any of the individual ozone monitoring sites in the area (
Under section 182(c) of the CAA, states containing areas that were classified as serious nonattainment were required to submit SIPs to provide for certain controls, to show progress toward attainment, and to provide for attainment of the ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later than November 15, 1999.
Because Atlanta failed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1999, EPA issued a final rulemaking action in the September 26, 2003,
Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 50, the 1-hour ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average ozone concentrations above 0.12 ppm or higher is equal to or less than 1, as determined in Appendix H of Part 50. Under Appendix H, the basic method is to record the number of exceedances of the standard monitored at each site in an area for each calendar year and then average the past three calendar years to determine if this average is less than or equal to one. In other words, an area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if there are three or fewer exceedances recorded over a three-year period at each of the monitoring sites within the area. If there are more than three exceedances over a three-year period at any of the monitoring sites, the area has not attained the standard. Based on ambient ozone season air quality data for the years 2002, 2003, and 2004, the Atlanta area has attained 1-hour ozone NAAQS. (See Table 1 below).
Section 107(d)(3)(D) of the CAA allows a Governor, or the Governor's designee, to initiate the redesignation process for an area to apply for attainment status. On February 1, 2005, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) submitted a final maintenance plan for the Atlanta 1-hour ozone nonattainment area and a request for redesignation to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
Nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment status if certain CAA criteria for redesignation are met. The 1990 CAA Amendments revised section 107(d)(3)(E) to provide five specific requirements that an area must meet in order to be redesignated from nonattainment to attainment: (1) The area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the area has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the air quality improvement is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions, (4) the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the area has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA. As detailed below, EPA is proposing to determine that the Atlanta area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard and has fully met the requirements for redesignation found at section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for redesignation of an area from nonattainment to attainment. The EPA believes that Georgia has demonstrated that the Atlanta area has attained, and that the criteria for redesignation have been met.
EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990, on April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents:
• State Implementation Plans: General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498), April 16, 1992 (General Preamble);
• “Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
• “Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
• “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992;
• “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (ACT) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
• “Technical Support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17, 1993;
• “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On or After November 15, 1992,” Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993;
• “Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994; and
• “Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, May 10, 1995.
EPA is proposing to determine that the Atlanta area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and, because of that determination, that certain attainment demonstration and reasonable further progress requirements along with other related requirements of part D of Title I of the CAA are not applicable to the Atlanta area. EPA is also proposing approval of both the 1-hour ozone redesignation request and the 10-year maintenance plan SIP revision, including the new 2015 MVEBs. EPA's proposed approval of the 1-hour ozone redesignation request is based on its determination that the Atlanta area has met the five criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the CAA, including a demonstration that the Atlanta area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing approval of the 10-year maintenance plan SIP revision, including the new 2015 MVEBs, because EPA has determined that the plan complies with the requirements of Section 175A of the Act. EPA is proposing to redesignate the Atlanta nonattainment area to attainment status for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS because all five redesignation criteria have been met. The basis for EPA's proposed actions is as follows:
(1).
EPA is proposing to determine that the Atlanta area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. For ozone, an area may be considered attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and Appendix H, based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data. A violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS occurs when the annual average number of expected daily exceedances is equal to or greater than 1.05 per year at a monitoring site. A daily exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone concentration during a given day is 0.125 parts per million (ppm) or higher. The data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and recorded in Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). The monitors should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment.
The GAEPD submitted ozone monitoring data for the April through October ozone season from 2002 to 2004. This data has been quality assured and is recorded in AIRS. For the 2002 to 2004 time period, the design value is 0.123 ppm. The average annual number of expected exceedances is 1.0, or less, at each monitor for that same time period. The GAEPD's request is based on an analysis of quality-assured ozone air quality data which is relevant to the redesignation request. The request is based on ambient air ozone monitoring data collected for three consecutive ozone monitoring seasons from 2002 through 2004. The exceedances are summarized in the following table:
In addition, GAEPD has committed to continue monitoring in these areas in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. In summary, EPA agrees that the data submitted by Georgia provides an adequate demonstration that the Atlanta area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
(2).
In order to analyze whether the Atlanta area meets these criteria, it is necessary to discuss what requirements are applicable to the Atlanta area, and for the applicable SIP requirements, the extent to which they are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA.
1. General SIP requirements: Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA delineates the general requirements for a SIP, which include enforceable emission
EPA has analyzed the Georgia SIP and determined that it is consistent with the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2). Title 40 CFR 52.570 subpart L contains the historical record of the Georgia SIP. The SIP contains enforceable emission limitations; requires monitoring, compiling, and analyzing ambient air quality data; requires preconstruction review of new major stationary sources and major modifications to existing ones; provides for adequate funding, staff, and associated resources necessary to implement its requirements; and requires stationary source emissions monitoring and reporting.
2. Part D: General Provisions for Nonattainment Areas:
Before an area may be redesignated to attainment, it must have fulfilled the applicable requirements of part D. Under part D of title I of the CAA, an area's ozone classification determines the requirements to which it is subject. Subpart 1 of part D specifies the basic requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of part D establishes additional requirements for nonattainment areas classified under Table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA. As described in the General Preamble for Implementation of title I of the CAA, specific requirements of subpart 2 may override or modify subpart 1's general provisions (57 FR 13501, April 16, 1992). Therefore, in order to be redesignated, the State must meet the applicable requirements of subpart 1 of part D—specifically section 172(c), as well as the applicable requirements of subpart 2 of part D (section 182).
Section 172(c). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in section 172(c) may be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). Section 172(c) requires Georgia to adopt reasonable further progress plans, emission inventories, and establish a permit program for the construction of new and modified sources. The discussion below regarding section 182(a)(1) and section 182(d)(1)(A) describes how Georgia satisfies the requirements for emission inventories and rate-of-progress plans. In addition, Georgia's permit program was originally approved on August 20, 1976 (41 FR 35184) and was last revised on July 11, 2002, (67 FR 45909). These general requirements for nonattainment plans have been met by Georgia's adoption and implementation, and EPA's approval into the Georgia SIP, of programs and rules needed to attain the 1-hour NAAQS.
Section 182(a)(1)—This provision of the Act provided for the submission of a 1990 Baseline inventory. The EPA approved Georgia's 1990 Baseline Emissions Inventory on April 26, 1999 (64 FR 20186), effective May 26, 1999.
Section 182(a)(2)(A)—This provision of the Act required areas that were designated nonattainment before the Amendments of 1990 to correct any deficiencies in the area's reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules. Modifications to GAEPD's case-by-case volatile organic compound (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO
Section 182(a)(2)(B)—This provision of the Act relates to the savings clause for vehicle inspection and maintenance. It requires marginal areas to adopt vehicle inspection and maintenance programs. The discussion below regarding section 182(c)(3) describes how Georgia satisfies this requirement.
Section 182(a)(2)(C)—This provision of the Act required Georgia to adopt a New Source Review (NSR) Permit Program or to correct its existing program to meet EPA guidance requirements issued prior to 1990. Georgia's nonattainment NSR program was submitted November 13, 1992, and approved by EPA March 8, 1995, (60 FR 12688), effective May 8, 1995.
Section 182(a)(3)(A)—This provision of the Act requires a triennial Periodic Emissions Inventory for the nonattainment area. The most recent inventory for the Atlanta area was compiled for 2002 and submitted to EPA in June 2004, as required by the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) which was promulgated by EPA on June 10, 2002. The CERR consolidates the requirements of this portion of the Act with other general provisions of Section 110 and continues the triennial reporting requirement for 2002 and beyond.
Section 182(a)(3)(B)—This provision of the Act requires sources of VOCs and NO
Section 182(b)(2)—This provision of the Act requires RACT for each category of VOC sources covered by a control technique guideline (CTG). Georgia has adopted numerous VOC controls which can be found by referencing 40 CFR 52.570 subpart L.
Section 182(b)(4)—This provision of the Act requires the adoption of motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs. The discussion below regarding section 182(c)(3)describes how Georgia satisfies this requirement.
Section 182(b)(5)—This provision of the Act requires the adoption of a general offset requirement of at least 1.15 to 1. The discussion below regarding section 182(d)(2) describes how Georgia satisfies this requirement.
Section 182(b)(3)—This provision of the Act requires Stage II refueling vapor recovery in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or worse. Georgia's rule implementing the Stage II program was submitted November 13, 1992, and approved by EPA on February 2, 1996, (61 FR 3819), effective April 2, 1996.
Section 182(c)(1)—This provision of the Act requires enhanced monitoring of ozone and its precursors in ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or worse. The Code of Federal regulations (40 CFR Part 58) was subsequently revised to require States to establish Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) as part of their SIP monitoring networks. Georgia's PAMS network was approved in a November 23, 1993, memorandum from EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Section 182(c)(3)—This provision of the Act requires enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) in ozone nonattainment areas classified as
Section 182(c)(4)—This provision of the Act requires a clean-fuel vehicle program in ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or worse. Georgia's clean-fueled fleets rule was submitted to EPA on May 5, 1994, and approved on December 21, 1995, (60 FR 66150), effective May 22, 1994.
Section 182(c)(6)—This provision of the Act requires a serious or worse ozone nonattainment area to submit a
Section 182(c)(7)—This provision of the Act requires a special NSR rule for sources that emit less than 100 tons per year. Georgia's rule was submitted November 13, 1992, and approved by EPA March 8, 1995, (60 FR 12688), effective May 8, 1995.
Section 182(c)(8)—This provision of the Act requires a special NSR rule for sources that emit 100 or more tons per year. Georgia's rule was submitted November 13, 1992, and approved by EPA March 8, 1995, (60 FR 12688), effective May 8, 1995.
Section 182(d)—This provision of the Act requires that the major source threshold be defined as 25 tons per year. On March 15, 2005, GAEPD submitted rule revisions addressing this requirement. EPA intends to propose approval for this revision in a separate action. Final action on these revisions will occur on or before the date of any final action to redesignate the Atlanta area to attainment.
Section 182(d)(1)(A)—This provision of the Act requires severe ozone nonattainment areas to offset growth in emissions attributable to growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT); to select and implement transportation control measures (TCMs) necessary to comply with the periodic emissions reduction requirements of Sections 182(b) and (c); and to consider TCMs specified in Section 108(f), and implement such TCMs as necessary to demonstrate attainment with the ozone standard. The first requirement was addressed in Georgia's Severe Area VMT SIP, submitted June 30, 2004. EPA intends to propose approval for this submittal in a separate action. Final action on these revisions will occur on or before the date of any final action to redesignate the Atlanta area to attainment. The second requirement was addressed in Georgia's 15 percent reasonable further progress (RFP) SIP (the 15 Percent Plan), the last revision to which was submitted on June 17, 1996, and approved by EPA on April 26, 1999 (64 FR 20186), effective May 26, 1999. That approval also included the TCMs in the 15 Percent Plan and therefore satisfies the second requirement. The third requirement, the selection and implementation of TCMs as necessary to demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard, is not applicable because the Atlanta area is attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. A further discussion of non-applicability of requirements because of the attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard is set forth below.
Section 182(d)(2)—This provision of the Act requires a ratio of total emission reductions to total increased emissions of at least 1.3 to 1. Georgia's VOC offset rule, revised to address this severe nonattainment area requirement, was approved by the Georgia Board of Natural Resources on April 28, 2004. EPA intends to propose approval for this submittal in a separate action. Final action on these revisions will occur on or before the date of any final action to redesignate the Atlanta area to attainment.
Section 182(f)—This provision of the Act requires that plan provisions required for major stationary sources of VOCs shall also apply to major stationary sources of NO
EPA interprets the CAA's general nonattainment provisions of subpart 1 of part D of Title I (sections 171 and 172) and the more specific attainment demonstration and related provisions of subpart 2 (section 182), relating to SIP requirements for ozone nonattainment areas to not require the submission of SIP revisions concerning reasonable further progress (RFP), attainment demonstrations, or contingency measures for areas where the monitoring data show that the area is attaining the 1-hour ozone standard. (See
EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the provisions regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations, along with other certain related provisions, not to require SIP submissions if an ozone nonattainment area subject to those requirements is monitoring attainment of the ozone standard (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS demonstrated with three consecutive years of complete, quality-assured, air quality monitoring data). EPA believes this interpretation is reasonable because the stated purpose of CAA provisions addressing or relating to RFP and attainment demonstrations is to ensure attainment of the standard by the applicable attainment date. If an area has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose of the requirement will have been fulfilled and there will be no need for an area to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve attainment. EPA has explained at length in other actions its rationale for the reasonableness of this interpretation of the CAA and incorporates those explanations by reference. See (67 FR 49600) (Cincinnati-Hamilton, Kentucky, July 31, 2002); (66 FR 53095) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, October 19, 2001); (65 FR 37879) (Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio and Kentucky, June 19, 2000); (61 FR 20458) (Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, May 7, 1996); (60 FR 36723) (Salt Lake and Davis Counties, Utah, July 18, 1995); (60 FR 37366 (July 20, 1995); (61 FR 31832-31833) (June 21, 1996) (Grand Rapids, MI). The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has upheld EPA's interpretation.
Pursuant to this interpretation, EPA's is proposing to determine that the following CAA provisions are not applicable requirements for purposes of this redesignation request because EPA believes the Atlanta area is currently attaining the 1-hour ozone standard:
Section 172(c)(2): Reasonable further progress (all nonattainment areas). As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since “attainment will have been reached.” (57 FR 13564).
Section 172(c)(9): Contingency Measures. EPA has previously interpreted the contingency measure requirements of this section as no longer being applicable once an area has attained the standard since those “contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date.” (57 FR 13564).
Section 182(b)(1)(A): Reasonable further progress (the 15 Percent Plan -VOC reductions for moderate and above nonattainment areas). Similar reasoning applies to this section. Although not an applicable requirement, Georgia's last revision was submitted June 17, 1996, approved April 26, 1999 (64 FR 20186), with an effective date of May 26, 1999.
Section 182(c)(2)(A): Attainment Demonstration (for serious and above nonattainment areas). As noted above, if an area has, in fact, monitored attainment of the relevant NAAQS, EPA believes there is no need for an area to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve attainment. Upon attainment, the focus of state planning efforts shifts to the maintenance of the NAAQS and the development of a maintenance plan under section 175A.
Section 182(c)(2)(B): Reasonable further progress (for serious and above nonattainment areas). Similar reasoning applies to this section. Although not applicable requirements, the 9 Percent Plan (NO
Section 182(c)(5): Triennial Demonstrations (for serious and above nonattainment areas). Similar reasoning applies to this section.
Section 182(c)(9): Contingency Provisions (for serious and above nonattainment areas). Similar reasoning applies to this section.
Section 182(g): Milestones. Similar reasoning applies to this section.
Section 176(c): Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that federally supported or funded projects, before they are undertaken, conform to the air quality planning goals in the SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. of the Federal Transit Act (“transportation conformity”), as well as to all other Federally supported or funded projects (“general conformity”). Section 176 further provides that state conformity revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity regulations that the CAA required the EPA to promulgate.
Since 1995, EPA has consistently interpreted the conformity requirements as not applying to the evaluation of redesignation requests under section 107(d) by the Agency. The rationale for this is based on a combination of two factors. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after redesignation to attainment, since such areas would be subject to a section 175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA's Federal conformity rules require the performance of conformity analyses in the absence of Federally approved state rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment and must implement conformity under Federal rules if states rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as not applying-to evaluations of redesignation requests by the Agency. See,
(3).
For the following reasons, EPA has determined that this Criteria has been met. First, EPA approved Georgia's SIP control strategy for the Atlanta area, including rules and the emission reductions achieved as a result of those rules that are enforceable. Second, a number of Federal and Statewide rules are in place which have significantly improved the ambient air quality in these areas. The following table is a partial list of rules which have been adopted, are permanent, enforceable, and demonstrate that the improvements in air quality in Atlanta are a result of control measures.
In addition to the State adopted rules the following Federal control measures are also implemented in the Atlanta area:
Third, the ambient ozone monitoring data in Table 1 demonstrates that the Atlanta area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the time period of 2002-2004. Tables 2 and 3 list many, but not all, of the control measures which have been implemented in the Atlanta area to ensure that the reductions in ozone are permanent and enforceable. Fourth, based upon data previously supplied by the State of Georgia these control measures have resulted in more than 430 tpd in NO
Fifth, EPA believes that the improvement in air quality is attributable to reductions in emissions rather than solely from favorable meteorology. The GA EPD conducted an analysis of both the meteorological conditions and concentrations of ozone and its precursor gases during the 1999-2004 period. This analysis examined the variability in temperature, wind speed, and cloud cover which all play a role in producing conditions conducive to ozone formation. While, on average, meteorological conditions in 2002-2004 were less conducive to ozone formation than those conditions during 1999-2001, all factors that are generally agreed to contribute to high ozone concentrations were present. When high ozone days from the 1999-2001 period are compared with high ozone days during the 2002-2004 period it can be seen that the meteorological conditions were very similar. In addition, based on data noted above there is also a downward trend in NO
(4).
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for the ten years following the initial ten-year period. To provide for the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan contains contingency measures, with a schedule for implementation, adequate to assure prompt correction of any future 1-hour ozone violations.
On February 1, 2005, GAEPD submitted its revision to the Georgia SIP to include a 10-year maintenance plan as required by section 175A of the CAA. The maintenance plan shows compliance and maintenance of the 1-hour ozone standard by assuring that current and future emissions of VOC and NO
Monitored attainment of the 1-hour standard was achieved for the 2002-2004 three-year period. The most recent comprehensive periodic (triennial) emissions inventory for the Atlanta area was compiled for 2002 pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(A). In accordance with federal requirements, the triennial inventory for 2002 was submitted to EPA by June 1, 2004.
According to the September 4, 1992, EPA guidance document entitled, “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” the base attainment inventory should be consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on emission inventories and should represent the emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment. For purposes of demonstrating maintenance of the standard, 2002 was chosen as the base year representing the monitoring period of 2002-2004. The attainment year is 2004.
Georgia's complete 2002 Periodic Emissions Inventory (PEI), submitted to EPA in June 2004, was the basis for point and area source emissions projections. The point source emissions for calendar year 2002 included in the 2002 PEI were taken from the data obtained from these regulated facilities. The 2002 point and area source inventories were grown to later years using projection factors from EPA's Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) 4.0. The resulting point and area inventories are conservatively high because no control factors were applied to the projected emissions. Updated nonroad and on-road mobile emissions for 2002 were calculated based on EPA-approved models (NONROAD and MOBILE6.2.03, respectively).
With the exception of mobile sources and nonroad sources, which were explicitly modeled for each year, emissions were in general, projected by applying projection factors to 2002 emissions inventories. The projection factors were produced using EPA's Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) software, Version 4.0.
The required maintenance plan must become a part of the SIP and provide for maintenance of the air quality in the affected area for at least 10 years after designation. Georgia has chosen 2015 as the end year of the maintenance plan for the Atlanta area.
The approach used for the maintenance plan to demonstrate that attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard will continue to be maintained is based upon restricting future anthropogenic emissions to a level that is representative of attainment of the standard. If these future emissions are no greater than the actual emissions during a year in the three year period for which attainment of the standard was monitored, then it can be assumed that attainment of the standard will also be achieved in future years.
It can be seen from Table 3 and Table 4 that there is a calculated safety margin for both VOC and NO
A “safety margin” is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in the three year period for which the area met the NAAQS. For example, the Atlanta area attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the 2002-2004 time period. Georgia uses 2002 as the attainment level of emissions for the area. The emissions from point, area, nonroad, and mobile sources in 2002 equaled 578.19 tpd of VOC for the Atlanta area. Projected VOC emissions out to the year 2015 equaled 543.40 tpd of VOC. The safety margin for VOCs is calculated to be the difference between these amounts or, in this case, 34.79 tpd of VOC for 2015. By this same method, 257.50 tpd (
Under section 211 of the Act, the requirement to use reformulated gasoline (RFG) became effective for the Atlanta severe nonattainment area on January 1, 2005. Georgia petitioned EPA to waive the RFG requirement for Atlanta. EPA found that it lacked the authority to grant the waiver request and denied the petition. Georgia filed a lawsuit to stop the implementation of RFG in Atlanta. The State's request for a preliminary injunction was denied and Georgia appealed that decision. Nevertheless, the RFG requirement was stayed pending appeal by order of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in the case of
The GAEPD has implemented programs that will remain enforceable to ensure that maintenance of the 1-hour standard will continue. Regulations are prohibited from being removed from the SIP (“anti-backsliding”) following the redesignation of the area unless such a change is first approved by the EPA as a revision to the Georgia SIP, as provided by section 110(l) of the Act.
Control measures have been implemented on point, area, mobile, and nonroad sources to reduce emissions of oxides of NO
All controls relied upon to attain the 1-hour NAAQS were implemented no later than May 1, 2003, except for the regional NO
Verification of continued attainment is accomplished through operation of the ambient ozone monitoring network and the periodic updates of the area's emissions inventory.
The 11 ambient ozone monitors currently operating in the Atlanta area will continue to operate unless a change is approved by EPA consistent with 40 CFR part 58. No plans are underway to discontinue operation, relocate, or otherwise affect the ambient monitoring network in place.
As noted above, the 1990 Amendments required a triennial Periodic Emissions Inventory for the
Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that the maintenance plan include provisions for contingency measures that would assure that the State will promptly correct any violation of the one-hour ozone NAAQS after redesignation of an area as an attainment area. A list of potential contingency measures that could be considered for future implementation in such an event should also be included in the maintenance plan.
The GAEPD has developed a contingency plan for the Atlanta 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Contingency measures are intended to provide further emission reductions in the event that violations of the one-hour ozone NAAQS occur after redesignation to attainment. Consistent with this plan, GAEPD agrees to adopt and implement, as expeditiously as practicable, the necessary corrective actions in the event that violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS occur anywhere within the Atlanta maintenance area after redesignation to attainment. Contingency measures under Tier I or Tier II triggers would be implemented within 18 months unless GAEPD demonstrated to EPA that technical or economic feasibility warranted an implementation period longer than 18 months. Tier I and Tier II triggers are discussed below.
Under Section 175A(d), the minimum requirement for contingency measures is the implementation of all measures that were contained in the SIP before the redesignation. This is met due to the designation of the Atlanta area as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The existing measures are expected to remain in place under the active portion of the SIP.
The State of Georgia will use actual ambient monitoring data as the indicator or trigger to determine whether additional contingency measures would be implemented. In accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, ambient ozone monitoring data that indicates a future violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS will begin the process to implement these contingency measures according to the protocols identified below. The contingency plan provides for different levels of corrective responses should the 1-hour ozone NAAQS be exceeded or violated, or if emissions in the region increase significantly above current levels.
Tier I: Any monitored ambient concentration of ozone at any ambient monitoring station in the Atlanta maintenance area above 0.124 ppm that occurs more than once per year, or, if the periodic emission inventory updates reveal excessive or unanticipated growth greater than 10 percent in emissions of either ozone precursor over the baseline or intermediate emissions inventories. The GAEPD will evaluate the exceedances to determine if the trend is likely to continue. If it is determined that additional emission reductions are necessary, GAEPD will implement the schedule below to implement any required measures as expeditiously as practicable, taking into consideration the ease of implementation and the technical and economic feasibility of selected measures.
Tier II: Any recorded violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS at any ambient monitoring station in the Atlanta maintenance area. The GAEPD will work to conduct a comprehensive study to determine the causes of the violation, and the control measures necessary to mitigate the problem. The comprehensive analysis will examine:
• The number, location, and severity of the ambient ozone concentrations above the standard;
• The weather patterns contributing to ozone levels;
• Potential, contributing emission sources;
• The geographic applicability of possible contingency measures;
• Emission trends, including implementation timelines of scheduled control measures;
• Current and recently identified control technologies; and
• Air quality contributions from outside the maintenance area.
Contingency measures will be selected from those listed in the above table or from any other measure deemed appropriate and effective at the time the selection is made. Which measure will be implemented will be determined based upon cost effectiveness, emission reduction potential, economic and social considerations, ease and timing of implementation, and other appropriate factors. Implementation of necessary controls in response to a Tier II trigger will take place as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 18 months after Georgia makes a determination, based on quality-assured ambient data, that a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS has occurred.
Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans in ozone areas. These control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans create motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. The MVEBs serve as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system.
Motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2004 were established in the Atlanta Post-1999 ROP plan for ozone. The emissions budgets established limits at 160.80 tons/day of VOC and 318.24 tons/day of NO
Georgia's 1-hour ozone redesignation request for the Atlanta area does not alter, by increasing or decreasing, the current 2004 mobile vehicle emissions budgets. The MVEB established in the Post-1999 ROP plan will be used for regional emissions analyses through the year 2014. However, Georgia's 10-year maintenance plan SIP submittal establishes new MVEBs for the year 2015. Both the 2004 MVEBs and the new 2015 MVEBs are set out in Table 8 below. These 2015 MVEB will be used for regional emissions analysis for 2015 and any required analysis year beyond 2015.
The Atlanta area 1-hour ozone maintenance plan establishes an attainment inventory for the year 2002, the first year of the three-year period with monitoring data showing attainment. This attainment inventory identifies the base level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is demonstrated by showing that future emissions of NO
Under the maintenance plan, 10 percent of the projected 2015 mobile source NO
Today, EPA is proposing to approve the redesignation of the Atlanta 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to attainment. EPA has evaluated the State of Georgia's redesignation request and determined that it meets the five redesignation criteria set in section 107(d) of the Act. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that this area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard. In this redesignation request, EPA's is also proposing to determine that certain CAA provisions are not applicable requirements because the Atlanta area is currently attaining the 1-hour ozone standard. The final approval of this
EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan, and associated 2015 MVEB, SIP revision submitted by Georgia for the Atlanta area in conjunction with its redesignation request. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for Atlanta because it meets the requirements of section 175A as described more fully above. The new 2015 MVEBs will be effective on the date of publication (in the
Under Section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (
Until a MVEB in a SIP submittal is approved by EPA, it cannot be used for transportation conformity purposes unless EPA makes an affirmative finding that the MVEB contained therein are “adequate.” Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB adequate for transportation conformity purposes, those MVEB can be used by the State and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation projects “conform” to the SIP even though EPA approval of the SIP revision containing those MVEB has not yet been finalized. EPA's substantive criteria for determining “adequacy” of MVEB in submitted SIPs are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA's process for determining “adequacy” of MVEB in submitted SIPs consists of three basic steps: public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment period, and EPA's adequacy finding. This process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEB is set out in EPA's May 1999 guidance, “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decision.” This guidance is formalized in EPA's July 1, 2004, final rulemaking entitled “Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Changes (68 FR 38974). EPA follows this process in making its adequacy determinations.
The Atlanta area maintenance plan submission contains new proposed VOC and NO
If EPA announces its adequacy finding for the 2015 MVEB, the 2015 MVEB would be effective on the date of publication of EPA's final rulemaking in the
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this proposed action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposes and seeks comment on a regulatory framework for licensing the operation of Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service (AMSS) systems to communicate with fixed-satellite service (FSS) networks in the Ku-Band frequencies. Aircraft Earth stations (AES) in the AMSS can be used to provide broadband telecommunications services on passenger, government, and executive/private aircraft. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) also seeks comments on licensing methods for AES terminals that will minimize the burdens upon applicants and licensees, while maintaining operational limitations necessary to avoid harmful interference.
Comments are due on or before July 5, 2005, and reply comments are due on or before August 3, 2005.
All comments should be addressed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments on the information collection(s) proposed herein should be submitted to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
Arthur Lechtman, (202) 418-1465, Satellite Division, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. For additional information concerning the information collection(s) contained in this document, contact Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214, or via the Internet at
This is a summary of the Commission's
The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due June 20, 2005. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
1. On February 9, 2005, the Commission released the
2. The
3. The Radio Astronomy Service (RAS) is allocated on a secondary basis internationally in the 14.47-14.5 GHz band, and pursuant to footnote US203 of the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, radio astronomy observations of the formaldehyde line frequencies are permitted in this band at certain sites. The Commission recognizes the importance of radio astronomy for studying the universe and realizes that ubiquitous airborne AES terminals have the potential to interfere significantly with RAS sites on the ground. With this is in mind, the Commission proposes that, as a prerequisite to licensing, AMSS operations in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band be coordinated with the NTIA to resolve any potential concerns regarding radio astronomy facilities. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on whether, and if so how, AMSS licensees should coordinate their operations with future RAS sites.
4. The Commission proposes to require AMSS operators to protect FSS incumbents through limits on off-axis effective isotropically radiated power density and to cease operations if the AES antenna malfunctions or otherwise causes harmful interference to FSS networks. In addition, the Commission proposes footnotes to the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations to recognize AMSS as an application of the FSS with secondary status in the uplink/transmit band and primary status in the downlink/receive band. The Commission also proposes to require AMSS operators to collect and maintain aircraft tracking data to assist in identifying and resolving sources of interference. The Commission also seeks comment on methods for system licensing (consisting of AMSS hub stations and/or blanket licensing for AES earth stations) in order to give Ku-band AMSS operators greater flexibility in structuring their operations. Finally, the Commission proposes a regulatory framework that would enable foreign-licensed AESs to operate in the United States airspace without causing harmful interference to domestic operations.
5. The proposed licensing procedures described above for Ku-band AMSS reflect the Commission's interest in providing regulatory certainty to both new and incumbent operators in the Ku frequency band. The proposals set forth in this
This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules as well.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),
In this
It is the Commission's view that if adopted, the off-axis EIRP licensing methodology proposed in the
The
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees that may be affected by the adopted rules.
The proposed rules would, if adopted, require satellite telecommunications operators to establish a database for tracking the location of AES remote earth stations. This database would assist investigations of interference claims. The
The
The RFA requires that, to the extent consistent with the objectives of applicable statutes, the analysis shall discuss significant alternatives such as: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage or the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
This
As described above, the Commission also seeks comment on a number of alternative compliance and coordination processes. For example, the Commission seeks on whether to base the off-axis EIRP requirement on an aggregate limit or on a per-earth station limit. The Commission has taken care to consider the costs on business both large and small and has solicited comment on alternatives to its proposals.
None.
This
A copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments in response to this
Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
Parties choosing to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing in IB Docket No. 05-20. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. The Commission's mail contractor, Vistronix, Inc. will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Comments submitted on diskette should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM-compatible format using Word for Windows or compatible software. The diskette should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, proceeding (including the docket number, in this case, IB Docket No. 05-20), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase “Disk Copy—Not an Original.” Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file.
All parties must file one copy of each pleading electronically or by paper to each of the following: (1) The Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at
Comments and reply comments and any other filed documents in this matter may be obtained from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., in person at 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, via telephone at (202) 488-5300, via facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at
Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and reply comments must also comply with § 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the Commission's rules. All parties are encouraged to utilize a table of contents, and to include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their submission. We also strongly encourage that parties track the organization set forth in this
Commenters who file information that they believe is proprietary may request confidential treatment pursuant to § 0.459 of the Commission's rules. Commenters should file both their original comments for which they request confidentiality and redacted comments, along with their request for confidential treatment. Commenters should not file proprietary information electronically.
For further information regarding this proceeding, contact Arthur Lechtman, Attorney, Satellite Division, International Bureau at (202) 418-0719. Information regarding this proceeding and others may also be found on the Commission's Web site at
Accordingly,
Satellites.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of two 90-day petition findings and initiation of status review for two 12-month findings and one 5-year review.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to remove (first petition) the Idaho springsnail (
We are requesting submission of any new information on the Idaho springsnail since its original listing as an endangered species in 1992, and information on the Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail. Following this 12-month status review, we will issue 12-month findings on the petition to delist the Idaho springsnail and the petition to list the Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail. Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act also requires a status review of listed species at least once every 5 years. We are therefore electing to conduct these reviews simultaneously. At the conclusion of these reviews, we will issue the 12-month findings on the petitions, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, and make the requisite recommendation under section 4(c)(2)(B) of the Act based on the results of the 5-year review for the Idaho springsnail.
The finding announced in this document was made on April 20, 2005. To be considered in the 12-month findings for these delisting or listing petitions, or the 5-year review, comments and information should be submitted to us by June 20, 2005.
Data, information, comments, or questions concerning these petitions and our finding should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Attention: Idaho Springsnail comments, Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Suite 368, Boise, ID 83709. Comments may also be faxed to 208/378-5262, or e-mailed to
Steve Lysne, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above address (telephone 208/378-5243 or e-mail
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species are described at 50 CFR 424.11. We may delist a species only if the best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that it is neither endangered nor threatened. Delisting may be warranted as a result of: (1) Extinction, (2) recovery, and/or (3) a determination that the original data used for classification of the species as endangered or threatened were in error.
In making these findings for the Idaho springsnail (
Our findings are that the petitions state a reasonable case for delisting (first petition) and listing (second petition) on their face based on the taxonomic information that is presented in the petitions. Thus, in these findings, we express no view as to the ultimate issue of whether the Idaho springsnail should be delisted, or whether the Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail should be listed. We can come to a conclusion on those issues only after a more thorough review of the species' status. In that review, which will take approximately 9 more months, we will perform a rigorous critical analysis of the best available scientific information, not just the information in the petition. We will ensure that the data used to make our determination as to the status of the species is consistent with the Act and the Information Quality Act.
We listed the Idaho springsnail as endangered on December 14, 1992 (57 FR 59244). We determined that the free-flowing, cool water environments required by the Idaho springsnail were altered by deteriorating water quality due to reservoir development, river diversions, and habitat modification (57 FR 59244). The Idaho springsnail was described as existing in the main-stem Snake River from the C.J. Strike Reservoir (river mile 518) to Bancroft Springs (river mile 553), a nearly 80 percent reduction from the species' historic distribution in the Snake River based on the existing literature (Frest 1991). We published the Snake River Aquatic Species Recovery Plan, which included the Idaho springsnail, in 1995. Critical habitat has not been designated for the Idaho springsnail.
On June 28, 2004, we received a petition from the State of Idaho, Office of Species Conservation, and the Idaho Power Company requesting that the Idaho springsnail be removed from the List based on a taxonomic reappraisal that indicated it is no longer a separate species. The delisting petition cites a recent peer-reviewed article, published in
On August 5, 2004, we received a petition from Dr. Peter Bowler, the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Native Ecosystems, Western Watersheds Project, and The Xerces Society, requesting that the Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail be added to the List. This listing petition cites habitat loss and degradation from spring development, domestic livestock grazing, groundwater withdrawal, water pollution, dams, predation, the introduction and spread of nonnative species, and inadequate Federal and State regulatory mechanisms as threats to the continued existence of these other three northwestern springsnail species. The listing petition also cites Hershler and Liu (2004) and their suggested taxonomic revision, and acknowledges that the Idaho springsnail, Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, Columbia springsnail may be one species (
Hershler and Liu (2004) suggested three lines of evidence to support changing the taxonomic classification of the Idaho springsnail. Morphology, mitochondrial DNA sequences, and nuclear DNA sequences were used to evaluate the relationship between previously recognized species in the subgenus. Results from the morphology analysis found a significant difference between the ratio of shell height to height of body whorl between the Idaho springsnail and all other species tested. However, several other morphological metrics, including the position of the callus (hardened tissue) on the operculum (serves as a cover for the opening in the shell), the shape of the central cusp of the central teeth, the number of cusps on central teeth, notching of inner marginal teeth, number of cusps on outer marginal teeth, the male penial features, and female genitalia did not differ substantially. The genetic data found very little variation in the partial cytochrome c oxidase (COI) gene (mitochondrial DNA). Differences ranged from 0.0-0.8 percent (0-5 base
The authors then contend that “three independent data sets (morphology, mitochondrial, and nuclear DNA sequences) congruently suggest that these four
In addition to the taxonomic revision, Hershler and Liu (2004) noted that the Jackson Lake springsnail was a former Service candidate for threatened or endangered species status. They state that it may be currently threatened by the presence of the exotic New Zealand mudsnail (
We have reviewed the delisting and listing petitions and their supporting documents, as well as other information in our files. We find that the delisting petition and other information in our files present substantial information that delisting the Idaho springsnail may be warranted. We also find that the listing petition and other information in our files present substantial information that listing the Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail may be warranted. We are initiating a status review of all four species. We will issue 12-month findings in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act as to whether or not delisting is warranted (first petition) and/or whether or not listing is warranted (second petition).
Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. We are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B), to determine, on the basis of such a review, whether or not any species should be removed from the List (delisted), or reclassified from endangered to threatened, or threatened to endangered. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the
We are requesting information on the Idaho springsnail for both the 12-month finding and the 5-year review, as we are conducting these reviews simultaneously. We are also requesting information on the Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail.
When we make a finding that substantial information exists to indicate that listing or delisting a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting any additional information, comments, or suggestions on the Idaho springsnail, Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail from the public, State and Federal agencies, tribes, the scientific community, industry or environmental entities, or any other interested parties. Information sought includes any data regarding interactions with other populations, historical and current distribution, biology and ecology, ongoing conservation measures for the species or its habitat, and threats to the species or its habitat. We also request information regarding the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
The 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. This review will consider the best scientific and commercial data regarding the Idaho springsnail that has become available since the current listing determination or most recent status review, such as:
(1) Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, genetics, and taxonomy, specifically regarding any key differences between the four subspecies;
(2) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
(3) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;
(4) Threat status and trends; and
(5) 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.
If you wish to comment on either of the 12-month findings or 5-year review, you may submit your comments and materials to the Field Supervisor, Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office (see
A complete list of all references cited in this finding is available, upon request, from the Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office (see
The primary author of this document is Steve Lysne (see
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (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 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.
New information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request approval of a new information collection activity, the National Chronic Wasting Disease 2005 Study.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 20, 2005.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
• EDOCKET: Go to
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. 05-018-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 05-018-1.
For information on the Chronic Wasting
NAHMS' national studies have evolved into a collaborative industry and government initiative to help determine the most effective means of preventing and controlling diseases of livestock. APHIS is the only agency responsible for collecting national data on livestock health. Participation in any NAHMS study is voluntary, and all data are confidential.
APHIS plans to initiate a national study titled the Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) 2005 Study. The study will collect information from 5,600 cervid producers nationwide. The purpose of the CWD 2005 Study is to support the farmed/captive cervid industry by collecting baseline data to: (1) Describe general health and management practices; (2) describe the farmed/captive cervid industry; and (3) identify the most efficient ways to contact producers for outreach purposes. The potential benefit to the industry from the CWD 2005 Study is increased information on the impact of general health and management practices.
CWD is a fatal, neurological disease that occurs in deer and elk populations. It belongs to the family of diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), which includes bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in cattle, scrapie in sheep and goats, and both variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease (vCJD) and Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease in humans. Although all TSEs are similar, CWD only affects deer and elk. A herd usually presents evidence of CWD infection within 5 years of exposure through the presence of sick or dead animals.
APHIS is establishing a voluntary program for farmed/captive cervid herds that will track how long a particular herd has been closed and monitored for CWD. The CWD 2005 Study will include farms that choose to enroll in the CWD certification program. In conjunction with this effort, NAHMS plans to use this opportunity to collect data from cervid producers within the United States as producers enroll in the CWD certification program. APHIS will analyze information from this study and prepare descriptive reports and information sheets that will be disseminated to cervid producers, stakeholders, academia, and other interested parties.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the national CWD 2005 Study.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with proposed regulations for the payment of compensation in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 20, 2005.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
EDOCKET: Go to
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. 05-016-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 05-016-1.
For information concerning the proposed regulations for payment of compensation if foot-and-mouth disease occurred in the United States, contact Dr. Mark Teachman, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Emergency Management Staff, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734-8908. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS* Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.
As a result of a review of part 53 by APHIS, in part due to past outbreaks of FMD in the United Kingdom and elsewhere around the world, we proposed changes to the regulations to help ensure a successful control and eradication program in the event of an outbreak of FMD in the United States (
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve this information collection for an additional 3 years.
The estimate below shows a minimal burden of 1 hour total because we believe that an FMD outbreak in the United States is unlikely. Therefore, we currently are not collecting information and do not plan to collect information unless an outbreak of FMD occurs. In that event, we would review the estimated number of respondents and estimated burden based on the number of expected respondents in that situation.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Food Safety and Inspection Service.
Notice of funding opportunities for fiscal year 2005.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is soliciting proposals for cooperative agreement projects to be funded in fiscal year 2005. Proposals should be made in one or more of the cooperative agreement program areas described in this notice.
Proposals must be submitted by June 20, 2005.
FSIS continuously seeks new ideas and strategies to reduce the incidence of foodborne illnesses associated with meat, poultry, and egg products and protect the food supply. Agency innovations, notably those associated with the implementation of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems, have helped reduce foodborne illnesses in recent years. FSIS seeks to achieve additional reductions in foodborne illnesses, and to enhance food security, through further improvements in FSIS operations and
To achieve this goal, FSIS is authorized to use cooperative agreements to reflect a relationship between FSIS and other Federal agencies, States, or cooperators to carry out educational programs or special studies to improve the safety of the nation's food supply (Pub. L. 108-7, sec. 713, 117 Stat. 39). Also, FSIS has been directed to further develop the Food Emergency Response Network, a network of Federal, State and local laboratories that provides the nation the analytic capabilities and capacity it needs to cope with agents threatening the food supply (Pub. L. 108-447; H.R. Conf. Rpt. 108-792).
Risk analyses have shown that the safety of food is affected by hazards throughout the farm-to-table continuum. FSIS alone does not have the resources to address and ameliorate all hazards. FSIS seeks partners to assist in the development of materials that will have a national impact on public health. In keeping with its July 2004 strategy paper “Fulfilling the Vision, Initiatives in Protecting Public Health,” FSIS will engage in cooperative projects that will achieve measurable enhancement of the Nation's public health through food safety.
With the goal of making demonstrable improvements in public health through further science-based reductions in the incidence of foodborne disease and hazards associated with meat, poultry, and egg products, and to enhance food defenses through improved State and local government laboratory participation in the Food Emergency Response Network, FSIS will fund cooperative agreements in the following areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
FSIS expects to allocate approximately $2,500,000 to fund cooperative agreements in these areas this fiscal year. The approximate amount available for each area, and the range in dollars for proposed cooperative projects, is provided below. Academic institutions; State, local and tribal government agencies; and non-profit organizations are invited to submit brief proposals (one to two pages) for cooperative agreements in any of the areas described. These proposals will be reviewed by FSIS. If reviewers find that the proposals would further the food safety and public health goals of FSIS, are applicable nationwide to targeted audiences, can be reproduced and disseminated, and reflect new materials or approaches, submitters will be invited to further develop the proposals for consideration as cooperative agreements with FSIS, as funding is available.
Proposals are due June 20, 2005. FSIS will review and respond to proposals by August 3, 2005. Unlike typical Federal grants, cooperative agreements involve a Federal agency's active participation with the cooperator during both project development and project execution. Work products are intended to be available for public use nationwide. The criteria used by FSIS to assess proposals are listed for each cooperative agreement program area. Cooperators whose proposals are selected for further project development will need to discuss and reach agreement with FSIS on project details to permit establishment of a cooperative agreement no later than July 30, 2005.
All proposals should address the following points:
• Project description, including specific goals, timeline, and deliverables
• Description of national public benefit expected, including expected utility of work products, for example, training manuals, CDs, and videos
• Projected costs, including cooperator contributions
• Projected performance measures
• Primary contact, principal investigator, and other likely participants, and
• Public domain; work products may be freely reproduced and distributed by FSIS.
Multi-year projects will be considered, but they are subject to annual renewal and may be affected by changes in FSIS’ annual budget. The number of projects funded each year is determined by the number of proposals received, the extent to which they will further the food safety and public health goals of the Agency, the performance of ongoing projects, and funding availability.
Proposals are being solicited for fiscal year 2005 for the following five cooperative agreement program areas:
1.
• Proposal's feasibility and relevance to pre-harvest food safety
• Participation by State animal health or public health officials
• Participation by food animal industry leaders
• Special animal health or food safety needs of industry
• Demonstrated ability to develop and deliver to producers information on food safety awareness and safe production practices
• Food animal population affected
• Cooperator's past performance in animal and egg production food safety cooperative agreements, and
• Geographic distribution of States (need for national presence).
John R. Ragan, D.V.M., (202) 690-1277, or Sibyl Wright, (202) 720-4923,
2.
• Responds to the needs of small and very small plants
• Provides for measurable, documented results
• Provides a degree of innovation
• Assists small and very small plants to maintain effective HACCP systems, produce safe products, and otherwise comply with Federal regulations
• Provides a deliverable product that can be easily shared and is applicable to a wide audience. For example, the project will result in information or materials and be presented in a format that can be used by FSIS and its partners to improve food safety and impact public health, and
• Cooperator agrees to contribute significant resources to the project.
Kathleen Barrett, Strategic Initiatives, Partnerships and Outreach Staff, at (202) 690-6644.
3.
• Contributes to adoption by firms producing or handling meat, poultry, and egg products of the best available practices for controlling food safety hazards in their commercial environment.
• Provides State and local food inspectors tools for ensuring the safety of meat and poultry processed or handled at retail.
• Leverages current Federal, State, and local food safety activities to more effectively protect consumers.
• Provides a degree of innovation.
• Provides a deliverable product that is transferable; that is, the project will result in information or materials useful for food safety in other jurisdictions.
• Responds to needs of underserved areas or populations.
• Involves collaboration among interested entities; that is, the project involves industry, academia, Extension, and consumer groups as well as government agencies (involvement of a state food safety task force is desirable).
• Cooperator agrees to contribute significant resources to the project.
• Reduces the potential for product contamination, in particular, Listeria contamination of ready to eat foods.
Ralph Stafko, Strategic Initiatives, Partnership, and Outreach Staff, at (202) 690-6520.
4.
• Helps small and very small plants meet their HACCP and food safety requirements.
• Helps small and very small plants to understand how to demonstrate that a new technology complies with Federal inspection requirements.
• Provides a degree of innovation.
• Applies new research and technologies that address current food safety and public health concerns, such as properly handling and labeling products that contain ingredients that are known allergens.
• Provides deliverable products that are easily transferable, such as videos, training programs, and flow charts. The project will result in information or materials useful to small and very small plants to improve food safety.
For example, the subjects of proposals may include:
• Antimicrobial or other kinds of interventions to reduce or eliminate E. coli 0157:H7 in ground meat products.
• Listeria monocytogenes post-lethality treatments for ready-to-eat products.
• The relationship between the level of Salmonella enteritidis in eggs and egg products and the molting of poultry.
• The relationship between the level of Salmonella enteritidis and the temperature at which eggs have been held from the day of lay until the day of processing.
• Salmonella growth and reduction in shelf-stable ready-to-eat products.
• Cost-effective mechanisms to determine the temperature of products while they are being shipped.
• Allergens, food sensitivities, and intolerances in meat and poultry products; development of a training program for small and very small plants to help with the reassessment of their HACCP programs as they pertain to any ingredient that may be an allergen.
• Inoculation challenge studies on non-thermally processed ready-to-eat products; for example, validation studies for dry cured chorizo, basturma, prosciutto ham, and pancetta.
• The amount of pathogen growth, such as E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella, on livestock carcasses during the cooling process, and the development of easily understood predictive microbial models.
• The minimum chamber relative humidity needed to ensure that the moisture level on the product surface is adequate to achieve the desired lethality without increasing the heat resistance of bacterial pathogens (for example, Salmonella spp.).
• Alternative methods, such as antimicrobial packaging, to achieve surface lethality for products that had been exposed to the environment after lethality treatment.
Howard L. Early, D.V.M., New Technology Staff, at (202) 205-0675.
5.
• Includes provisions for measurable, documented results that may be shared with State and local laboratories, FSIS, or its agents.
• Provides information useful for the testing of threat agents in food.
• Possesses basic food analytic resources to implement the agreement.
• States' willingness to participate in method validation, proficiency testing, and surveillance programs.
Frankie J. Beacorn, Biological Food Security and Emergency Branch, Food Emergency Response Network Division, FERN, FSIS, USDA, 950 College Station Road, Athens, Georgia 30677; telephone (706) 546-3578; facsimile (706) 546-3518;
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the public and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS also will make copies of this
In addition, FSIS offers an electronic mail subscription service that provides an automatic and customized notification when popular pages are updated, including
Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to protect their accounts with passwords.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice lists the newspapers that will be used by all Ranger Districts, Grasslands, Forests, and the Regional Office of the Southwestern Region to give legal notice for the availability for comments on projects under 35 CFR 215, notice of decisions that may be subject to administrative appeal under 36 CFR part 215 or part 217, and for the opportunities to object to proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects under 36 CFR 218.4. Newspaper publication of notices of opportunities to comment, to appeal decisions, or to file objections, is in addition to mailings and direct notice made to those who have participated in the project planning by submitting comments and/or requesting notice.
Use of these newspapers for the purpose of publishing legal notice for comment and decision that may be subject to appeal under 36 CFR part 215 and part 217 and for opportunity to object under 36 CFR 218 shall begin on the date of this publication and continue until further notice.
Southwestern Region, ATTN: Regional Appeals Assistant, 333 Broadway SE., Albuquerque, NM 87102-3498.
Connie Smith, 505-842-3223.
Responsible Officials in the Southwestern Region will give legal notice of decisions that may be subject to appeal under 36 CFR part 215 or part 217, or give opportunity to object under 36 CFR 218 in the following newspapers which are listed by Forest Service administrative unit. Where more than one newspaper is listed for any unit, the first newspaper listed is the primary newspaper of record which publication date shall be used for calculating the time period to file comment, appeal or an objection.
Notices of Availability for Comment, Decisions and Objections affecting New Mexico Forests:—“
Regional Forester Notices of Availability for Comment and Decisions and Objections affecting Arizona Forests:—“
Regional Forester Notices of Availability for Comment and Decisions and Objections affecting National Grasslands in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas are listed by Grassland and location as follows: Kiowa National Grassland notices published in:—“
Notices of Availability for Comment, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor and Alpine Ranger District and Black Mesa Ranger District and Lakeside Ranger District and Springerville Ranger District are published in:—“
Clifton Ranger District Notices are published in:—“
Notices of Availability for Comment, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor and Mogollon Ranger District and Mormon Lake Ranger District and Peaks Ranger District are published in:—“
Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor and Santa Catalina Ranger District are published in:—“
Douglas Ranger District Notices are published in:—“
Nogales Ranger District Notices are published in:—“
Sierra Vista Ranger District Notices are published in:—“
Safford Ranger District Notices are published in:—“
Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor and North Kaibab District and Tusayan District and Williams District Notices are published in:—“
Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor and Bradshaw Ranger District and Chino Valley Ranger
Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor are published in:—“
Cave Creek Ranger District Notices are published in:—“
Globe Ranger District Notices are published in:—“
Mesa Ranger District Notices are published in:—“
Payson Ranger District and Pleasant Valley Ranger District and Tonto Basin Ranger District Notice are published in:—“
Notices of Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor and Camino Real Ranger District and Tres Piedras Ranger District and Questa Ranger District are published in:—“
Jicarilla Ranger District Notices are published in:—“
Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor affecting lands in New Mexico, except the National Grasslands are published in:—“
Forest Supervisor Notices affecting National Grasslands in New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas are published by grassland and location as follows: Kiowa National Grassland in Colfax, Harding, Mora and Union Counties, New Mexico published in:—“
Black Kettle National Grassland, in Hemphill County, Texas published in:—“
Mt. Taylor Ranger District Notices are published in:—“
Magdalena Ranger District Notices are published in:—“
Mountainair Ranger District Notices are published in:—“
Sandia Ranger District Notices are published in:—“
Kiowa National Grassland Notices are published in:—“
Rita Blanca National Grassland Notices in Cimarron County, Oklahoma are published in:—“
Black Kettle National Grassland Notices in Roger Mills County, Oklahoma are published in:—“
McClellan Creek National Grassland Notices are published in:—“
Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor and Quemado Ranger District and Reserve Ranger District and Glenwood Ranger District and Silver City Ranger District and Wilderness Ranger District are published in:—
Black Range Ranger District Notices are published in:—
Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions and Objections by Forest Supervisor and Sacramento Ranger District are published in:—
Guadalupe Ranger District Notices are published in:—
Smokey Bear Ranger District Notices are published in:—
Notices for Availability for Comments, Decisions, and Objections by Forest Supervisor and Coyote Ranger District and Cuba Ranger District and Espanola Ranger District and Jemez Ranger District and Pecos-Las Vegas Ranger District are published in:—
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Redmond, Oregon. The purpose of the meeting is to receive natural resource projects that will be reviewed and recommended, discuss the Committee's project guidelines and decisionmaking priorities, review bylaws, elect a Chair and discuss reports related to the work of the Committee under Title II of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.
The meeting will be held May 10, 2005 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Office of the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council, 2363 SW., Glacier Place, Redmond, Oregon 97756. Send written comments to Dan Rife, acting as Designated Federal Official for Larry Timchak, for the Deschutes and Ochoco Resource Advisory Committee, c/o Forest Service, USDA, Ochoco National Forest, 3160 NE., 3rd St., Prineville, OR 97754 or electronically to
Dan Rife, Acting as Designated Federal Official for Larry Timchak, Ochoco National Forest, 541-383-5534.
The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring Title II matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. A public
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Agriculture.
Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Guidelines (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture gives notice that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared for West Tarkio Watershed, Page and Montgomery Counties, Iowa and Atchison County, Missouri.
Richard Van Klaveren, State Conservationist, or David Beck, Planning Leader, 210 Walnut Street, 693 Federal Building, Des Moines, IA 50309-2180.
The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project may cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Richard Van Klaveren, NRCS State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is needed for this project.
This project involves the development of a plan to manage, protect, and enhance water and land resources in the West Tarkio Watershed. The watershed project area is 106,000 acres; 71,000 acres in Page and Montgomery Counties in southwest Iowa and 35,000 acres in Atchison County, Missouri. The upper end of the watershed is four miles northeast of Red Oak, Iowa. The City of Tarkio, Missouri, is at the downstream boundary of the project area.
The original sponsors include the three county governments, three county soil and water conservation districts, the city of Tarkio, Missouri, as well as the cities of Clarinda and Shenandoah, Iowa. The sponsors have formed the West Tarkio Watershed Steering Committee to serve as an advisory body for the project. The Steering Committee is made up of representatives from the sponsoring groups plus four local watershed residents.
The sponsors' original objectives are regional water supply including the Cities of Clarinda and Shenandoah, flood damage reduction for the City of Tarkio and agricultural land, water based recreation, grade stabilization of West Tarkio Creek and its tributaries, upland gully and erosion control, and water quality protection.
The NRCS planning assistance is being provided under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 83-566. The NRCS has completed studies to determine the extent of natural resource problems and needs in accordance with the sponsors' objectives.
Study results indicate that the sponsor objective of flood damage reduction for the City of Tarkio and agricultural land is not economically feasible. Land voiding and depreciation rates are not high enough to justify grade stabilization dams to control gullies and stream channel erosion. Other federal and state programs can be used to satisfy landowner requests for upland gully and erosion control.
The NRCS studies indicate that the sponsors' objectives of water supply, water based recreation, and water quality protection are likely to be economically feasible. Additional study for these project purposes will be completed.
The original sponsors reconsidered their interest in the project considering the change in project purposes. Remaining sponsors are the Cities of Clarinda and Shenandoah, Iowa, the Page County Soil and Water Conservation District, and the Atchison County Soil and Water Conservation District.
Four study sites on the main channel of West Tarkio Creek, all located in Page County Iowa, were initially identified for possible multiple-purpose reservoir sites. One study site was dropped from further consideration after it was determined not to meet the water supply objective and that it would have more effect on public roads than other alternatives.
Studies indicated each remaining study site could be developed as a multi-purpose water impoundment to provide water based recreation and water supply. Six preliminary alternatives for multiple-purpose reservoirs were developed, two alternatives at each study site. The permanent pool sizes of the six preliminary alternatives ranged from 1100 acres to 1800 acres.
Groundwater was investigated as a water supply source as a result of public comment. NRCS consulted with groundwater experts from the Iowa Geological Survey Bureau of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Geological Survey Bureau. Generalized sources of groundwater were identified in the area. There was no sponsor support for an alternative plan featuring groundwater because it could not meet the water-based recreation project purpose. In addition, one sponsor had been previously advised that long term, they should seek a surface water supply source to replace their current well fields.
Preliminary alternatives that do not meet the sponsors' objectives will be removed from further study and consideration. Each alterative plan that is carried through detailed planning will be compared against a no action plan as a basis to determine effects. The sponsors will select an alternative plan based on the effects, economic evaluation, and the extent that it meets their objectives. The project will include one multi-purpose reservoir with the purposes of water supply and water-based recreation. Best management practices may be included in the planned project in order to further protect the new surface water supply.
Two open house informational meetings were held in Shenandoah, Iowa on August 19, 2003, to initiate the planning process and obtain public input. State and federal agencies, private organizations, and local individuals were invited to a scoping meeting on February 17, 2004. The public input received from these meetings and at meetings of the West Tarkio Steering Committee will be considered as a draft Environmental Impact Statement is developed. The periodic Steering Committee meetings as well as individual member sponsor meetings are open to the public and provide opportunity for citizen input.
Preliminary issues: Among the issues that the NRCS plans to consider in the scope of the EIS analysis are:
The West Tarkio draft EIS will be developed and published in the
The draft watershed plan-EIS will be prepared and circulated for review by agencies and the public. This review will be conducted concurrently with the publication of the draft EIS in the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA.
Notice of availability of proposed changes in the NRCS National Handbook of Conservation Practices for public review and comment.
Notice is hereby given of the intention of NRCS to issue 11 new or revised conservation practice standards in its National Handbook of Conservation Practices. These standards include: Alley Cropping (Code 311), Prescribed Burning (Code 338), Multistory Cropping (Code 379), Windbreak-Shelterbelt Establishment (Code 380), Riparian Forest Buffer (Code 391), Tree-Shrub Site Preparation (Code 490), Tree-Shrub Establishment (Code 612), Windbreak-Shelterbelt Renovation (Code 650), Forest Trails and Landings (Code 655), Tree-Shrub Pruning (Code 660), and Forest Stand Improvement (Code 666). NRCS State Conservationists who choose to adopt these practices for use within their States will incorporate them into Section IV of their respective electronic Field Office Technical Guides. These practices may be used in conservation systems that treat highly erodible land or on land determined to be wetland.
Copies of these standards can be downloaded or printed from the following Web site:
Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 requires NRCS to make available, for public review and comment, proposed revisions to conservation practice standards used to carry out the highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law. For the next 30 days, NRCS will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by NRCS regarding disposition of those comments, and a final determination of changes will be made.
Proposed collection: Comment request.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before June 20, 2005.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6611, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Patrick Heinig, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-4848, Department of Commerce, Room 6716, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230.
On September 30, 1993, the Secretary of Commerce submitted to the Congress a report of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, entitled Toward a National Export Strategy. The report included the goal to “Undertake a comprehensive review of the Export Administration Regulations to simplify, clarify, and make the regulations more user-friendly”. To carry out this recommendation, BIS has rewritten the entire EAR. To the extent activities have been added or changed but not deleted, this collection represents the authority to collect, on rare occasions, certain information from the public. This assembly of information collection activities is comprised of two activities. “Registration Of U.S. Agricultural Commodities For Exemption From Short Supply Limitations On Export”, and “Petitions For The Imposition Of Monitoring Or Controls On Recyclable Metallic materials; Public Hearings” are statutory in nature and—though they never have been applied—must remain a part of BIS's information collection budget authorization. The third—The Commerce Control List—became
However, this activity is no longer needed since the transformation from the old system to the new system is complete.
For the purpose of clarity, this abstract will refer to the two activities as follows:
USAG will refer to Registration Of U.S. Agricultural Commodities For Exemption From Short Supply Limitations On Export activities; and,
For USAG, the method is a written application for the exemption from Short Supply Limitations on Export Activities.
For
The same mailing address is used for both submissions: P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20230.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Proposed collection: comment request.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before June 20, 2005.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6611, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Pat Heinig, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-4848, Department of Commerce, Room 6716, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The Technical Advisory Committees were established to advise and assist the U.S. Government on export control matters. In managing the operations of the TACs, the Department of Commerce is responsible for implementing the policies and procedures prescribed in the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Bureau of Export Administration provides technical and administrative support for the Committees.
The TACs advise the government on proposed revisions to export control lists, licensing procedures, assessments of the foreign availability of controlled products, and export control regulations.
Written Request to BIS.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Proposed collection: comment request.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before June 20, 2005.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6611, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. (or via internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Pat Heinig, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-4848, Department of Commerce, Room 6716, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The Department of Commerce/BIS, in coordination with other government agencies and private entities, conduct assessments of U.S. industries deemed critical to our national security. The information gathered is needed to assess the health and competitiveness as well as the needs of the targeted industry sector in order to maintain a strong U.S. industrial base.
Written response.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before June 20, 2005.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6612, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 or via the Internet at
Request for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: Joseph English, U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service, Global Trade Programs, Room 2810, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; Phone number: (202) 482-3334, and fax number: (202) 482-0115.
Department of Commerce (DOC) and DOC-certified trade missions and exhibitions are overseas events planned, organized and led by government and non-government export promotion agencies such as industry trade associations; agencies of Federal, State, and local governments; Congressional representatives; chambers of commerce; regional consortia; and other export-oriented groups. These events are evaluated at the close of the program by completion of the Mission/Exhibition Evaluation form. This submission renews OMB approval of the form.
This form is used to: (1) Evaluate the effectiveness of DOC or DOC-certified overseas trade events through the collection of information relating to required performance measures; (2) document the results of participation in DOC events; (3) evaluate results reported by small to mid-sized, new-to-export/new-to-market U.S. companies; (4) document the successful completion of trade promotion activities conducted by overseas DOC offices; (5) identify strengths and weaknesses of DOC trade promotion programs, in the interest of improving service to the U.S. business community.
Form ITA-4075P is completed on-site at the end of an overseas mission or exhibition by participating U.S. firms, who return it to the Department of Commerce exhibition manager at the close of the event upon request.
Comments are invited on (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(C)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before June 20, 2005.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6612, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: Chris Rasmussen, Export Trading Company Affairs; Industry Analysis; Room 1104; 14th St. & Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20230; phone: (202) 482-5131; and fax: (202) 482-1790.
The Contact Facilitation Service (CFS) is a U.S. Department of Commerce database, designed to put U.S. producers together with export service providers. Many U.S. firms have never exported because of a fear of the risks involved in exporting and a lack of knowledge of the international marketplace. New-to-export firms need the assistance of export service firms offering export trade services. One of the purposes of the Export Trading Company (ETC) Act of 1982 is to increase United States exports of goods and services by encouraging more efficient provision of export trade services to U.S. producers and suppliers. Section 104 of the Act directs Commerce to provide a service to facilitate contact between producers of exportable goods and services and firms offering export trade services.
The International Trade Administration (ITA) maintains the CFS database of U.S. manufacturers, export trading and management companies, wholesalers/distributors, and international service firms. The CFS is designed to help promote exports and enable U.S. producers to locate export service providers. Export Service firms registered in the CFS database are listed in annual print editions of the U.S. Trade Assistance Directory, distributed throughout the United States. U.S. producers of goods and services registered in the CFS database are listed in the annual print editions of the U.S. Department of Commerce Exporters' Yellow Pages
Form ITA-4094P is sent by request to U.S. firms.
Comments are invited on (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before June 20, 2005.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6612, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 or via the Internet at
Request for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Joseph English, telephone 202-482-3334, fax 202-482-5362, e-mail
The U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service Export Assistance Centers offer their clients DOC programs, market research, and services to enable the client to begin exporting or to expand existing exporting efforts.
The Information Services Order Form is used by US&FCS trade specialists in the Export Assistance Centers to collect information about clients in order to determine which programs or services would best help clients meet their export goals. This form is required for clients to order US&FCS programs and services. Certain programs are tailored for individual clients,
Trade specialists gather information from clients at the Export Assistance Centers.
Comments are invited on whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including (a) whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
Notice is hereby given of the next meeting of the Marine Protected Areas Federal Advisory Committee (MPAFAC) in Portland, Maine.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, May 17, 2005 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Wednesday, May 18, 2005 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Thursday, May 19, 2005 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. These times and the agenda topics described below may be subject to change. Refer to the Web page listed below for the most up-to-date meeting agenda.
The meeting will be held at the Doubletree Hotel, 1230 Congress Street, Portland, Maine 04192.
Lauren Wenzel, Designated Federal Officer, MPAFAC, National Marine Protected Areas Center, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (Phone: 301-713-3100 x136, Fax: 301-713-3110); e-mail:
The MPAFAC, composed of external, knowledgeable representatives of stakeholder groups, was established by the Department of Commerce to provide advice to the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior on implementation of Section 4 of Executive Order 13158 on MPAs. The meeting will be open to public participation, with a one hour and fifteen minute time period set aside from 3:45 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17, 2005, and fifty minutes set aside from 8:10 a.m. to 9 a.m. on Thursday, May 19, 2005 for the Committee to receive verbal comments or questions from the public. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of five (5) minutes. Copies of written statements should be submitted to the Designated Federal Official by Friday, May 13, 2005.
National Ocean Service, NOAA, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a public meeting concerning the development of a national system of marine protected areas (MPAs) pursuant to Executive Order 13158 (May 26, 2000). The New England Region Public Dialogue will be held in Portland, Maine and is the second in a series of regional dialogues to be held around the United States to solicit input from the public concerning their views on a national system of MPAs. Additional meetings will be announced and scheduled pending available resources. Refer to the web page listed below for background information concerning the development of the national system of MPAs. Meeting room capacity is limited to 60 people, and as such interested participants are required to RSVP via the e-mail address (preferable), fax number, or phone number listed below, by no later than 5 p.m. e.d.t. on May 6, 2005. Attendance will be available to the first 60 people who respond.
Those who wish to attend but cannot due to space or schedule limitations can find background materials at the web page listed below and may submit
The meeting will be held Monday, May 16, 2005 from 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. e.d.t.
The meeting will be held at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, 350 Commercial Street, Portland, Maine 04101.
Jonathan Kelsey, National System Development Coordinator, National Marine Protected Areas Center, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910. (Phone: 301-713-3155 ext. 230, Fax: 301-713-3110); e-mail:
These forums are intended to solicit the public's views regarding the development of a national system of MPAs. All input received via these dialogues, e-mail, or fax will be for the public record and considered in developing a draft proposal for a national system of MPAs. At this preliminary stage in the effort to develop the national system, NOAA does not intend to respond to any comments received via these dialogues, e-mail, fax, or mail. Once a draft proposal is developed for the national system of MPAs, NOAA will publish it in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Groundfish Management Team (GMT) will hold a working meeting, which is open to the public.
The GMT meeting will be held Monday, May 23, 2005 from 1 p.m. until business for the day is completed. The GMT meeting will reconvene Tuesday, May 24 through Friday, May 27, from 8:30 a.m. until business for the day is completed.
The GMT meeting will be held at the Pacific Fishery Management Council office, West Conference Room, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, Oregon 97220-1384. Telephone: 503-820-2280.
Mr. John DeVore, Groundfish Management Coordinator; telephone: 503-820-2280.
The purpose of the GMT meeting is to discuss groundfish management measures in place for the spring and summer months and consider inseason adjustments to ongoing West Coast groundfish fisheries, respond to assignments relating to implementation of the Council's groundfish strategic plan, discuss new groundfish stock assessments, discuss implementation strategies for Groundfish Fishery Management Plan Amendment 18, discuss alternatives for specifying and protecting West Coast groundfish essential fish habitat, discuss a range of alternatives for developing an individual quota (or dedicated access) program for the West Coast limited entry trawl fishery, discuss alternative revision rules for adopted groundfish rebuilding plans, and address other assignments relating to groundfish management. No management actions will be decided by the GMT. The GMT's role will be development of recommendations for consideration by the Council at its June meeting in Foster City, California.
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the GMT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal GMT action during this meeting. GMT action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the GMT's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at 503-820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Groundfish Stock Assessment Review (STAR) Panel for Pacific ocean perch, darkblotched rockfish, and cabezon will hold a work session which is open to the public.
The Pacific ocean perch, darkblotched rockfish, and cabezon STAR Panel will meet beginning at 8 a.m., Monday, May 16, 2005. The meeting will continue through Friday, May 20, 2005 beginning at 8 a.m. every morning. The meetings will end at 5 p.m. each day, or as necessary to complete business.
See
Ms. Stacey Miller, NWFSC; telephone: 206-860-3480; or Mr. John DeVore, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: 503-820-2280.
The Pacific ocean perch, darkblotched rockfish, and cabezon STAR Panel meeting will be held at National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, WA 98112; telephone: 206-860-3200, on Monday, May 16, 2005, Tuesday, May 17, 2005, Wednesday, May 18, 2005 and again on Friday, May 20, 2005.
On Thursday, May 19, 2005, the Pacific ocean perch, darkblotched rockfish, and cabezon STAR Panel meeting will be held at the University Inn, 4140 Roosevelt Way NE, Seattle, WA 98105; telephone: 206-632-5055.
The purpose of the STAR Panel meeting is to review draft stock assessment documents and any other pertinent information, work with the Stock Assessment Teams to make necessary revisions, and produce a STAR Panel report for use by the Council family and other interested persons. No management actions will be decided by the STAR Panel. The STAR Panel's role will be development of recommendations and reports for consideration by the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee at its June meeting in Foster City, CA.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the STAR Panel participants for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal STAR Panel action during this meeting. STAR Panel action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the STAR Panel participants' intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at 503-820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Entry to the NWFSC requires visitors to show a valid picture ID and register with security. A visitor's badge, which must be worn while at the NWFSC facility, will be issued to non-federal employees participating in the meeting.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Community Demonstration Project Program Advisory Panel (CDPP-AP) will meet on May 10 and 11, 2005, in Honolulu, HI. At the meeting, the Advisory Panel will select and rank proposals to be recommended for Council review. The Advisory Panel will develop criteria, objectives and priorities for recommendation to the Council for a subsequent solicitation for the Community Demonstration Project Program.
The meetings will be held on May 10 and 11, 2005. See
The meeting will be held at the Council Office, 1164 Bishop Street, Honolulu, HI; telephone: 808-522-8220.
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: 808-522-8220.
On February 1, 2005 (70 FR 5166), proposals were solicited through the
A meeting of the CDPP-AP is scheduled for May 10 and 11, 2005 to review proposals and discuss the program.
At the meeting, the Advisory Panel will review and rank proposals to be recommended for Council review. The Council or its designee will select proposals to be recommended for funding to the NMFS Grants Management Division. Successful applicants will be notified of their selection. Proposals not selected for will be returned to the applicants. Successful applicants will participate in a Grant Workshop in Honolulu to complete their grant application.
The CDPP-AP will meet from 8 a.m. on May 10 and 11, at the Western Pacific Fishery Regional Fishery Management Council office. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The CDPP-AP will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
The agenda for the Community Demonstration Project Program Advisory Panel will include the items listed below:
1. Introductions
2. Report on the program implementation and workshops
3. Review selection criteria
4. Review of qualified proposals
1. Review and Ranking of proposals for recommendation to the Council
2. Program review
a. Development and review of objectives and priorities for the next solicitation
b. Review program eligibility criteria
c. Discussion and recommendations
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, 808-522-8220 (voice) or 808-522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Issuance of permits.
Notice is hereby given that two applicants have been issued a permit to take endangered and threatened sea turtles for purposes of scientific research.
The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and
Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13
Ruth Johnson or Patrick Opay, (301)713-2289.
On October 8, 2004, notice was published in the
Dr. Allen Foley, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 6134 Authority Avenue, Building 200, Jacksonville, FL 32221: Permit No. 1501 authorizes Dr. Foley to take listed turtles in Florida Bay. Researchers may annually capture 175 loggerhead (
Blair E. Witherington, Ph.D., (Principal Investigator), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Melbourne Beach Field Laboratory, 9700 South A1A, Melbourne Beach, FL 32951: Permit No. 1506 authorizes Dr. Witherington to annually capture 250 loggerhead, 10 green, 5 hawksbill, 2 Kemp's ridley, and 2 leatherback (
Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened species, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Availability; request for comments.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the availability for public review of the Draft Interim Regional Recovery Plan (Plan) for portions of three Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of salmon and steelhead Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon (
The comment period for the Draft Interim Regional Recovery Plan closes on June 20, 2005. NMFS will consider and address all substantive comments received during the comment period. Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time on June 20, 2005. A description of previous public and scientific review, including scientific peer review, can be found in the NMFS Supplement to the Plan.
Please send written comments and materials to Patty Dornbusch, National Marine Fisheries Service, Salmon Recovery Division, 1201 N.E. Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. Comments may be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is
Patty Dornbusch, (503-230-5430); or Elizabeth Gaar, (503-230-5434).
Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for the conservation and recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS' goal is to restore endangered and threatened Pacific salmon and steelhead ESUs to the point where they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems and no longer need the protections of the ESA. NMFS believes it is critically important to base its recovery plans on the many state, regional, tribal, local, and private conservation efforts already underway throughout the region. The agency's approach to recovery planning has been to support and participate in locally led collaborative efforts involving local communities, state, tribal, and Federal entities, and other stakeholders to develop recovery plans. On December 15, 2004, the State of Washington and the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB) presented the first of these locally developed recovery plans (Plan) to NMFS.
NMFS expects the Plan to help NMFS and other Federal agencies take a more consistent approach to future section 7 consultations. For example, the Plan will provide greater biological context for the effects that a proposed action may have on listed ESUs. This context will be enhanced by adding recovery plan science to the “best available information” for section 7 consultations. Such information includes viability criteria for ESUs and their independent populations; better understanding of and information on limiting factors and threats facing the ESUs; better information on priority areas for addressing specific limiting factors; and better geographic context for where the ESUs can tolerate different levels of risk.
After review of the Plan, NMFS has added a Supplement, which describes the Plan's relationship to ESA requirements for recovery plans, addresses additional elements needed to comply with those requirements, and describes the agency's intent to use the Plan as an interim regional recovery plan for the Washington Lower Columbia Management Unit and as a major component of the full ESU plan expected to be completed in 2006. The Plan, including the Supplement, is now available for public review and comment. NMFS will consider all substantive comments and information presented during the public comment period (see DATES).
The Plan covers a substantial portion of the range of three listed ESUs: Lower Columbia River chinook (
The area covered by the Plan includes the Washington portion of the Columbia River estuary and the Columbia River mainstem within the range of the ESUs as well as a number of tributary watersheds (including the Chinook, Grays, Skamokawa, Elochoman, Cowlitz, Coweeman, Kalama, Lewis, Washougal, Wind, and Little White Salmon Rivers, and Mill, Abernathy, Germany, Lake, Duncan, Hardy, and Hamilton Creeks). In all, the tributaries total more than 1,700 river miles in Washington. The planning area does not include portions of these ESUs on the Oregon side of the Columbia River or the White Salmon River basin in Washington.
NMFS proposes to delineate the portion of these ESUs that occurs within Washington State and within the planning area of the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board as the Washington Lower Columbia Management Unit. A management unit is a portion of a listed species (ESU) that might require different management due to different threats in certain geographic areas or management by different state, tribal, or local entities.
Although final recovery plans must cover the entire range of a species or ESU, NMFS has concluded that it would be disadvantageous to the three ESUs to wait to publish a draft plan until an ESU-wide plan was available. Additionally, NMFS intends to implement the Plan to the maximum extent practicable while working with constituents in Oregon to complete a recovery plan that will cover the entire range of the ESUs. Thus NMFS proposes to use the Plan as an interim regional recovery plan for the Washington Lower Columbia Management Unit of these ESUs. NMFS expects to publish a notice of availability in 2006 for a draft interim regional recovery plan for the Oregon Lower Columbia Management Unit and for the White Salmon River in Washington State. Following public review of the plans for these portions of the ESUs, NMFS will finalize a recovery plan covering the entire range of the ESUs.
The Plan provides a roadmap for implementation of recovery actions in the Washington Lower Columbia Management Unit. It identifies threats to the ESUs, includes actions intended to address all the manageable threats, and includes recovery goals and measurable criteria consistent with the ESA. The Plan's initial approach is to target reductions in all manageable threats. As monitoring and evaluation improve our understanding of the effectiveness of various actions and their benefits throughout the life cycle of salmon and steelhead, adjustments may be made through the adaptive management framework described in the Plan. A combination of habitat loss and degradation, hydropower facility construction and operation, harvest, hatchery production of salmon and steelhead, and ecological changes have resulted in reduced viability of the Lower Columbia River chinook and chum salmon and steelhead ESUs and their eventual listing under the ESA. The Plan identifies the following key threats to the ESUs and recovery actions to reduce them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Plan identifies substantive actions needed to achieve recovery by addressing the threats to the species. The Plan also incorporates an adaptive management framework by which Plan actions and other elements will evolve and adapt to information gained as a result of monitoring and evaluation. The Plan also anticipates that future actions will be influenced by additional analysis of costs and effectiveness of recovery actions to maximize efficiency. The next step outlined in the Plan is to obtain implementation schedules from each of the responsible entities describing when and how recovery actions will occur and how much they will cost. This step will be coordinated by a committee established by the LCFRB and is described in the adaptive management section of the Plan. Implementation schedules are expected to be complete by the summer of 2005 and will be incorporated into the Plan.
NMFS solicits written comments on the draft Plan, including the Supplement. The Supplement states NMFS' assessment of the Plan's relationship to ESA requirements for recovery plans, specifies recovery (de-listing) criteria for the three ESUs, and explains the agency's intent to use the plan as an interim regional recovery plan and as the basis for a full ESU recovery plan. All substantive comments received by the date specified above will be considered prior to NMFS' decision whether to endorse the Plan as an interim regional recovery plan. Additionally, NMFS will provide a summary of the comments and responses through its regional web site and provide a news release for the public announcing the availability of the response to comments. NMFS seeks comments particularly in the following areas: (1) the analysis of limiting factors and threats; (2) the recovery scenario, including strategies and measures; (3) the criteria for removing the ESUs from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; (4) meeting the ESA requirement for estimates of time and cost to implement recovery actions by soliciting implementation schedules (see discussion in the Supplement); and (5) the process of developing ESU-wide recovery plans using management unit plans.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Notice and request for nominations.
On November 29, 1999, the President signed into law the Patent and Trademark Office Efficiency Act (the “Act”), Pub. L. 106-113, appendix I, title IV, subtitle G, 113 Stat. 1501A-572, which, among other things, established two Public Advisory Committees to review the policies, goals, performance, budget and user fees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) with respect to patents, in the case of the Patent Public Advisory Committee, and with respect to trademarks, in the case of the Trademark Public Advisory Committee, and to advise the Director on these matters. The USPTO is requesting nominations for three (3) members to each Public Advisory Committee for terms of three years that begin from date of appointment.
Nominations must be postmarked or electronically transmitted on or before May 27, 2005.
Persons wishing to submit nominations should send the nominee's resumé to Chief of Staff, Office of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, Post Office Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450; by electronic mail to:
Chief of Staff by facsimile transmission marked to her attention at (571) 273-0464, or by mail marked to her attention and addressed to the Office of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, Post Office Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
The Advisory Committees' duties include:
• Review and advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO on matters relating to policies, goals, performance, budget, and user fees of the USPTO relating to patents and trademarks, respectively; and
• Within 60 days after the end of each fiscal year: (1) Prepare an annual report on matters listed above; (2) transmit a report to the Secretary of Commerce, the President, and the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives; and (3) publish the
The Public Advisory Committees are each composed of nine (9) voting members who are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce (the “Secretary”). The Public Advisory Committee members must be United States citizens and represent the interests of diverse users of the USPTO, both large and small equity applicants in proportion to the number of such applications filed. The Committees must include members who have “substantial backgrounds and achievement in finance, management, labor relations, science, technology, and office automation.” 35 U.S.C. 5(b)(3). In the case of the Patent Public Advisory Committee, at least twenty-five 9(25) percent of the members must represent “small business concerns, independent inventors, and nonprofit organizations,” and at least one member must represent the independent inventor community. 35 U.S.C. 5(b)(2). Each of the Public Advisory Committees also includes three (3) non-voting members representing each labor organization recognized by the USPTO.
Each newly appointed member of the Patent and Trademark Public Advisory Committees will serve for a term of three years from date of appointment. Ad required by the Act, members of the Patent and Trademark Public Advisory Committees will receive compensation for each day while the member is attending meetings or engaged in the business of that Advisory Committee. The rate of compensation is the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for Level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States Code. While away from home or regular place of business, each member will be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code. The USPTO will provide the necessary administrative support, including technical assistance for the Committees.
Members of each Public Advisory Committee shall be special Government employees within the meaning of section 202 of title 18, United States Code. The following additional information includes several, but not all, of the ethics rules that apply to members, and assumes that members are not engaged in Public Advisory Committee business more than sixty days during each calendar year:
• Each member will be required to file a confidential financial disclosure form within thirty (30) days of appointment. 5 CFR 2634.202(c), 2634.204, 2634.902, and 2634.904(b).
• Each member will be subject to many of the public integrity laws, including criminal bars against representing a party, 18 U.S.C. 205(c), in a particular matter that came before the member's committee and that involved at least one specific party.
• Representation of foreign interests may also raise issues. 35 U.S.C. 5(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. 219.
Meetings of each Advisory Committee will take place at the call of the Chair to consider an agenda set by the Chair. Meetings may be conducted in person, electronically through the Internet, or by other appropriate means. The meetings of each Advisory Committee will be open to the public except each Advisory Committee may, by majority vote, meet in executive session when considering personnel by other confidential matters. Nominees must also have the ability to participate in Committee business through the Internet.
Submit resumé for nomination for the Patent Public Advisory Committee and the Trademark Public Advisory Committee to: Chief of Staff to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, utilizing the addresses provided above.
11 a.m., Friday, May 6, 2005.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, May 13, 2005.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance matters.
Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, May 20, 2005.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC., 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, May 27, 2005.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.
Defense Facilities Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services, DoD.
Notice; Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Updated Pentagon Reservation Master Plan.
The Department of Defense (DoD), Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) announces that an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Updated Pentagon Reservation Master Plan is available for public review and comment on or before 14 April 2005. The Master Plan involves the entire Pentagon Reservation to include all the main buildings and sub-buildings within the Pentagon site in Arlington, Virginia, exclusive of the Navy Annex. A separate EA will be distributed for the Navy Annex, also known as the Naval Annex, Arlington Annex and Federal Office Building No. 2 (FOB2).
The EA documents an evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed updated Master Plan in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA, 42 U.S. Code 4321 to 4370b); Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1500-1508); and DoD Instruction 4715.9, Environmental Planning and Analysis. The EA addresses the potential impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed action. Environmental consequences examined include potential impacts on socio-economic conditions, cultural and visual resources, transportation systems, physical and biological resources, utilities and infrastructure, and cumulative impacts.
The Pentagon Reservation Master Plan constitutes a policy framework for the long-term development of the Master Plan area—an area of approximately 220 acres within the larger Pentagon Reservation. The Master Plan primarily focuses on the following improvements within the Master Plan area: Implementing new security measures; improving vehicular circulation; consolidating existing surface parking into parking structures; and increasing landscaped areas.
The EA is available on the Internet at
Public comments are invited and must be either e-mailed or postmarked on or before 11 May 2005.
To request a copy of the EA via e-mail or provide comments, contact Phyllis Kaplan at telephone: 703-614-4879, e-mail:
For additional information on the EA, contact Phyllis Kaplan at telephone: 703-614-4879 or e-mail:
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
This priority is:
(1) Design, write, publish, and disseminate The Challenge, a newsletter for educators, prevention specialists, and other professionals in fields related to drug abuse and violence prevention and education. The Challenge newsletter communicates information on current and future program directions, research-based activities, and other information related to effective strategies to prevent drug use and violent behavior among youth.
(2) Create or maintain and expand a subscriber database for the U.S. Department of Education (ED).
(3) Post each issue of The Challenge newsletter to a Web site for public access.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
You may also contact ED Pubs at its Web site:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA Number 84.184P.
You also may access the electronic version of the application at either of the following Web sites:
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You should limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 25 double-spaced typewritten pages on 8.5″ x 11″ paper, using a standard font no smaller than 12-point type with 1-inch margins on all sides.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification, Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, resumes, or bibliography. However, you must include all of the application narrative in Section III.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition may be submitted electronically using the Electronic Grant Application System (e-Application) accessible through the Department's e-Grants system, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV. 6.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
4.
5.
6.
a.
If you choose to submit your application to us electronically, you must use e-Application available through the Department's e-Grants system, accessible through the e-Grants portal page at:
While completing your electronic application, you will be entering data online that will be saved into a database. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us.
Please note the following:
• Your participation in e-Application is voluntary.
• You must complete the electronic submission of your grant application by 4:30 p.m. (Washington, DC time) on the application deadline date. The e-Application system will not accept an application for this competition after 4:30 p.m. (Washington, DC time) on the application deadline date. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process.
• The regular hours of operation of the e-Grants Web site are 6 a.m. Monday until 7 p.m. Wednesday; and 6 a.m. Thursday until midnight Saturday (Washington, DC time). Please note that the system is unavailable on Sundays, and between 7 p.m. on Wednesdays and 6:00 a.m. on Thursdays (Washington, DC time), for maintenance. Any modifications to these hours are posted on the e-Grants Web site.
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including the Application for Federal Education Assistance (ED 424), Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• Any narrative sections of your application should be attached as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page limit requirements described in this notice.
• Prior to submitting your electronic application, you may wish to print a copy of it for your records.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement that will include a PR/Award Number (an identifying number unique to your application).
• Within three working days after submitting your electronic application, fax a signed copy of the ED 424 to the Application Control Center after following these steps:
1. Print ED 424 from e-Application.
2. The applicant's Authorizing Representative must sign this form.
3. Place the PR/Award number in the upper right hand corner of the hard-copy signature page of the ED 424.
4. Fax the signed ED 424 to the Application Control Center at (202) 245-6272.
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on other forms at a later date.
(1) You are a registered user of e-Application, and you have initiated an electronic application for this competition; and
(2) (a) The e-Application system is unavailable for 60 minutes or more between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. (Washington, DC time), on the application deadline date; or
(b) The e-Application system is unavailable for any period of time between 3:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. (Washington, DC time) on the application deadline date.
We must acknowledge and confirm these periods of unavailability before granting you an extension. To request this extension or to confirm our acknowledgement of any system unavailability, you may contact either (1) the person listed elsewhere in this notice under
Extensions referred to in this section apply only to the unavailability of the Department's e-Application system. If the e-Application system is available, and, for any reason, you are unable to submit your application electronically or you do not receive an automatic acknowledgement of your submission, you may submit your application in paper format by mail or hand delivery in accordance with the instructions in this section.
b.
If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address:
Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
1. A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark;
2. A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service;
3. A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier; or
4. Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
1. A private metered postmark, or
2. A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you submit your application in paper format, you (or a courier service) must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.184P, 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (Washington, DC time) except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
1. You must indicate on the envelope and, if not provided by the Department, in Item 4 of ED Form 424, the CFDA number, and suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application.
2. The Application Control Center will mail a grant application receipt acknowledgement to you. If you do not receive the grant application receipt acknowledgment within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
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
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.
You may also view this document in text or PDF at the following site:
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Written comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number OPP-2005-0086, must be received on or before June 20, 2005.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit III. of the
Cameo G. Smoot, Field and External Affairs Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-5454; fax number: (703) 305-5884; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a state and territorial government involved in issuing pesticide registrations. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• State and territorial government involved in issuing pesticide registrations (NAICS 92411), e.g., administration of air and water resources and solid waste management programs.
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed above could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in section 24(c) of FIFRA. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2005-0086. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
You may access this
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit II.A. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit III.B. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are 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 estimates of the burdens of the proposed collections of information.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated or electronic collection technologies or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
EPA is seeking comments on the following ICR:
Under the PRA, “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. For this collection it 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.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized in this notice. The annual public burden for this ICR is estimated to be 23,400. The following is a summary of the estimates taken from the ICR:
The Agency has revised the estimated applicant burden upwards to reflect the average number of petitions that have been received in the last three years, which is 450 annually. In the last renewal for this ICR the annual petition rate was only 350 per year. This trend, coupled with updated 2004 labor figures accounts for the slightly higher burden and cost figures for this ICR renewal. No other program changes have occurred. This proposal represents a burden increase of 5,200 burden hours and $541,370 in increased burden hour costs over the last ICR renewal.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Written comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number OPP-2005-0087, must be received on or before June 20, 2005.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit III. of the
Nathanael R. Martin, Field and External Affairs Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-6475; fax number: (703) 305-5884; e-
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a business engaged in the manufacturing of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Manufacturers of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals (NAICS 325320), e.g., exporters of unregistered pesticide products.
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed above could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 168.75. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2005-0087. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.
You may access this
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit II.A. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit III.B. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are 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 estimates of the burdens of the proposed collections of information.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated or electronic collection technologies or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
EPA is seeking comments on the following ICR:
Under the PRA, “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. For this collection it 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
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized in this notice. The annual public burden for this ICR is estimated to be 24,753 hours. The following is a summary of the estimates taken from the ICR:
The total annual respondent burden cost for this ICR is estimated to be $2,134,400, an increase of $232,000 over the present ICR. This slight increase in respondent burden cost is due to adjustments in labor rates.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; correction.
EPA Region 6 published in the
Terry Mendiola by telephone at 214-665-7144 or by e-mail at
EPA Region 6 published a notice in the
This correction adds a discussion of the difference between an output and outcome which will be added to Section I and reference to the outputs/outcomes for each priority area is added.
The language in the fourth ranking criteria of Section V regarding the quality of the evaluation component to assess or measure the environmental outcome(s) is corrected to reflect Order 5700.7 more accurately. A discussion for inclusion of this plan will be added in the Environmental Results and Outcomes Section of the proposal format.
This correction also clarifies the criteria for applicant's past performance. Applicant's past performance will be evaluated. Therefore, the words “if applicable” in the Past Performance criteria in Section V.1. will be deleted. Applicants will have to include any information on performance of past EPA projects similar in scope and relevance to the proposed project under the
Due to this correction notice, the date that the proposals must be submitted to EPA Region 6 has been extended. This extension also extends the date that EPA will identify initial selections.
In notice FR 03-6300 published on March 30, 2005, (FR 05-6300) make the following corrections.
On page 16267, third column, under
On page 16267, third column, under
On page 16267, third column, under
On page 16268, in the first column, under High Priority Areas for Funding Consideration, second paragraph, add at the end of the second sentence the following:
The expected outputs/outcomes are included in the threshold eligibility criteria in Section III.3. for each priority area topic.
EPA defines “outputs” as an environmental activity, effort, and/or associated work products related to an environmental goal or objective, that will be produced or provided over a period of time or by a specified date. Outputs may be quantitative or qualitative but must be measurable during an assistance agreement funding period.
Outcomes are defined as the result, effect, or consequence that will occur from carrying out an environmental program or activity that is related to an environmental or programmatic goal or objective. Outcomes may be environmental, behavioral, health-related or programmatic in nature, must be quantitative, and may not necessarily
On page 16269, second column, after the fourth bullet of the “Watershed—Based Permitting” caption, add the following:
• Successful completion of the project should result in the development of a new NPDES permitting issuance strategy that maximizes the use of resources to achieve environmental results and better protect entire watersheds.
On page 16269, second column, after the eighth bullet of the “Water Quality Trading” caption, add the following:
• Successful completion of the project should result in the development of a water quality trading process which will aid in complying with discharge limitations while improving and preserving water quality.
On page 16269, third column, after the first bullet of the “Cross-Program Training on Water Quality Modeling” caption, add the following:
• Successful completion of this training program should result in new avenues for Region 6 States to better coordinate resources and investigate innovative resolutions to water quality issues and development of TMDLs, especially at the watershed level, in support of State and National goals to reduce impaired waters in those States.
On page 16270, in the second column, under the proposal format, add at the end of
“This section should also include a plan to track and measure progress toward achieving the expected outputs and outcomes.”
On page 16270, in the second column, under the proposal format, add at the end of
“This section should also include information on performance of past EPA Region 6 projects similar in scope and relevance to the proposed project.”
On page 16270, second column, under “3. Submission Dates and Times” caption, first sentence correct the May 16, 2005 date with May 31, 2005.
On page 16270, in the third column, under Section V. Application Review Information, 1. Criteria, fourth bullet, delete “and the quality of the evaluation component to assess or measure the environmental outcome(s)” and replace with “including the adequacy of the applicant's plan to track and measure progress toward achieving the expected outputs and outcomes.”
On page 16271, first column, second bullet, delete “if applicable.” under past performance criteria. Therefore, this criteria should read “Applicant's past performance. (5)''.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public meeting of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee's (CASAC) Ozone Review Panel (Panel) to conduct a consultation on EPA's draft Ozone Health Assessment Plan: Scope and Methods for Exposure Analysis and Risk Assessment (April 2005).
May 5, 2005. The meeting will be held Thursday, May 5, 2005, from 3 to 5 p.m. (eastern time).
Any member of the public who wishes to obtain the teleconference call-in numbers and access codes; would like to submit written or brief oral comments (five minutes or less); or wants further information concerning this meeting, must contact Mr. Fred Butterfield, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board (1400F), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; via telephone/voice mail: (202) 343-9994; fax: (202) 233-0643; or e-mail at:
EPA is soliciting advice and recommendations from the CASAC by means of a consultation on the draft Ozone Health Assessment Plan. The CASAC, which is comprised of seven members appointed by the EPA Administrator, was established under section 109(d)(2) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7409) as an independent scientific advisory committee, in part to provide advice, information and recommendations on the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to air quality criteria and NAAQS under sections 108 and 109 of the Act. The CASAC is a Federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. The CASAC Ozone Review Panel will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.
In addition, a copy of the draft agenda for this meeting will be posted on the SAB Web site at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA announced in the
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 26, 2005, from 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Wednesday, April 27, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; and Thursday, April 28, 2005, from 8 a.m. to 12:15 p.m., eastern standard time.
The meeting will be held at RESOLVE, 1255 23rd St., NW., Suite 275, Washington, DC 20037.
Jane Smith, Designated Federal Official (DFO), Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7203M), Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8476; fax number: (202) 564-8482; e-mail address:
The Agency included in the April 8, 2005, Notice a list of those who may be potentially affected by the action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
In addition to using EDOCKET (
A list of the EDMVAC members and meeting materials are available at
In the
The document is corrected as follows:
On page 17995, third column, the first sentence under the “
“The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 26, 2005, from 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Wednesday, April 27, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; and Thursday, April 28, 2005, from 8 a.m. to 12:15 p.m., eastern standard time.”
Environmental protection, Endocrine disruptors, Hazardous substances, Health, Safety.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition
Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number OPP-2005-0076, must be received on or before May 20, 2005.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Kathleen Martin, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-2857; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111)
• Animal production (NAICS 112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1.Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2.Describe any assumptions that you used.
3.Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4.If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5.Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6.Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7.To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed. EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of this pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner.
EPA has received a pesticide petition (5E6907) from Keller & Heckman LLP, 1001 G St., NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20001, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for aluminum-magnesium hydroxy carbonate (CAS No. 85585-93-9) when used in the formulation process for antimicrobial pesticides used on food-contact surfaces and in water that contacts raw agricultural commodities postharvest. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
An analytical method for residues is not applicable, as this petition proposes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
Hydrated aluminum oxide and magnesium oxide (MgO) are the principal components of aluminum-magnesium hydroxy carbonate. Both of these materials have been reviewed by EPA, and are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance without limitation at 40 CFR 180.910 when used in pesticide formulations that are applied to growing crops, or to postharvest raw agricultural commodities. Additionally, EPA has exempted a similar substance, magnesium carbonate, from the requirement of a tolerance at 40 CFR 180.910. The stability of aluminum-magnesium hydroxy carbonate (insoluble except in strong acids) indicates that it does not present a greater potential for exposure to the components used in its preparation, and the uses proposed for it are identical to uses that are currently cleared by EPA for the starting materials (flow agent and solid diluent).
1.
An acute toxicity study of magnesium chloride (MgCl
Male mice were administered aluminum sulfate (Al(SO
An acute inhalation study of aluminum dust was completed in male Fischer rats. Rats were exposed to nominal chamber concentrations of 10, 50, 100, 200 and 1,000 mg/m
2.
A mouse lymphoma mutagenicity assay was completed with several metal salts, including MgCl
Male albino rats, 8 weeks old, were administered (by gavage) Al
3.
The reproductive and developmental toxicity of aluminum is unclear, based on two separate studies reported by a particular investigator. Pregnant Wistar rats were administered 0, 192, 384, or 768 mg Al(OH)
4.
5.
Male Syrian golden hamsters received 2 mg MgO, aluminum oxide (Al
6.
Aluminum metabolism is compound-dependent, but is generally very low. Approximately 0.01% of aluminum hydroxide is absorbed when administered via the oral route. Consequently, the majority is excreted in the feces, and the remainder is excreted in the urine. Distribution of aluminum compounds is not well understood, due to the levels that occur naturally in and outside the body. Aluminum that is absorbed is generally sequestered in bone tissue, and gradually accumulates over time.
7.
1.
ii.
2.
No cumulative effects from a common mechanism of toxicity is expected to result from the use of aluminum-magnesium hydroxy carbonate in pesticide formulations.
Based on the information available, the petitioner believes that there is no expectation that the U.S. population, including infants and children, will be at increased risk from potential exposure to residues of aluminum-magnesium hydroxy carbonate. It is insoluble except in strong acids, and the components used to manufacture the finished inert ingredient have been individually evaluated and granted exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance at 40 CFR 180.910.
No international tolerances are known to exist for residues of aluminum-magnesium hydroxy carbonate.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has granted an experimental use permit (EUP) to the following pesticide applicant. An EUP permits use of a pesticide for experimental or research purposes only in accordance with the limitations in the permit.
Sharlene R. Matten, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 605-0514; e-mail address:
This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this action, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
EPA has issued the following EUP:
7 U.S.C. 136c.
Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory) to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSC, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN) or an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from March 28, 2005 to April 4, 2005, consists of the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.
Comments identified by the docket identification (ID) number OPPT-2005-0024 and the specific PMN number or TME number, must be received on or before May 20, 2005.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7408M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address:
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the premanufacture notices addressed in the action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number and specific PMN number or TME number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the technical person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action and the specific PMN number you are commenting on in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish
This status report identifies the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. If you are interested in information that is not included in the following tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.
In Table I of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: the EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.
In Table II of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the Notices of Commencement to manufacture received:
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Premanufacturer notices.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may obtain copies of agreements by contacting the Commission's Office of Agreements at 202-523-5793 or via email at tradeanalysis@fmc.gov. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
An application has been submitted for the Board's approval of the organization of a corporation to do business under section 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (“Edge Corporation”) 12 U.S.C. Sec. 611
The application listed below is available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Any comment on an application that requests a hearing must include a statement of why a written presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identify specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, and summarize the evidence that would be presented at a hearing.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding this application must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 19, 2005.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 14, 2005.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 13, 2005.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 14, 2005.
Section 30.13 of the Department of Health and Human Services' claims collection regulations (45 CFR part 30) provides that the Secretary shall charge an annual rate of interest as fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury after taking into consideration private consumer rates of interest prevailing on the date that HHS becomes entitled to recovery. The rate generally cannot be lower than the Department of Treasury's current value of funds rate or the applicable rate determined from the “Schedule of Certified Interest Rates with Range of Maturities.” This rate may be revised quarterly by the Secretary of the Treasury and shall be published quarterly by the Department of Health and Human Services in the
The Secretary of the Treasury has certified a rate of 12% for the quarter ended March 31, 2005. This interest rate will remain in effect until such time as the Secretary of the Treasury notifies HHS of any change.
This program is authorized under Sections 301 and 317 of the Public Health Service Act, (42 U.S.C. 241 and 247b), as amended.
This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus areas of Environmental Health, Occupational Safety and Health, and Respiratory Diseases.
Epidemiological surveillance is: “the ongoing systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of health data essential to the planning, implementation, and evaluation of public health practice, closely integrated with the timely dissemination of these data to those who need to know. The final link in the surveillance chain is the application of these data to prevention and control. A surveillance system includes a functional capacity for data collection, analysis, and dissemination linked to public health programs.” Refer to citation in Attachment I, “The Public Health Surveillance of Asthma,” for more information. (All attachments will be posted with this program announcement on the CDC Web site.)
Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with the following performance goal for the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH): Reduce the number of deaths, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, school or work days missed, and limitations on activity due to asthma.
This announcement is only for non-research activities supported by CDC. If research is proposed, the application will not be reviewed. For the definition of research, please see the CDC Web site at the following Internet address:
• Enhance the existing asthma surveillance system to include (at a minimum) asthma hospitalizations, morbidity (measures from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) or equivalent), mortality, and work-related asthma. Conduct analysis of and interpret surveillance data; and disseminate these data through reports to local, state, and federal partners and agencies.
• Implement a defined subset of interventions described in the State Asthma Plan.
• Develop and implement an evaluation plan that measures the effectiveness of your program as a whole, as well as each intervention. Systematically document lessons learned.
• Maintain existing, and expand, as appropriate, statewide coalition and partnership activities; include a workgroup to address work-related asthma, if one does not exist; and evaluate effectiveness of collaboration.
• Maintain a strong commitment within the state to support continued efforts of the asthma program.
• Participate in CDC convened meetings and periodic conference calls for grantees to share experiences, data, and materials.
In a cooperative agreement, CDC staff is substantially involved in the program activities, above and beyond routine grant monitoring. CDC Activities for this program are as follows:
• Provide consultation and guidance to awardees to enhance and expand existing asthma surveillance activities, including data collection methods and data analysis.
• Collaborate with awardees on analysis of asthma data, interpretation
• Provide technical and scientific assistance and consultation on program development, implementation of the State Asthma Plan, intervention activities, and operational issues.
• Serve as a facilitator for communication between states to share expertise regarding various topics, such as the expansion and development of partnerships, implementation of the State Asthma Plan, and surveillance activities.
• Collaborate on the development of an appropriate evaluation plan that measures the effectiveness of the program as a whole and each intervention. Review and provide feedback on evaluation plans, and link awardees to additional expertise from CDC or its contractors.
• Plan and implement conferences and meetings to provide a forum through which awardees can increase their knowledge and skills, learn from each other, share resources, and work collaboratively to address issues related to reducing the burden of asthma.
Throughout the project period, CDC's commitment to continuation of awards will be conditioned on the availability of funds, and evidence of satisfactory progress by the recipient (as documented in required reports), and the determination that federal funding is in the best interest of the Federal Government.
Entities eligible to receive this funding are those states currently or previously funded under CDC Program Announcement (PA) 01106, “Addressing Asthma from a Public Health Perspective, Part A Planning”. Those states currently funded under Part A Enhanced or Part B Implementation are excluded.
Eligible applicants are the states of Hawaii, Indiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Washington.
These states may designate their Bona Fide Agents to submit applications. A Bona Fide Agent is an agency/organization identified by the state as eligible to submit an application under the state eligibility in lieu of a state application. If you are applying as a bona fide agent of a state government, you must provide a letter from the state government as documentation of your status. Place this documentation behind the first page of your application form. Only one application from each state may be submitted.
During the initial phase of Addressing Asthma from a Public Health Perspective (PA 01106 Part A Planning), states were required to complete a planning process that entailed developing an asthma surveillance system, establishing partnerships, and collaboratively writing a State Asthma Plan. Successfully completing this process is a prerequisite for states to move into the next phase, Part A Enhanced, where they will begin implementing a limited number of interventions from their state asthma plan. Only those states originally selected via a competitive award process for Part A Planning, and showing evidence of satisfactory progress in achieving Part A objectives, will be eligible.
Matching funds are not required for this program.
If you request a funding amount greater than the ceiling of the award range, your application will be considered non-responsive, and will not be entered into the review process. You will be notified that your application did not meet the submission requirements.
As previously stated, eligible applicants are those entities currently or previously funded by CDC Program Announcement 01106 “Addressing Asthma from a Public Health Perspective, Part A Planning.” States currently funded for Part A Enhanced or Part B Implementation are excluded. Eligible states are Hawaii, Indiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Washington.
Applicants must document eligibility with the following:
1. Submit a copy of the final, approved, comprehensive State Asthma Plan. Approval can be documented with a letter from the State's Health or Medical Director
2. Have an operational surveillance system for asthma. This may be documented through submission of the most recent, comprehensive published surveillance report that describes asthma within the state, including, if available, a report on asthma in the Medicaid population and for enrollees of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
Title 2 of the United States Code Section 1611 states that an organization described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant, or loan.
To apply for this funding opportunity, use application form PHS 5161-1.
CDC strongly encourages you to submit your application electronically by utilizing the forms and instructions posted for this announcement at
Application forms and instructions are available on the CDC Web site, at the following Internet address:
If you do not have access to the Internet, or if you have difficulty accessing the forms on-line, you may contact the CDC Procurement and
• Maximum number of pages: 45. If your narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first pages, which are within the page limit, will be reviewed. Budget Justification, State Asthma Plan, and asthma burden reports will not count against the narrative page limit.
• Font size: 12 point unreduced
• Spacing: Double-spaced; single-spaced tables in the narrative are acceptable.
• Paper size: 8.5 by 11 inches
• Page margin size: One inch
• Printed only on one side of page
• Held together only by rubber bands or metal clips; not bound in any other way.
• Written in plain language, avoid jargon.
Your narrative should address activities to be conducted over the entire project period, and must include the following items in the order listed:
Describe what is known about the asthma burden in the state and efforts to systematically address the problem. Include a description of populations at increased risk of poorly controlled asthma (
Identify existing initiatives, capacity, and infrastructure of the agency within which the asthma programs will occur.
Describe how barriers, identified when developing the State Asthma Plan, were addressed.
Describe the current operational asthma surveillance system within the state. Include a description of each data set that contains asthma specific items, and that is currently available to, and used by, the asthma program. Discuss the limitations of each data set, and specify the most recent year of data available for analysis. At a minimum, the surveillance system should include measures to track asthma morbidity (asthma prevalence measures from the BRFSS or equivalent), asthma mortality, work-related asthma, and asthma hospitalizations. Medicaid and SCHIP data should be discussed, if available.
Provide a surveillance plan containing the following information:
• Future plans for the data that are currently available to the asthma program (
• Additional data the program will obtain and methods for obtaining it.
• Plans for identifying specific populations at risk for poorly controlled asthma (e.g., gender, age groups, racial/ethnic groups, socio-economic groups, or by geographic area).
• How the state will use existing and new data to develop or enhance an ongoing surveillance system.
• How the surveillance data will be used to support policy, program development, implementation, and evaluation activities.
Describe the methods that will be used to analyze, interpret, and disseminate surveillance data through published reports to local, state, and federal partners and agencies.
In addition to cross-sectional analysis, include in the surveillance plan a discussion of how the asthma surveillance system will be used to monitor trends over time.
Applicants funded by this announcement will be expected to use the BRFSS optional ten question adult asthma history module, the BRFSS optional six-question child selection module and the BRFSS optional two question child prevalence module within the first year of the project period, as well as in subsequent years. Applicants should plan to fund their state BRFSS for the ten adult questions and the two child prevalence questions. Since the six questions in the child selection module will be used by other programs, use of this module should be coordinated with those programs, and costs for this module should be shared with those other programs, if possible.
A letter of support from the BRFSS coordinator, which acknowledges the intent to use these modules, must be included in the application. A letter of support from other programs using the child selection module must be included in the application, and should specify intent to share costs.
In place of the ten-question adult asthma history module, the applicant can choose to use the BRFSS Asthma Call-Back Survey. This asthma-only call-back survey will provide extensive additional information on asthma. It will be available to all states for data collection year 2006, with funding provided through the BRFSS funding mechanism. The state asthma program will still need to fund the use of the six question child selection module and the two question child prevalence module to identify children with asthma for the call-back survey. Adults with asthma are identified by the BRFSS core questions. If this call-back survey is used in place of the adult history module, a letter of support from the BRFSS coordinator, which acknowledges agreement with the intent to use the asthma call-back survey, must be included in the application.
If the state asthma program has another method (such as the State and Local Area Integrated Telephone Survey—National Survey of Children's Health) to acquire the same or similar information as that acquired from BRFSS, applicant should provide a detailed justification and description of alternate information and methodology.
Submit copies of the most recent, comprehensive, published surveillance report that describes asthma within the state, including data of all available types (mortality, prevalence, hospitalization, emergency department visits, Medicaid and SCHIP enrollee data, and BRFSS adult history and child prevalence data). The report should include an analysis of the most recent year of data available from each data source mentioned above.
For more information, refer to the following citations in Attachment 1:
• “Updated Guidelines for Evaluating Surveillance Systems, Recommendations from the Guidelines Working Group”
• “Surveillance of Work-Related Asthma in Selected U.S. States Using Surveillance Guidelines for State Health Departments—California, Massachusetts, Michigan and New Jersey, 1993-1995”
• “The Role of States in a Nationwide Comprehensive Surveillance System for Work-related Diseases, Injuries and Hazards”
• “Minimum and Comprehensive State-Based Activities in Occupational Safety and Health”
• “American Thoracic Society Statement: Occupational Contribution to the Burden of Airway Disease”
For more information on the BRFSS Asthma Call-Back Survey, see Attachment II.
Submit a copy of the final, approved, comprehensive State Asthma Plan. Approval can be documented with a letter from the State's Health or Medical Director
Describe the collaborative process by which the comprehensive State Asthma Plan was developed. Describe how the plan addresses all persons with asthma regardless of age, race/ethnicity (including Native Americans), gender, or geographic locale, and includes key environments in which persons with asthma spend significant time (
Include information about the agencies and organizations that have participated in the planning process and describe their roles and responsibilities, and how they will be involved in implementing interventions.
Describe how data collected in the asthma surveillance system is used to identify priority areas and guide the development of program goals and objectives.
Describe a subset of interventions from the State Asthma Plan to be implemented with these grant funds. Also, briefly explain the remaining interventions in the State Asthma Plan that will not be conducted under this announcement due to limited funding.
Note that a statewide approach is encouraged. If focusing on one segment of the population, explain and justify the rationale for this approach.
Proposed activities to meet the plan's objectives may include, but are not limited to, efforts to:
• Expand surveillance for asthma.
• Improve provider compliance with the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program's (NAEPP) “Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma” (refer to citation in Attachment I for more information).
• Improve the skills of patients and families affected by asthma to manage the disease.
• Review legislation and policies impacting people with asthma.
• Identify environmental factors that contribute to asthma prevalence and morbidity, and reduce or eliminate exposure to these factors.
• Facilitate communication between those implementing and those affected by planned activities.
Explain how the State Asthma Plan will evolve and change based on analysis of surveillance data, evaluation of interventions, and other outside factors that affect the state support for asthma.
Describe experiences with partnerships requiring extensive collaboration to address asthma, both within and outside the agency. Specifically, define the approach to be used to establish or further develop these relationships.
Document partnerships with the clinical community; local health agencies; physician organizations; community health centers; local, state, or regional asthma or respiratory health organizations (
Describe how the collaboration:
• Established leadership.
• Developed consensus regarding goals.
• Identified roles and responsibilities.
• Developed procedures and patterns for communication.
• Sustained the participation of members over time.
Provide letters of commitment from each specific organization, including a statement of how they do, or intend to, collaborate, as well as their expertise and capacity to carry out assigned responsibilities.
Describe how the partners who developed the State Asthma Plan will continue to work together to implement and monitor the intervention strategies and modify the plan over time. Expand partnership activities as appropriate.
Provide specific, realistic, measurable, and time-phased objectives for each of the interventions to be implemented over the three-year project period using resources of this announcement. If objectives and interventions from the plan are addressed using other resources, explain how they are related. While the overall State Asthma Plan must address all populations, interventions should be prioritized based on surveillance data, focusing on high priority and disparate populations first. Disparate populations include those communities that are experiencing worse than average health, or are medically underserved.
Interventions that change systems and individuals to provide improved disease management or education are preferred. This discussion might include the guidelines that the applicant will use for work-related asthma, such as “Minimum and Comprehensive State-Based Activities in Occupational Safety Health,” and/or “The Role of States in a Nationwide Comprehensive Surveillance System for Work-related Diseases, Injuries and Hazards.” Refer to citations in Attachment I for more information.
Include an assessment of existing and needed resources to implement these strategies.
Describe how implementation activities from the State Asthma Plan were selected by members of the statewide partnership group, and how they determined that these particular objectives and strategies would be addressed first. Demonstrate the extent to which the intervention plan is supported in the community by the inclusion of letters of support from key members of the community. Letters should describe their willingness to work together to implement and monitor the intervention strategies, and modify the plan over time.
Demonstrate the scientific basis for proposed interventions. If proposed interventions include case management programs, assure that patients enrolled are those with moderate to severe persistent asthma, and are receiving care consistent with the NAEPP “Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma.” Refer to citation in Attachment I for more information.
Provide the methodology and specific measures for monitoring progress in meeting all objectives related to implementation of activities in the asthma plan.
Provide measures for evaluating process, impact, and outcomes for each goal and objective. For more information, refer to the citation in Attachment I, “Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health,” or other evaluation resources on the CDC Web site at
Provide specific goals, objectives, and activities that describe what the state intends to accomplish by the end of the three-year project period. These goals, objectives and activities should be measurable, realistic, related to
Document how progress made toward meeting the objectives will be evaluated. Provide measures for evaluating process, impact, and outcome for each goal and objective. For more information, refer to the citation in Attachment I, “Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health,” or other evaluation resources on the CDC Web site at
In addition, describe how lessons learned will be systematically gathered, documented, and included as an integral part of the evaluation process.
Demonstrate the applicant's organizational commitment to the asthma program by describing how the state as a whole will focus its efforts on asthma. Provide a plan to maintain a strong commitment within the state to support continued efforts of the asthma program.
Describe the organizational location of the proposed staff, their relation to the state asthma contact (the position currently responsible for contact with CDC on asthma issues), and the support within the organizational structure for the activities defined for the project staff. Attach an organizational chart for the unit where asthma activities will be located and, at a minimum, the next two levels above it.
Describe the qualifications and roles of trained public health professionals to serve as: at least the equivalent of one full-time asthma coordinator to manage the planning process and conduct other programmatic activities; at least the equivalent of one full-time epidemiologist to develop and implement surveillance activities for the asthma project; and a supervisor (paid with grant funds or in-kind contributions) who will assure support for the project staff. Other program positions may also be proposed. Attach an official position description, qualifications and curricula vitae for all proposed staff positions.
For each position, describe the primary roles and responsibilities for the project staff over the three-year project period. Also, include specific staff activities that will contribute to meeting each objective. Describe the level of involvement of the principal investigator.
Provide a plan to expedite filling of the staff position(s) within the first budget year and assure that they have been, or will be, approved by the applicant's personnel system. Include a letter of support from the state guaranteeing hiring of personnel and support for the asthma program. Also, describe positions in the asthma program that are currently filled, but will not be funded by resources under this cooperative agreement.
Assure that at least two key project staff will attend and participate in the conferences or grantee meetings convened by CDC, and their willingness to share innovations, information, data, and materials. This should be reflected in the budget.
Include a detailed first-year budget with narrative justifications, as well as annual budget projections for years two and three (budget and justification will not be counted toward the narrative page limit). The applicant should describe the program purpose for each budget item. For each contract contained within the budget, provide: (a) The name(s) of the contractor(s); (b) method of selection; (c) period of performance; (d) description of activities; (e) method of accountability; and (f) an itemized budget with narrative justifications.
The budget should include travel funds for at least two project staff to attend a yearly conference or grantee meeting convened by CDC.
If applicable, list other funds outside this cooperative agreement (
Additional information may be included in the application appendices. The appendices will not be counted toward the narrative page limit. This additional information includes: Curriculum Vitaes, Resumes, Organizational Charts, Position Descriptions, Letters of Support, the State Asthma Plan and supporting documentation, Surveillance Reports, etc.
You are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the Federal government. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access
For more information, see the CDC Web site at:
Additional requirements that may require you to submit additional documentation with your application are listed in section “VI.2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements.”
You may submit your application electronically at
If you submit your application electronically with Grants.gov, your application will be electronically time/date stamped, which will serve as receipt of submission. You will receive an e-mail notice of receipt when CDC receives the application.
If you submit your application by the United States Postal Service or commercial delivery service, you must ensure that the carrier will be able to guarantee delivery of the application by the closing date and time. If CDC receives your application after closing due to: (1) Carrier error, when the carrier accepted the package with a guarantee for delivery by the closing date and time, or (2) significant weather delays or natural disasters, you will be given the opportunity to submit documentation of the carrier's guarantee. If the documentation verifies a carrier problem, CDC will consider the application as having been received by the deadline.
If you submit a hard copy application, CDC will not notify you upon receipt of your submission. If you have a question about the receipt of your LOI or application, first contact your courier. If
This announcement is the definitive guide on application content, submission address, and deadline. It supersedes information provided in the application instructions. If your submission does not meet the deadline above, it will not be eligible for review, and will be discarded. You will be notified that you did not meet the submission requirements.
Your application is subject to Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, as governed by Executive Order (EO) 12372. This order sets up a system for state and local governmental review of proposed federal assistance applications. You should contact your state single point of contact (SPOC) as early as possible to alert the SPOC to prospective applications, and to receive instructions on your state's process. Click on the following link to get the current SPOC list:
Restrictions, which must be taken into account while writing your budget, are as follows:
• Funds may not be used to conduct research. Surveillance and evaluation activities that are for the purposes of monitoring program performance are not considered research. However, any identifiable information collected must be kept confidential.
• Cooperative agreement funds may be used to support costs that are directly related to the program activities, and are consistent with the scope of the cooperative agreement.
• Awards will allow reimbursement of pre-award costs.
• Funds awarded under this program announcement may not be used for screening or registry activities.
• Federal funds awarded under this program announcement may not be used to supplant state or local funds.
• Grant funds may be used to leverage asthma program development in the state, along with resources from other collaborative agencies and organizations.
If you are requesting indirect costs in your budget, you must include a copy of your indirect cost rate agreement.
If your indirect cost rate is a provisional rate, the agreement must be less than 12 months old.
Guidance for completing your budget can be found on the CDC Web site, at the following Internet address:
CDC recommends that you submit your application to Grants.gov early enough to resolve any unanticipated difficulties prior to deadline. You may also submit a back-up paper submission of your application. Any such paper submission must be received in accordance with the requirements for timely submission detailed in Section IV.3. of the grant announcement. The paper submission must be clearly marked: “BACK-UP FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION.”
The paper submission must conform to all requirements for electronic submissions. If both electronic and back-up paper submissions are received by the deadline, the electronic version will be considered the official submission.
It is strongly recommended that you submit your grant application using Microsoft Office products (
Submit the original and two hard copies of your application by mail or delivery service to: Technical Information Management-PA # 05044, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341.
Applicants are required to provide measures of effectiveness that will demonstrate the accomplishment of the various identified objectives of the cooperative agreement. Measures of effectiveness must relate to the performance goals stated in the “Purpose” section of this program announcement. Measures must be objective and quantitative, and must measure the intended outcome. These measures of effectiveness must be submitted with the application and will be an element of evaluation.
Your application will be evaluated by the extent to which you demonstrate evidence for the following criteria. Criteria are listed according to their point value; you do not have to address them in this order. Points in parentheses reflect the number of possible points for that section. The total number of points for the entire application is 100.
Does applicant identify goals, objectives, and activities that:
• Are consistent with surveillance findings and the Awardee Activities described in Section I of this Program Announcement?
• Are specific, measurable, and realistic?
• Reflect activities in years one, two, and three of the project period?
Are the activities likely to achieve objectives, and are the objectives likely to contribute to accomplishment of identified goals?
Is the time-line for accomplishing proposed goals, objectives, and activities reasonable?
Are measures for monitoring and evaluating the process, impact, and outcome of each goal and objective specific and appropriate?
Is the plan to systematically gather and document lessons learned incorporated into the program evaluation process?
Does the applicant demonstrate an operational surveillance system for asthma as evidenced by a description of existing data sources, the timeliness of the data available and any limitations? Does the plan use appropriate measures to track the following over time:
• Asthma hospitalizations?
• Asthma morbidity (measures from the BRFSS or equivalent)?
• Asthma mortality?
• Work-related asthma?
Are Medicaid and SCHIP data included, if available?
Does the applicant explain how the state will enhance an on-going surveillance system by describing:
• Future plans for analyzing the data currently available?
• Additional data the state will obtain and the methods for obtaining it?
• Plans for the identification of demographic groups at high risk for poor asthma health outcomes?
• How the existing surveillance system will be enhanced by additional data sets and/or additional analyses of existing data?
• How the data will be used to support policy and program development, implementation and evaluation?
Are surveillance data analyses, interpretation and dissemination methods described and are they appropriate? Is the utility of existing data for time trends analysis discussed and is it reasonable?
Does the plan clearly state applicant's intent, within the first year of the project period and in subsequent years, to implement:
• The BRFSS optional six-question child selection module?
• The BRFSS optional two-question child asthma module?
• The BRFSS optional ten question adult module; or
The BRFSS Asthma call-back survey?
Are letters of support from the BRFSS coordinator and other programs using the child selection module (if any) included? If another method (other than BRFSS) will be used, or if the applicant is unable to implement the recommended BRFSS modules, is a detailed and reasonable justification provided?
Are the attached surveillance reports comprehensive and timely (data from the most recently available year are used)? Is the burden of asthma within the state fully described, including: mortality; BRFSS prevalence; BRFSS adult history and child prevalence data; and, if available, hospitalization, emergency department, Medicaid and SCHIP enrollee data?
Does the surveillance report clearly identify segments of the population, such as specific age groups, ethnic/racial groups, socio-economic groups, or those residing in particular geographic regions, at disparate risk for asthma and asthma outcomes in each data source?
Is the State Asthma Plan comprehensive? Has it been approved by the state and key partners? If not already approved, has the applicant provided assurance that the State Asthma Plan will be completed within one month of the first budget year?
Does the plan address all persons with asthma, regardless of gender, age, race/ethnicity, or geographic location? Are key environments in which persons with asthma spend significant time (
Are the number and type of agencies and organizations that participated in developing the State Asthma Plan appropriate? Are partner's roles and responsibilities fully described and reasonable?
Does the applicant describe the collaboration's progress towards:
• Establishing leadership?
• Developing a consensus regarding goals?
• Identifying roles and responsibilities through a negotiated process?
• Developing routine and consistent patterns of communications?
• Sustaining the participation of members over time?
Will collaborative relationships be used after the plan is in place and the state begins to implement selected interventions?
Are a subset of the interventions to be implemented from the State Asthma Plan with grant funds described? Do proposed activities to meet the plan's objectives include, at a minimum, efforts to:
• Expand surveillance for asthma?
• Improve provider compliance with the NAEPP “Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma?
• Improve the skills of patients and families affected by asthma to manage the disease?
• Review legislation and policies impacting people with asthma?
• Identify environmental factors that contribute to asthma prevalence and morbidity, and reduce or eliminate exposure to these factors?
• Facilitate communication between those implementing and those affected by planned activities?
Was asthma data collected by the surveillance system used to identify priority areas and guide the development of program goals and objectives? Are future plans to do this described?
Does applicant describe how the State Asthma Plan will evolve over time, and the process by which changes will be made?
Does applicant demonstrate previous successful experiences collaborating with internal and external partners to address asthma?
Do collaborating organizations and agencies represent a wide variety of appropriate partners in the clinical community; local health agencies; physician organizations; community health centers; local, state or regional asthma or respiratory health organizations (such as the American Lung Association); local or state education authorities; and groups or organizations that serve populations experiencing a disproportionate burden of asthma? Are representatives from state governmental agencies (
Does the applicant describe satisfactory progress by the collaboration around:
• Establishing leadership?
• Developing a consensus regarding goals?
• Identifying roles and responsibilities through a negotiated process?
• Developing routine and consistent procedures and patterns of communications?
• Sustaining the participation of members over time?
Does applicant describe how progress is monitored?
Do letters of commitment from key organizations demonstrate their willingness, expertise, and specific capacity to carry out assigned responsibilities?
Does applicant realistically describe how partners who developed the State Asthma Plan will continue to work together to monitor the intervention strategies over time?
How likely is it that the plan for evaluating the effectiveness of collaborations will be implemented, and that measures to assess effectiveness will be reasonable and identify areas for improvement?
Does the state demonstrate a high level of commitment and organizational support for the asthma program? Are organizational charts included, showing where the asthma program is located?
Are roles of proposed staff members adequately defined and appropriate for carrying out stated responsibilities? Is the proposed level of involvement of the principal investigator adequate?
Does the staffing plan include at least the equivalent of one full-time asthma coordinator, at least the equivalent of one full-time epidemiologist, and a supervisor?
Do job descriptions, qualifications, and curricula vitae indicate that each proposed staff member has the credentials, knowledge, training, and experience to perform assigned duties?
Is the plan to expedite filling of the staff position(s) and assure that they will be approved by the applicant's personnel system, realistic?
Does the applicant commit to having at least two key project staff attend CDC conferences and meetings, to share innovations, information, data, and materials?
Does the applicant present specific, realistic, measurable and time-phased objectives for each intervention proposed, along with appropriate measures to evaluate process, impact and outcomes?
Do proposed interventions focus on high priority and disparate populations, with priorities based on surveillance data?
Are interventions focused on bringing about change at both the systems level and the individual level to provide improved disease management and education?
Is the intervention plan supported in the community, as demonstrated by the inclusion of letters of support from key members of the community?
Does the applicant demonstrate a scientific basis for each proposed intervention?
Does the applicant demonstrate the availability of sufficient resources to implement the proposed subset of interventions?
Are the methods and measures for monitoring progress towards meeting intervention goals and objectives appropriate?
Does the applicant provide a comprehensive description of what is known about the asthma burden in the state, including all ages, race/ethnic groups, and geographic areas?
Does the applicant fully identify existing initiatives, capacity, and infrastructure of the state within which the asthma programs will occur?
Were barriers identified when developing the State Asthma Plan appropriately addressed?
Is the state's commitment to addressing asthma demonstrated by accomplishments to date and understanding of the problem?
The budget is comprehensive and includes details for year one, and projections for years two and three, of the project period.
The budget contains justifications that are consistent with stated goals, objectives, activities, and the intended use of cooperative agreement funds.
The budget is reasonable and includes funds for at least two project staff to attend a yearly conference or grantee meeting convened by CDC.
The extent to which the applicant will reduce the number of deaths, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, school or work days missed, and limitations on activity due to asthma in the state.
Applications will be reviewed for completeness by the Procurement and Grants Office (PGO) staff, and for responsiveness by National Center of Environmental Health (NCEH). Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not advance through the review process. Applicants will be notified that their application did not meet submission requirements.
An objective review panel will evaluate your application according to the criteria listed in the “V.1. Criteria” section above. All members of the panel will be CDC employees from outside of the funding center (NCEH).
In addition, the following factors may affect the funding decision: (1) Geographic distribution; and (2) racial and ethnic populations with a disproportionate asthma burden. CDC will provide justification for any decision to fund out of rank order.
August 31, 2005.
Successful applicants will receive a Notice of Award (NoA) from the CDC Procurement and Grants Office. The NoA shall be the only binding, authorizing document between the recipient and CDC. The NoA will be signed by an authorized Grants Management Officer, and mailed to the recipient fiscal officer identified in the application.
Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review by mail.
For more information on the Code of Federal Regulations, see the National Archives and Records Administration at the following Internet address:
The following additional requirements apply to this project:
• AR-7 Executive Order 12372
• AR-8 Public Health System Reporting Requirements
• AR-10 Smoke-Free Workplace Requirements
• AR-11 Healthy People 2010
• AR-12 Lobbying Restrictions
• AR-21 Small, Minority, and Women-Owned Business
Additional information on these requirements can be found on the CDC Web site at the following Internet address:
An additional Certifications form from the PHS5161-1 applications needs to be included in your Grants.gov electronic submission only. Refer to
You must provide CDC with an original, plus two hard copies of the following reports:
1. Interim progress report, no less than 90 days before the end of the budget period. The progress report will serve as your non-competing continuation application, and must contain the following elements:
a. Current Budget Period Activities Objectives.
b. Current Budget Period Financial Progress.
c. New Budget Period Program Proposed Activity Objectives.
d. Detailed Line-Item Budget and Justification.
e. Additional Requested Information.
f. Measures of Effectiveness.
2. Financial status report and annual progress report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period.
3. Final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
These reports must be sent to the Grants Management Officer listed in the “Agency Contacts” section of this announcement.
For general questions about this announcement, contact: Technical Information Management Section, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-2700.
For program technical assistance, contact: Michele Mercier, Project
For financial, grants management, or budget assistance, contact: Gary Teague, Grants Management Specialist, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-1981, E-mail:
This and other CDC funding opportunity announcements can be found on the CDC Web site, Internet address:
For additional reference materials, please see Attachments I and II.
The National Asthma Survey (NAS) is a comprehensive state/city level detailed asthma survey. It is administered by phone and includes respondents of all ages. Previously the NAS was linked to the National Immunization Survey (NIS) through the State and Local Area Integrated Telephone Survey (SLAITS) mechanism. SLAITS is a function of the National Center for Health Statistics. A full questionnaire for that survey can be viewed on the SLAITS Web site.
The initial NAS field test occurred in 2002 in Alabama, California, Illinois and Texas. This first field test did not achieve an adequate response rate level. Consequently additional field tests were implemented to determine whether procedural changes could improve the response rate. In 2003, the NAS was conducted as a field test in the same four states and also in a national sample.
There were four arms in the 2003 field test. The national sample and the state sample were the two main arms. The national sample obtains demographic information about respondents who do not have asthma in order to estimate prevalence rates. The four-state sample only solicited information from households that had a member with asthma and, consequently, prevalence rates cannot be determined. Results from comparing the four state results with the first field test will determine if obtaining prevalence rates resulted in a significantly lower response rate. Comparing the national sample with the first field test in the four states will determine if the four selected states were particularly difficult with respect to response rates as was suggested from the results from other surveys.
Each of the two main arms was also divided into a NIS-connected sample and a sample independent of the NIS procedures. Comparisons between these two secondary arms within each primary arm will determine if restrictions related to the NIS survey procedures were detrimental to the NAS response rate. In addition, several other modifications were made to simplify the selection of a single respondent from the household members.
During 2004 the data obtained were weighted and scrutinized to determine the best combination of methodological changes to ensure that quality data result from further implementation of the National Asthma Survey.
In 2005 the NAS will be implemented as a call-back survey in conjunction with the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) in three test states (Michigan, Minnesota and Oregon). The child selection module and the child prevalence module must be conducted at the time of the BRFSS interview. Adults and children who are identified with lifetime asthma will be called back approximately 2 weeks after the initial BRFSS telephone interview. At the time of the call-back the NAS interview will be conducted. Draft questionnaires can be obtained by contacting the Air Pollution and Respiratory Health Branch (404-498-1000). Prevalence figures for adults in all BRFSS areas (50 states, DC and 3 territories) can be obtained from the core BRFSS survey. However, the child selection module and child prevalence modules are needed for state level child prevalence estimates from BRFSS.
In 2006 funding to implement the BRFSS asthma call-back survey will be provided to BRFSS states, DC, or territories who successfully apply for that funding in conjunction with their BRFSS funding. Asthma program staff must work jointly with their state's BRFSS program coordinator when submitting request for asthma call-back funding to the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP).
Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with one (or more) of the following performance goal(s) for the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH): To reduce the number of asthma hospitalizations, deaths, and emergency department visits.
This announcement is only for non-research activities supported by CDC. If research is proposed, the application will not be reviewed. For the definition of research, please see the CDC Web site at the following Internet address:
• Review and disseminate currently available asthma educational materials to reach applicant organization members and other community members on a national, local, and community level. The materials must be proven effective, and in accordance with sound asthma management practices and appropriate National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) Guidelines.
• In cases where appropriate, asthma educational materials do not exist for populations which are underserved and a need for such materials is identified, applicants should adapt or modify existing educational materials which have been scientifically proven effective, through appropriate, published research results. Resulting materials must be accurate, user-friendly, culturally and linguistically appropriate, and be used to educate the applicant organization's members and other members of the community, or any targeted group for which a gap in currently available educational materials is identified. Literacy level and appropriate demographics of your target audience must be considered.
• Conduct interactive community outreach education at the local level, aimed at your members and community members affected by asthma.
Present a plan by which you will measure the effectiveness of your proposed activities.
Collaborate with partners, including CDC and appropriate asthma education organizations, to ensure that best practices are used in the adaptation/modification and dissemination of asthma education materials for your target audiences.
In a cooperative agreement, CDC staff is substantially involved in the program activities, above and beyond routine grant monitoring.
CDC Activities for this program are as follows:
• Collaborate with recipients in the modification and adaptation of existing educational materials which have been scientifically proven effective through appropriate published research results. Ensure coordination of this activity among all recipients and facilitate information sharing.
• Review recipients' identification of currently available educational materials and gap analysis; and ensure coordination of this activity among all recipients, including information sharing and elimination of duplication of efforts among recipients.
• Facilitate and coordinate meetings to bring together national groups as collaborators, where appropriate.
• Collaborate with recipients on the development of an appropriate evaluation plan which measures the effectiveness of recipient activities involved in each step indicated, and approve the plan.
• Coordinate recipient activities with asthma education partners to ensure duplication of activities and efforts does not occur.
Throughout the project period, CDC's commitment to continuation of awards will be conditioned on the availability of funds, evidence of satisfactory progress by the recipient (as documented in required reports), and the determination that continued funding is in the best interest of the Federal Government.
Applications may be submitted by public and private nonprofit organizations such as:
• Public nonprofit organizations.
• Private nonprofit organizations.
• Community-based organizations.
• Faith-based organizations.
Assistance will be provided only to applicants that are well-established, national, non-profit organizations with experience in the development and dissemination of asthma educational materials; and whose membership includes families of adults or children with asthma, or others affected by the disease.
The justification for the foregoing limitation is the need for the applicant to have immediate access to a national audience, and existing expertise in the modification and dissemination of asthma educational materials to community members impacted by asthma, to insure they may access the greatest number of people in the shortest period of time.
To be eligible, applicants must:
1. Demonstrate that your organization's mission is explicitly committed to improving the lives of families impacted by asthma, or other similar lung diseases, through the
2. Demonstrate that your organization is non-profit and recognized as tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This may be demonstrated through inclusion of your Internal Revenue Service determination letter.
3. Demonstrate that your organization has the capacity for and experience in providing educational services to families with asthma on a nationwide basis. This may be demonstrated through letters of support.
4. Demonstrate that your organization has the capacity for and experience providing educational services to families or a national network of local organizations. This may be demonstrated through a letter from your organization's leadership, which describes your national network/membership (number of members and national coverage of the membership).
Matching funds are not required for this program.
If you request a funding amount greater than the ceiling of the award range, your application will be considered non-responsive, and will not be entered into the review process. You will be notified that your application did not meet the submission requirements.
• Late applications will be considered non-responsive. See section “IV.3. Submission Dates and Times” for more information on deadlines.
•
To apply for this funding opportunity use application form PHS 5161-1.
CDC strongly encourages you to submit your application electronically by utilizing the forms and instructions posted for this announcement at
Application forms and instructions are available on the CDC Web site, at the following Internet address:
If you do not have access to the Internet, or if you have difficulty accessing the forms on-line, you may contact the CDC Procurement and Grants Office Technical Information Management Section (PGO-TIM) staff at: 770-488-2700. Application forms can be mailed to you.
• Maximum number of pages: One.
• Font size: 12-point unreduced.
• Single spaced.
• Paper size: 8.5 by 11 inches.
• Page margin size: One inch.
• Printed only on one side of page.
• Written in plain language, avoid jargon.
Your LOI must contain the following information:
• Name and address of organization.
• Name, address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of the organization's primary contact for writing and submitting the application.
• A brief summary of the proposed project.
• Maximum number of pages: 25 pages (not including attachments for purposes of establishing eligibility). If your narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first pages which are within the page limit will be reviewed.
• Font size: 12 point unreduced.
• Double spaced.
• Paper size: 8.5 by 11 inches.
• Page margin size: One inch.
• Printed only on one side of page.
• Pages shall be numbered sequentially, including your narrative and any appendices.
• Held together only by rubber bands or metal clips; not bound in any other way.
Your narrative should address activities to be conducted over the entire project period, and must include the following items in the order listed:
• History and Experience.
• Proposed Program.
• Evaluation Plan.
• Facilities, Staff and Resources.
• Budget and Justification.
• Documentation of eligibility, as follows:
a. Submit your charter, articles of incorporation, or other governing documents to demonstrate your organization's mission is explicitly committed to improving the lives of families impacted by asthma, or other similar lung diseases, through the provision of timely, accurate, and useful information about the disease and how it can be controlled.
b. Submit your Internal Revenue Service determination letter which will demonstrate your organization is non-profit and recognized as tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
c. Submit letters of support, which will demonstrate that your organization has the capacity for and experience in providing educational services to families with asthma on a nationwide basis.
d. Submit a letter from your organization's leadership, which describes your national network/membership (number of members and national coverage of the membership).
The budget justification and documentation to establish eligibility will NOT be counted in the stated page limit.
Additional information may be included in the application appendices. The appendices will not be counted toward the narrative page limit. This additional information includes:
• Curriculum Vitae (of key staff positions).
• Letters of Support.
You are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the Federal government. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access
For more information, see the CDC Web site at:
If your application form does not have a DUNS number field, please write your DUNS number at the top of the first page of your application, and/or include your DUNS number in your application cover letter.
Additional requirements that may require you to submit additional
CDC requests that you send a LOI if you intend to apply for this program. Although the LOI is not required, not binding, and does not enter into the review of your subsequent application, the LOI will be used to gauge the level of interest in this program, and to allow CDC to plan the application review.
You may submit your application electronically at
If you submit your application electronically with Grants.gov, your application will be electronically time/date stamped, which will serve as receipt of submission. You will receive an e-mail notice of receipt when CDC receives the application.
If you submit your application by the United States Postal Service or commercial delivery service, you must ensure that the carrier will be able to guarantee delivery by the closing date and time. If CDC receives your submission after closing due to: (1) Carrier error, when the carrier accepted the package with a guarantee for delivery by the closing date and time, or (2) significant weather delays or natural disasters, you will be given the opportunity to submit documentation of the carriers guarantee. If the documentation verifies a carrier problem, CDC will consider the submission as having been received by the deadline.
If you submit a hard copy application, CDC will not notify you upon receipt of your submission. If you have a question about the receipt of your LOI or application, first contact your courier. If you still have a question, contact the PGO-TIM staff at: 770-488-2700. Before calling, please wait two to three days after the submission deadline. This will allow time for submissions to be processed and logged.
This announcement is the definitive guide on LOI and application content, submission address, and deadline. It supersedes information provided in the application instructions. If your submission does not meet the deadline above, it will not be eligible for review, and will be discarded. You will be notified that you did not meet the submission requirements.
Your application is subject to Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, as governed by Executive Order (EO) 12372. This order sets up a system for state and local governmental review of proposed federal assistance applications. You should contact your state single point of contact (SPOC) as early as possible to alert the SPOC to prospective applications, and to receive instructions on your state's process. Click on the following link to get the current SPOC list:
Restrictions, which must be taken into account while writing your budget, are as follows:
• Funds may not be used for research.
• Reimbursement of pre-award costs is not allowed.
If you are requesting indirect costs in your budget, you must include a copy of your federally approved indirect cost rate agreement. If your indirect cost rate is a provisional rate, the agreement should be less than 12 months of age.
Guidance for completing your budget can be found on the CDC Web site, at the following Internet address:
CDC recommends that you submit your application to Grants.gov early enough to resolve any unanticipated difficulties prior to the deadline. You may also submit a back-up paper submission of your application. Any such paper submission must be received in accordance with the requirements for timely submission detailed in Section IV.3. of the grant announcement. The paper submission must be clearly marked: “BACK-UP FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION.”
The paper submission must conform to all requirements for non-electronic submissions. If both electronic and back-up paper submissions are received by the deadline, the electronic version will be considered the official submission.
It is strongly recommended that you submit your grant application using Microsoft Office products (
Submit the original and two hard copies of your application by mail or express delivery service to: Technical Information Management—RFA 05072, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341.
Applicants are required to provide measures of effectiveness that will demonstrate the accomplishment of the various identified objectives of the cooperative agreement. Measures of effectiveness must relate to the performance goals stated in the “Purpose” section of this announcement. Measures must be objective and quantitative, and must measure the intended outcome. These measures of effectiveness must be submitted with the application and will be an element of evaluation.
Your application will be evaluated against the following criteria:
The extent to which the proposal clearly demonstrates the applicant's solid reputation and history of serving families affected by asthma. The proposal should demonstrate that the applicant has a broad range of knowledge and expertise in the field of asthma, as well as significant years of experience in the dissemination and application of this knowledge and expertise. The proposal should also demonstrate that the applicant's membership is comprised of families affected by asthma, and that this membership is national in scope.
The extent to which the proposal clearly demonstrates the applicant's understanding of the issues surrounding asthma and asthma education activities, and addresses gaps in the current state of asthma educational materials and activities. The proposal should demonstrate that the applicant has a clear understanding of the gaps and needs, and has a clear plan of activities, which will address these gaps. The applicant must demonstrate that their educational materials are in adherence to the NAEPP guidelines and, when these guidelines are updated, that materials are appropriately updated.
The extent to which the applicant describes a realistic plan to accurately measure the effectiveness of their activities, and a plan to implement the quality improvements indicated by this method over the life of the project. This may include a discussion of efforts undertaken to measure the effectiveness of the applicant's existing outreach and educational activities.
The extent to which the applicant can provide adequate facilities, staff, collaborators, and resources to accomplish the proposed goal(s) and objectives during the project period. The extent to which the applicant demonstrates staff and collaborator availability, expertise, previous experience, and capacity to perform the undertaking successfully.
The extent to which the proposal demonstrates appropriateness and justification of the requested budget relative to the activities proposed.
Applications will be reviewed for completeness by the Procurement and Grants Office (PGO) staff, and for responsiveness by the NCEH. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not advance through the review process. Applicants will be notified that their application did not meet submission requirements.
An objective review panel will evaluate complete and responsive applications according to the criteria listed in the “V.1. Criteria” section above. The objective review panel participants will be CDC employees, all of whom work outside the NCEH.
Applications will be funded in order by score and rank determined by the review panel.
Anticipated award date is August 31, 2005.
Successful applicants will receive a Notice of Award (NoA) from the CDC Procurement and Grants Office. The NoA shall be the only binding, authorizing document between the recipient and CDC. The NoA will be signed by an authorized Grants Management Officer, and mailed to the recipient fiscal officer identified in the application.
Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review by mail.
45 CFR Part 74 and Part 92. For more information on the Code of Federal Regulations, see the National Archives and Records Administration at the following Internet address:
The following additional requirements apply to this project:
• AR-7 Executive Order 12372.
• AR-8 Public Health System Reporting Requirements.
• AR-10 Smoke-Free Workplace Requirements.
• AR-11 Healthy People 2010.
• AR-12 Lobbying Restrictions.
• AR-14 Accounting System Requirements.
• AR-23 States and Faith-Based Organizations.
• AR-24 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Requirements.
Additional information on these requirements can be found on the CDC Web site at the following Internet address:
An additional Certifications form from the PHS5161-1 application needs to be included in your Grants.gov electronic submission only. Refer to
You must provide CDC with an original, plus two hard copies of the following reports:
1. Interim progress report, due no less than 90 days before the end of the budget period. The progress report will serve as your non-competing continuation application, and must contain the following elements:
a. Current Budget Period Activities Objectives.
b. Current Budget Period Financial Progress.
c. New Budget Period Program Proposed Activity Objectives.
d. Budget.
e. Measures of Effectiveness.
f. Additional Requested Information.
2. Annual progress report, due 30 days after the end of the budget period. The annual progress report must contain the following elements:
a. Current Budget Period Activities Objectives.
b. Lessons Learned.
3. Financial status report and annual progress report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period.
4. Final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
These reports must be mailed to the Grants Management or Contract Specialist listed in the “Agency Contacts” section of this announcement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this announcement.
For general questions, contact: Technical Information Management Section, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341; telephone: 770-488-2700.
For program technical assistance, contact: Sheri Disler, Project Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, MS E-17, Atlanta, GA 30303; telephone: 404-498-1018, e-mail:
For financial, grants management, or budget assistance, contact: Edna Green, Grants Management Specialist, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341; telephone: 770-488-2743, e-mail:
This and other CDC funding opportunity announcements can be found on the CDC Web site, Internet address:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 20, 2005.
OMB is still experiencing significant delays in the regular mail, including first class and express mail, and messenger deliveries are not being accepted. To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Fumie Yokota, Desk Officer for FDA, FAX: 202-395-6974.
Peggy Robbins, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The authority for FDA to collect the information derives from the FDA Commissioner's authority, as specified in section 903(d)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)).
To help consumers reduce their risk of disease and improve their health by making sound dietary decisions, in the
FDA requests comments on the usefulness of such statements (e.g., “Calcium-rich foods, such as yogurt, may reduce the risk of osteoporosis”) versus “food-specific” claims that do not specify the food component (e.g., “Yogurt may reduce the risk of osteoporosis”). How consumers respond to the two kinds of statements can suggest how the explicit mention of a food component in a claim affects dietary choices which, in turn, informs any policy initiative(s) that FDA may undertake in the future to provide information to consumers to help them make informed food choices.
The purpose of the proposed collection of information is to enhance FDA's understanding of consumer responses to health claims and inform any policy initiative(s) that FDA may undertake in the future. The information will be used to assess what differences, if any, the inclusion of the food component in a health claim makes in the following areas: (1) Consumer recognition of the food component underlying a diet-disease relationship; (2) consumer recognition that, in addition to the food product that carries the claim, there are other foods from which they can obtain the food component; and (3) consumer perceptions of, and attitudes toward, the food.
The proposed collection of information is a controlled randomized experimental study. The study will use a 6 x 3 within-subjects design (6 front-panel health claims/health messages x 3 diet-disease relationships), with participants randomly assigned to experimental conditions. In total, the study will examine 18 experimental conditions (6 front-panel health claim/health message conditions x 3 diet-disease relationships), each condition is a combination of a front-panel condition and a diet-disease relationship.
The term “health message” refers to nutrient content claims, structure/function claims, and dietary guidance statements. Prior knowledge of foods, components of food (e.g., nutrients), and risks will be measured; such prior knowledge will serve as covariates in the analysis. There are two independent variables, type of front-panel health claim/health message and type of diet-disease relationship. Health claim/health message conditions include the following items:
1. A “food-specific” health claim, e.g., “Yogurt may reduce the risk of osteoporosis;”
2. A “nutrient-specific” health claim, e.g., “Calcium-rich foods, such as yogurt, may reduce the risk of osteoporosis;”
3. A nutrient content claim, e.g., “a good source of calcium;”
4. A structure/function claim, e.g., “Helps promote bone health;”
5. A dietary guidance statement, e.g., “Dairy products may reduce the risk of osteoporosis;” and
6. No health claim/health message.
Health messages other than the two health claims are included solely for methodological purposes. The “no health claim/health message” condition is included to examine what consumers already know about nutrients or food sources, even when neither of them is mentioned on a label. Health messages are frequently found on food product packages and provide consumers various amounts of information about
The study proposes to include three examples of diet-disease relationships: (1) Yogurt-calcium-osteoporosis, (2) orange juice-potassium-hypertension, and (3) bread-“lysoton”-diabetes. Lysoton is a fictitious substance; this fictitious relationship is included for test purposes only. The study includes these particular relationships solely for the purpose of covering varying levels of consumer familiarity with the foods, nutrients, and risks and to enhance the usefulness of the study findings. We emphasize that the choice to use these particular diet-disease relationships in this study does not in any way suggest or imply any new or impending change in regulatory actions regarding the use of these health claims/health messages or the scientific basis of these relationships.
The planned universe of this experimental study is members of an Internet consumer panel, all of them are adults (18 years or older). The study will use a two-phase data collection methodology. Phase 1 is an Internet interview to ask about prior knowledge. Phase 2 is another Internet interview of the same individuals to elicit responses to experimental conditions. The two interviews will be administered at least a week apart. An understanding of the influences of prior knowledge on consumer responses will help reveal factors associated with differential responses and extend the usefulness of the findings to similar messages about other diet-disease relationships. It is necessary to collect prior knowledge information before and separately from collecting responses to health claims and health messages to minimize demand and confounding effects between prior knowledge and message responses.
Target sample size of the study is 1,060 participants who complete both interviews. Participants will be randomly assigned to the same 2 of the 18 experimental conditions in both interviews. Each of the two conditions includes a different diet-disease relationship and a different front-panel condition. Presentation order of the conditions will be counter-balanced within the sample. All front panels will be full-color and patterned after existing labels in the market. Both the front and back panels of a label will be available during the interview. Back panel information (e.g., nutrient contents) will be kept constant between front-panel conditions for a given food product.
The following key information is to be collected:
1. Responses to the experimental conditions such as perceived health benefits, substances related to the benefits, other food sources that may offer the same benefits;
2. Prior knowledge of diet-disease relationships;
3. Food purchase and consumption experience;
4. Interest in food and food purchase decisions;
5. Use of dietary supplements, special diets, and health status; and
6. Demographic characteristics.
In the
One comment supported consumer research to enhance health message communication as a means to help consumers make sound dietary decisions. The comment suggested that to improve the quality of the study and analysis the agency should lay out the objective(s) and analysis plan of the study, consider asking about how helpful a health message is in helping consumers make food choices, consider asking respondents to read the health message on the stimulus, and consider increasing the sample size.
The agency agrees that objective, analysis plan, and pertinent measures are essential for ensuring the quality of the study. As suggested in the 60-day notice, the study is designed primarily to help understand how well food-specific health claims communicate information compared to nutrient-specific health claims, and secondarily to help understand how well health messages that include the nutrient communicate information compared to other health messages that do not include the nutrient. The agency has developed preliminary dependent measures and decision rules for analysis. In addition, the agency has added questions on the helpfulness of the messages and used a technique to ensure that participants have noticed the health message on the stimulus.
The agency is not persuaded that the sample size needs to be increased. The agency has carefully considered the sample size required for the study and consulted the relevant research. The agency has determined that the planned sample size, 1,060 in total and approximately 360 per health claim condition (120 per diet-disease relationship x 3 diet-disease relationships), is sufficient to detect meaningful main effects of repeated-measures binary responses, such as whether the responsible nutrient is recognized, and to detect interaction effects between diet-disease relationships and health message conditions.
The other comment also recognizes the importance of consumer research. It asserts, however, that the proposed study should be abandoned for two reasons. First, by testing generic and hypothetical products, brands, and marketing contexts, the agency is misconstruing its legal authority under the applicable First Amendment standards (i.e., the comment states that FDA needs to justify regulatory restrictions on the expression of any particular health claim by demonstrating alleged harms and showing that the restrictions would alleviate the harm). The comment asserts that, under such requirements, FDA's obligations are case-specific, i.e., targeted at a particular marketer with respect to a particular health claim expression. Second, the comment states that the impression consumers take away from a particular health claim cannot be evaluated in a scientifically valid or reliable manner through academic research that attempts to isolate the meaning of health claims from its context. The comment further asserts that even if valid findings are possible, they would have no validity or meaning under real world conditions. Hence, the comment argues that claims need to be tested on real product labels and in a real purchasing context.
FDA disagrees with this comment. The agency notes that the research approach mentioned in the comment, testing specific claims on specific products in specific contexts, would be appropriate if the agency's only mission were to protect consumers from harms caused by deceptive product labeling, and if the objective of the study were to
In addition to protecting consumer health from harms caused by deceptive product labeling, however, the agency's mission also calls for advancing consumer health by providing information about food products to help consumers improve their health and decrease the risk of contracting diseases by making sound dietary choices. The study was proposed with this mission in mind and, therefore, neither intends, nor is designed to demonstrate any harm attributable to any specific health messages on any specific products. As stated in the 60-day notice, the study will hold back-panel information (e.g., nutrient contents) constant between front-panel conditions for a given food product. Furthermore, the nutrient contents of test products will meet current regulatory standards for various health messages. Therefore, by design, the study approach precludes any attempt to examine any potential harm as purported in the comment. Instead, the study approach is commonly used and accepted by researchers for the purpose of investigating communication efficacy of label stimuli.
Health messages such as health claims are intended for use by all qualifying marketers and in all qualifying products, rather than certain specific marketers or products. Hence, under the agency's regulatory regime, the study does not intend to examine specific claims on specific products in specific contexts, as individual marketers would do. Rather, the study will attempt to illustrate possible consumer responses to different types of health messages that may be found on packages of various food products. Finally, the agency notes that, despite the discordance between experimental contexts and the real world, experimental findings are widely recognized and accepted as the best available evidence to demonstrate communication efficacy.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Prior to the administration of the interview, the agency plans to conduct pretests of the final questionnaires to minimize potential problems in administration of the interviews. The pretests, each lasting 30 minutes (0.5 hours), will be conducted in up to 3 waves, each with 20 participants. A contractor will send 2,000 e-mail invitations to recruit participants. We assume 50 percent of those contacted will agree to participate in the interviews (1,060 respondents). The interviews are expected to last 10 minutes (0.17 hours) and 15 minutes (0.25 hours) for phase 1 and phase 2, respectively.
The planned sample size per condition is approximately 120. The agency expects small main effects. Therefore, the planned sample size should yield a power of 0.8 at the 0.05 significance level.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).
Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 20, 2005.
OMB is still experiencing significant delays in the regular mail, including first class and express mail, and messenger deliveries are not being accepted. To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Fumie Yokota, Desk Officer for FDA, FAX 202-395-6974.
Denver Presley, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 4B-41, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1472.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
FDA has the responsibility under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), for approval of new animal drugs. Section 512(j) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360b(j)), authorizes FDA to issue regulations relating to the investigational use of new animal drugs. The regulations setting forth the conditions for investigational use of new animal drugs have been codified at part 511 (21 CFR part 511). A sponsor
Investigational new animal drugs are used primarily by drug industry firms, academic institutions, and the government. Investigators may include individuals from these entities as well as research firms and members of the medical profession. Respondents to this collection of information are the persons who use new animal drugs investigationally.
In the
FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as follows:
The estimate of the time required for reporting requirements, record preparation and maintenance for this collection of information is based on agency communication with industry. Additional information needed to make a final calculation of the total burden hours (i.e. the number of respondents, the number of recordkeepers, the number of INAD applications received, etc.) is derived from agency records.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 20, 2005.
OMB is still experiencing significant delays in the regular mail, including first class and express mail, and messenger deliveries are not being accepted. To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written
Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), FDA is required to ensure the marketing of only those biological products that are safe and effective. FDA must, therefore, be informed of all adverse experiences occasioned by the use of licensed biological products. FDA issued the adverse experience reporting (AER) requirements in part 600 (21 CFR part 600) to enable FDA to take actions necessary for the protection of the public health in response to reports of adverse experiences related to licensed biological products. The primary purpose of FDA's AER system is to flag potentially serious safety problems with licensed biological products, focusing especially on newly licensed products. Although premarket testing discloses a general safety profile of a biological product's comparatively common adverse effects, the larger and more diverse patient populations exposed to the licensed biological product provides the opportunity to collect information on rare, latent, and long-term effects. Reports are obtained from a variety of sources, including patients, physicians, foreign regulatory agencies, and clinical investigators. Information derived from the AER system contributes directly to increased public health protection because such information enables FDA to recommend important changes to the product's labeling (such as adding a new warning), to initiate removal of a biological product from the market when necessary, and to assure the manufacturer has taken adequate corrective action, if necessary.
The regulation in § 600.80(c)(1) requires the licensed manufacturer to report each adverse experience that is both serious and unexpected, whether foreign or domestic, as soon as possible but in no case later than 15 calendar days of initial receipt of the information by the licensed manufacturer and to submit any followup reports within 15 calendar days of receipt of new information, or as requested by FDA.
Section 600.80(e) requires licensed manufacturers to submit a 15-day alert report obtained from a postmarketing clinical study only if there is a reasonable possibility that the product caused the adverse experience. Section 600.80(c)(2) requires the licensed manufacturer to report each adverse experience not reported under § 600.80(c)(1)(i) at quarterly intervals, for 3 years from the date of issuance of the biologics license, and then at annual intervals. The majority of the periodic reports will be submitted annually since a large percentage of the current licensed biological products have been licensed longer than 3 years. Section 600.80(i) requires the licensed manufacturer to maintain, for a period of 10 years, records of all adverse experiences known to the licensed manufacturer, including raw data and any correspondence relating to the adverse experiences. Section 600.81 requires the licensed manufacturer to submit information about the quantity of the product distributed under the biologics license, including the quantity distributed to distributors at an interval of every 6 months. The semiannual distribution report informs FDA of the quantity, certain lot numbers, labeled date of expiration, the number of doses, and date of release. Under § 600.90, a licensed manufacturer may submit a waiver request that applies to the licensed manufacturer under § § 600.80 and 600.81. A waiver request submitted under § 600.90 must be submitted with supporting documentation.
Manufacturers of biological products for human use must keep records of each step in the manufacture and distribution of products including the recalls of the product. The recordkeeping requirements serve preventative and remedial purposes. These requirements establish accountability and traceability in the manufacture and distribution of products, and enable FDA to perform meaningful inspections.
Section 600.12 requires that all records of each step in the manufacture and distribution of a product be made and retained for no less than 5 years after the records of manufacture have been completed or 6 months after the latest expiration date for the individual product, whichever represents a later date. In addition, records of sterilization of equipment and supplies, animal necropsy records, and records in cases of divided manufacturing of a product are required to be maintained. Section 600.12(b)(2) requires complete records to be maintained pertaining to the recall from distribution of any product.
Respondents to this collection of information are manufacturers of biological products. In table 1 of this document, the number of respondents is based on the estimated number of manufacturers that submitted the required information to FDA in fiscal year (FY) 2002 and 2003. Based on information obtained from the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research's (CBER's) database system, there were 90 licensed biologics manufacturers. This number excludes those manufacturers who produce blood and blood components and in-vitro diagnostic licensed products because these products are specifically exempt from the regulations under § 600.80(k). The total annual responses are based on the average estimated number of submissions received annually by FDA for FY 2002 and 2003. However, not all manufacturers have submissions in a given year and some may have multiple submissions. There were an estimated 15,126 15-day alert reports, 6,550 periodic reports, and 323 lot distribution reports submitted to FDA. The number of 15-day alert reports for post-marketing studies under § 600.80(e) is included in the total number of 15-day alert reports. FDA received an average of five waiver requests for FY 2002 and 2003 under § 600.90, all of which were approved for exemption of the AER requirements. The hours per response are based on FDA's experience. The burden hours required to complete the MedWatch Form for § 600.80(c)(1), (e), and (f) are reported under OMB control number 0910-0291.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by June 20, 2005.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to:
Peggy Robbins, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Executive Order 12862 directs agencies to identify the customers who are, or should be, served by the agency, and to survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want.
This proposed survey will collect data about the information customers want
FDA will administer this survey to individuals who use the Internet to look for information about medical devices. The survey will consist of three components: A screening tool of 5,000 to identify appropriate respondents, an online survey of 500 customers, and a telephone followup interview with 50 customers.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public meeting on the therapeutic equivalence of levothyroxine sodium drug products. This will be a workshop involving FDA staff and representatives of three medical societies: The American Thyroid Association (ATA), the Endocrine Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE). The purpose of the public meeting is to discuss FDA's regulatory standards and methodological approaches for determining therapeutic equivalence between levothyroxine sodium drug products. The agency is seeking comments and input from interested constituencies, including patient advocacy and education groups, and pharmaceutical sponsors.
The public meeting will be held on May 23, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Submit written or electronic comments by July 23, 2005.
The public meeting will be held at the National Transportation Safety Board Boardroom and Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20594, 202-314-6421. The center can be reached by Metro using the L'Enfant Plaza station on the green, yellow, blue, and orange lines. For directions, see
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Rose Cunningham, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-006), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-443-5595, e-mail:
In the
The NDAs submitted for levothyroxine sodium products included literature references supporting the safety and effectiveness of levothyroxine sodium for the proposed indications and full manufacturing information supporting the purity, potency, and stability of the products. Manufacturers were required to target 100 percent of the labeled levothyroxine sodium content at release. (Some manufacturers had historically added a “stability overage” to give their products a longer shelf-life.) In addition, bioavailability and in vitro dissolution studies were required to establish that the products were readily and consistently absorbed across the range of dosage strengths proposed to be marketed. To assist manufacturers, in December 2000, FDA published a guidance on the conduct of in vivo pharmacokinetic and bioavailability studies and in vitro dissolution tests on these products.
FDA has approved seven NDAs for levothyroxine sodium products. None were originally rated as interchangeable with any other. Since their approval, FDA has approved supplemental NDAs from some sponsors demonstrating the therapeutic equivalence (interchangeability) of their products to other approved levothyroxine sodium products. The agency has also approved one levothyroxine sodium product under an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA).
ATA, the Endocrine Society, and AACE have questioned FDA's regulatory and scientific standards for determination of therapeutic equivalence of levothyroxine sodium products, particularly FDA's bioequivalence methodology.
The public meeting is intended to review FDA's regulatory and scientific approach to levothyroxine sodium products, including manufacturing standards, in vitro dissolution studies, and bioavailability/bioequivalence methods.
The public meeting will also review clinical, scientific, and methodological issues relevant to the possible use of serum thyrotropin concentration as a pharmacodynamic measure of levothyroxine sodium bioequivalence.
The public meeting will include representatives from FDA and from the three medical societies. A series of brief presentations will frame the issues under consideration, followed by panel discussions involving speakers and moderators, with questions and comments from the audience. Other interested constituencies (e.g., patient advocacy and education groups, pharmaceutical sponsors, general public) will have an opportunity to provide input during the question and comment periods.
No registration is required to attend the meeting. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact (see
The agenda for public meeting will be available on FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Web site at
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Copies of the transcript may be requested in writing from the Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12A-16, Rockville, MD 20857, approximately 20 working days after the meeting at a cost of 10 cents per page or on compact disc at a cost of $14.25 each. You may also examine the transcript at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Assessing Donor Suitability and Blood and Blood Product Safety in Cases of Known or Suspected West Nile Virus Infection,” dated April 2005. The draft guidance document provides revisions to the previously published recommendations for assessing donor suitability and product safety when donors are diagnosed with or suspected of West Nile Virus (WNV) infections based on symptoms and laboratory tests. This draft guidance proposes revised deferral periods for such donors, and updates information on product retrieval and quarantine. When finalized, this guidance will supersede “Guidance for Industry: Revised Recommendations for the Assessment of Donor Suitability and Blood and Blood Product Safety in Cases of Known or Suspected West Nile Virus Infection,” dated May 2003.
Submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by May 20, 2005, to ensure their adequate consideration in preparation of the final guidance. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling the CBER Voice Information System at 1-800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800. See the
Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Brenda R. Friend, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-6210.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Guidance for Industry: Assessing Donor Suitability and Blood and Blood Product Safety in Cases of Known or Suspected West Nile Virus Infection,” dated April 2005. FDA developed the information in this draft guidance after consulting with other Public Health Service agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services.
This draft guidance:
• Applies to donors of blood and blood components intended for transfusion;
• Applies to donors of blood components intended for use in further manufacturing into injectable products or noninjectable products, including recovered plasma, Source Leukocytes, and Source Plasma;
• Provides updated scientific data;
• Removes the current recommendation for donor deferral based upon a reported history of headache with fever in the week before donation;
• Proposes new deferral periods for donors who are diagnosed with or suspected of WNV infections;
• Describes the use of the investigational nucleic acid test (NAT) for WNV in deferring reactive donors; and
• Provides information about the use of individual donor NAT testing to re-enter reactive donors if a blood establishment, at its discretion, chooses to reenter such donors.
This draft guidance, when finalized, will supersede “Guidance for Industry: Revised Recommendations for the Assessment of Donor Suitability and Blood and Blood Product Safety in Cases of Known or Suspected West Nile Virus Infection,” dated May 2003.
The draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirement of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This draft guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The information collection provisions in this guidance for 21 CFR 601.12 were approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; 21 CFR 606.170(b) was approved under OMB control number 0910-0116; and 21 CFR 606.171 was approved under OMB control number 0910-0458.
The draft guidance is being distributed for comment purposes only and is not intended for implementation at this time. Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
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 and commercial development are dendrimer based methods for treating cancer. The dendrimer conjugate comprises an effective amount of an anti-tumor agent. A generation 5 DAB, generation 2 polylysine, or generation 6-8 PAMAM dendrimer (
The dendrimer conjugates may include an imaging agent, which permits the lymphatic system to be imaged when selective intra-lymphatic concentration of the dendrimer occurs. Further, when the dendrimer conjugate includes an activatable anti-tumor agent, the method may include selectively applying physical energy to the subject's body to selectively activate the anti-tumor agent in the lymphatic system. The dendrimer conjugate can include gadolinium, wherein the gadolinium acts as a contrast agent to image the lymphatic system.
In a particular example, the dendrimer conjugate includes a gadolinium-imaging agent that is activatable by a neutron beam. Once the gadolinium containing dendrimer conjugate is concentrated in the lymphatic system, detecting selective concentration of the dendrimer conjugate in the lymphatic system images the lymphatic system. The presence of tumor in lymph nodes can also be detected using this imaging technique. A neutron beam is then selectively applied to the imaged lymphatic system to selectively activate the anti-tumor agent at target areas in the lymphatic system for the treatment of metastatic tumor. In this example, the target area may be a lymph node, such as a sentinel lymph node, or a lymphatic vessel. The target area, when imaged, may show evidence of primary or metastatic tumor.
In addition to licensing, the technology is available for further development through collaborative research opportunities with the inventors.
The present invention relates to a universal antigen delivery platform based on rotavirus NSP2 fusion proteins and methods for the use of such fusion proteins to enhance an immune response to an antigen. This technology
Relevant publications: P. Schuck
In addition to licensing, the technology is available for further development through collaborative research opportunities with the inventors.
Available for licensing and commercial development are compounds that are useful as inhibitors of protein-tyrosine phosphatases (PTPs), and in particular, as inhibitors of the
The bacterium
Available for licensing and commercial development are selections of expressed genes that function to characterize neuroblastoma in patients, and methods of using the same for targeting the therapy of neuroblastoma and for predicting the outcome of the therapy. The invention also relates to the use of supervised pattern recognition methods, such as artificial neural networks using high dimensional data, such as gene expression profiling data, for the prognosis of patients with neuroblastoma to predict their outcome.
Currently, patients with neuroblastoma are classified into risk groups (
The technology is further described in: Jun S. Wei, Braden T. Greer, Frank Westermann, Seth M. Steinberg, Chang-Gue Son, Qing-Rong Chen, Craig C. Whiteford, Sven Bilke, Alexei L. Krasnoselsky, Nicola Cenacchi, Daniel Catchpoole, Frank Berthold, Manfred Schwab, and Javed Khan, “Prediction of Clinical Outcome Using Gene Expression Profiling and Artificial Neural Networks for Patients with Neuroblastoma”, Cancer Research 64, 6883-6891, October 1, 2004.
Available for licensing and commercial development is a new method for labeling nucleic acid molecules for use in hybridization reactions, and kits employing these methods. The fluorescence-labeled cDNA probes for DNA microarray studies only use about
Furthermore, the invention also relates to a novel method to amplify RNA derived from single cells using T3-random 9mers and a new lysing method, which allow probe-labeling capabilities that are approaching the single cell level.
DNA Microarray technology has become one of the most important tools for high throughput studies in medical research with applications in the areas of gene discovery, gene expression and mapping. The suitability of DNA Microarray for profiling diseases and for identifying disease-related genes has also been also well documented. Most studies using DNA arrays involve preparation of fluorescent-labeled cDNA from the mRNA of the studied organism. The cDNA probes are then allowed to hybridize to the DNA fragments printed on the array, and the array is scanned and the data analyzed. Good results depend on a number of factors including high quality arrays and well-labeled probes. In order to achieve adequate sensitivity and reproducibility, probes have had to be prepared from rather large amounts of RNA using other methods.
The technology is further described in Xiang CC, Kozhich OA, Chen M, Inman JM, Phan QN, Chen Y, Brownstein MJ. “Amine-modified random primers to label probes for DNA microarrays.” Nat Biotechnol. 2002 Jul; 20(7): 738-42.
Available for licensing and commercial development are methods of labeling nucleic acid probes for the detection of nucleic acids molecules, for instance producing labeled probes for detecting hybridization signals, such as those from a microarray. This disclosure provides new methods for amplifying nucleic acid templates from very small samples, even as small as one cell. Nucleic acid templates amplified by the disclosed methods can be used in combination with any method that requires amplified nucleic acid. In addition, the amplified nucleic acid can be labeled with any labeling method, such as the labeling method disclosed herein. Also provided are methods for preparing modified nucleotide probes, from either amplified or unamplified nucleic acid templates. In one embodiment, the method includes the incorporation of modified nucleic acids into random primers that are used to initiate polymerization of a probe molecule. In another embodiment, the random primers include nucleotides that are modified by amine groups (such as aminoallyl moieties). In yet other embodiments, the modified nucleotides comprise a detectable molecule, such as a fluorophore or hapten. The disclosure also provides an improved method of extracting RNA from fixed cells or tissue sections for subsequent use as RNA templates or for generating labeled probe. In one specific embodiment, the cells are fixed with Dithio-bis (Succinimidyl Propionate) (DSP). Also disclosed are kits for producing a labeled hybridization probe, using a modified random primer, or for probing an array, and kits for amplifying nucleic acid templates from very small samples.
The technology is further described in: Xiang CC, Chen M, Kozhich OA, Phan QN, Inman JM, Chen Y, Brownstein MJ. “Probe generation directly from small numbers of cells for DNA microarray studies.” Biotechniques. 2003 Feb;34(2):386-8, 390, 392-3; Xiang CC, Chen M, Ma L, Phan QN, Inman JM, Kozhich OA, Brownstein MJ. “A new strategy to amplify degraded RNA from small tissue samples for microarray studies.” Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 May 1; 31(9):e53; Xiang CC, Brownstein MJ. “Preparing fluorescent probes for microarray studies.” Methods Mol Biol. 2003; 224:55-60; and Xiang CC, Mezey E, Chen M, Key S, Ma L, Brownstein MJ. “Using DSP, a reversible cross-linker, to fix tissue sections for immunostaining, microdissection and expression profiling” Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 Dec 16; 32(22): e185.
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.
Dendritic cells represent a heterogeneous population of antigen-presenting cells that initiate primary immune responses by activating naive T cells and subsequently the effector cells of the adaptive immune system. Accordingly, dendritic cells play an
The present invention relates to compositions and methods for inhibiting the activation of dendritic cells. The methods are useful for therapies related to conditions mediated by the activation of dendritic cells with an effective amount of a composition comprising triptolide or analog or derivative thereof, thereby inhibiting activation of dendritic cells.
In addition to licensing, the technology is available for further development through collaborative research opportunities with the inventors.
Of great utility in toxicology and DNA repair research are knockout mice with cell lines enabling one to evaluate generations of gene mutations as a direct function of base excision repair. Of particular importance are lambda-LIZ transgenes. Likewise, wild-type and beta-pol null cell lines are equally important. While there exist cell lines carrying the lambda-LIZ transgene, only wild-type cells are currently available. And while wild-type and beta-pol null cell lines exist, none carry the lambda-LIZ transgene.
The present cell line incorporates both of these beneficial properties. These cell lines were created by crossing a transgenic mouse with multiple copies of the lambda-LIZ transgene with a mouse with but a single copy of the DNA polymerase beta. Rebreeding offspring produced cells of both wild type and beta-pol null genotype. The utility of these cells stem from the deficiency in base excision repair as a result of the null mutation in the DNA polymerase beta gene.
Also available for licensing are cell lines created using: Ung KO mice + lambda-LIZ transgene; Aag KO mice + lambda-LIZ transgene; PMS-2 KO mice + lambda-LIZ transgene; Pol-beta/Aag double KO mice + lambda-LIZ transgene; Pol-beta/PMS-2 double KO mice + lambda-LIZ transgene; Aag/PMS-2 double KO mice + lambda-LIZ transgene.
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 invasions 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 meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel, April 5, 2005, 2 p.m. to April 5, 2005, 5 p.m. National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
This meeting will be held on April 26, 2005 instead of April 5, as previously advertised. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentabale material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other resonable 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
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 interetsed 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 would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, February 7, 2005, 11 a.m. to February 7, 2005, 12:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
The meeting has been changed to April 25, 2005 from 4 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. The location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Aging.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, 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 would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days proir to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasions 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 a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDDK.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee At, 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 invasions of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, April 27, 2005, 1 p.m. to April 27, 2005, 2 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held April 28, 2005. The meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, April 6, 2005, 1:30 p.m. to April 6 2005, 2:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held April 28, 2005, from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, DHHS.
Notice.
This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive license worldwide to practice the invention embodied in U.S. Patent No. 6,407,079, entitled “Pharmaceutical compositions containing drugs which are instable or sparingly soluble in water and methods for their preparation,” to Jurox Pty Ltd., having a place of business in Rutherford, Australia. The field of use may be limited to the development of injectable anesthetic formulations containing
Only written comments and/or application for a license, which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before July 19, 2005 will be considered.
Requests for a copy of the patent, inquiries, comments and other materials relating to the contemplated license should be directed to: Pradeep Ghosh, J.D., Ph.D., M.B.A., Technology Licensing Specialist, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; Telephone: (301) 435-5282; Facsimile: (301) 402-0220; e-mail:
This technology relates to pharmaceutical compositions containing drugs that are instable or only sparingly soluble in water, and methods for their preparation. The compositions are characterized by increased water solubility and improved stability.
The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within 90 days from the date of this published Notice, NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Properly filed competing applications for a license filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the contemplated license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection, and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Office of the Assistant Secretary, Border and Transportation Security, DHS.
Notice.
The Departmental Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of Customs and Border Protection and Related Functions (Commercial Operations Advisory Committee or COAC) will meet in open session. This notice announces the date, time, and location for the second meeting of the ninth term, and the expected agenda for its consideration.
The next meeting of the COAC will be held on Thursday, May 5, 2005, 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
The meeting will be held in The Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, Pavillion Room, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229, telephone (202) 344-1440; facsimile (202) 344-1969.
Ms. Monica Frazier, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, telephone (202) 282-8431; facsimile (202) 282-8504.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.1
1. Update on Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) Subcommittee Follow-up Items.
2. Update on Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Organization and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Strategic Plan.
3. Update on Security Subcommittee.
a. Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) Process.
b. Advance Cargo Information.
c. World Customs Organization (WCO) Framework.
4. Update on Creation of Infrastructure Subcommittee.
5. Update on Broker Confidentiality.
6. Update on Achieving Paperless Entry for Apparel and Textiles.
7. Update on International Trade Data Systems (ITDS).
8. Automation Issues.
a. Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) funding and development schedule.
b. Automated Commercial System (ACS) downtime.
9. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Bioterrorism Act.
10. Focused Assessment Program.
11. Committee Administration.
•
•
•
•
•
This meeting is open to the public; however, participation in COAC deliberations is limited to COAC members, Homeland Security and Treasury Department officials, and persons invited to attend the meeting for special presentations. Since seating is limited, all persons attending this meeting should provide notice preferably by 2 p.m. e.s.t. on Thursday, April 28, 2005, to Ms. Monica Frazier, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, telephone (202) 282-8431; facsimile (202) 282-8504.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of meeting.
“The Great Lakes Regional Waterways Management Forum” will hold a meeting to discuss various waterways management issues. Potential agenda items will include navigation, ballast water regulations, Automatic Identification Systems (AIS), waterways management, and discussions about the agenda for the next meeting. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held June 21, 2005 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and June 22, 2005 from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. Comments must be submitted on or before June 17, 2005 to be considered at the meeting.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Coast Guard Moorings, 1055 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44199. Any written comments and materials should be submitted to Commander (map), Ninth Coast Guard District, 1240 E. 9th Street, Room 2069, Cleveland, OH 44199.
LTjg Regan Blomshield (map-1), Ninth Coast Guard District, OH 44199, telephone (216) 902-6050. Persons with disabilities requiring assistance to attend this meeting should contact LTjg Blomshield.
The Great Lakes Waterways Management Forum identifies and resolves waterways management issues that involve the Great Lakes region. The forum meets twice a year to assess the Great Lakes region, assign priorities to areas of concern and identify issues for resolution. The forum membership has identified potential agenda items for this meeting that include: navigation, AIS, ballast water regulations, waterways management, and discussions about the agenda for the next meeting. The specific agenda is still under development. Additional topics of discussion are solicited from the public.
Request OMB emergency approval; Petition for nonimmigrant worker; Form I-129, edition (Rev. 12/10/2001).
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection request utilizing emergency review and clearance in accordance with section 1320.13(a)(1)(ii) and (1)(2)(iii) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The USCIS has determined that it cannot reasonably comply with the normal clearance procedures under this part because normal clearance procedures are reasonably likely to prevent or disrupt the collection of information. Emergency review and approval of this information collection will ensure that the collection may continue.
USCIS is requesting emergency clearance of the December 10, 2001 version of Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker until April 30, 2005. While USCIS has received OMB approval of the changes to the information collection required by the OAA, many members of the public have, in anticipation of the USCIS allocation, already prepared petitions for these new visas using the pre-amended Form I-129. In order to accommodate this segment of the public, USCIS seeks approval of the prior version of the Form I-129 to run concurrent with the new amended version until April 30, 2005. After that date approval of the old I-129 will expire and the new version of Form I-129 will be the only version approved for use.
USCIS is implementing the OAA and allocating the additional H-1B visas through rulemaking in the
All comments and/or questions pertaining to this pending request for emergency approval MUST be directed to OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 725-17th Street, NW., Suite 10235, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Department of Homeland Security Desk Officer. Comments regarding the emergency submission of this information collection may also be submitted via facsimile to (202) 395-6974.
During this review, USCIS invites written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning this information collection. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 30, 2005. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(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 agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
(5) Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information. Additionally, comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time may also be directed to Mr. Richard Sloan, Director, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529.
If additional information is required contact: Stephen Cooper, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Homeland Security, Regional Office Building 3, 7th and D Streets, SW., Washington, DC 20530.
Office of the Secretary—Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Program Office, Interior.
Notice of establishment.
This notice is published in accordance with Section 9(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-463). Following consultation with the General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of the Interior has established the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Advisory Committee. The Committee will provide advice and recommendations on issues related to the Department of the Interior's authorities, responsibilities and implementation of the natural resource damage provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA—42 U.S.C. §§ 9601,
Frank DeLuise, Office of the Secretary, Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Program Manager, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20240, 202-208-4143.
Bureau of Land Management; Interior.
Notice.
This notice implements five decisions from the Gold Belt Travel Management Plan, approved August 18, 2004. The following decisions are effective immediately on certain public lands in El Paso, Fremont, Park, and Teller Counties, Colorado.
(1) A change in the OHV designation for the Penrose Commons area (3,200 acres) from “open” to OHV use to OHV use “limited to designated roads and trails”.
(2) A change in the OHV designation for the Deer Haven area (4,900 acres) from “closed” to OHV use to OHV use “limited to designated roads and trails”.
(3) The closure of approximately 11,000 acres of public lands to recreational target shooting. Licensed hunters in legitimate pursuit of game during the proper season with appropriate firearms, as defined by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, are exempt from this closure.
(4) A supplementary rule limiting motorized vehicle travel for parking, camping, and retrieving game to a maximum of 100 feet from designated roads and trails in the Gold Belt Travel Management Plan area (138,600 acres).
(5) A supplementary rule restricting mountain bikes to designated roads and trails in the Gold Belt Travel Management Plan area (138,600 acres).
The purpose of the change in designation, closure and supplementary rules is to prevent damage to public lands and resources, reduce user conflicts, protect public safety, and reduce vandalism to public and private property. The closure is made under the authority of 43 CFR 8364.1 and the supplementary rules are made under the authority of 43 CFR 8365.1-6.
Effective immediately and remaining in effect unless revised, revoked or amended.
Bureau of Land Management, Royal Gorge Field Office, 3170 East Main Street, Cañon City, Colorado 81212; telephone 719-269-8500.
Roy L. Masinton, Field Manager, or Leah Quesenberry, Outdoor Recreation Planner, at the above address and phone number.
The public lands affected by the change in designation, closure and supplementary rules are identified as follows:
Certain public lands located within the Gold Belt Travel Management Plan area in El Paso, Fremont, Park, and Teller Counties, Colorado
These supplementary rules do not apply to emergency, law enforcement, and Federal or other government vehicles while being used for official or other emergency purposes, or to any other vehicle use that is expressly authorized or otherwise officially approved by BLM. Violation of order and rules is punishable by imprisonment for up to 12 months and/or a fine as defined in 18 U.S.C. 3571. This notice with detailed maps will be posted at the Royal Gorge Field Office.
Pursuant to § 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190 as amended), and as authorized by Pub. L. 108-042, the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, has initiated public scoping for a study of the San Gabriel River surrounding watershed and San Gabriel Mountains so as to evaluate significance of the area's resources and assess the possible suitability and feasibility of the area to be considered for inclusion in the National Park System. Originally the public scoping period was set to conclude on April 19, 2005 (per
Interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are encouraged to provide written comments—to be considered any response must now be postmarked or transmitted no later than
All written responses should be addressed to the National Park Service, Attn: San Gabriel SRS, 1111 Jackson St., Ste. 700, Oakland, CA 94607 (or may be sent electronically in care of
Availability of the pending draft study for review and comment will be announced by local and regional news media, the above listed website, and direct mailing. At this time it is anticipated that the draft study will be released by late 2006 or early 2007 for public review and comment.
Pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and National Park Service (NPS) policy in Director's Order Number 12 (Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision-making), the NPS announces the availability of a FEIS for the Feasibility Study on the Preservation of Civil War Battlefields and Related Historic Sites along the VCT in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The Feasibility Study examines almost 500 sites with a view to how they might best be preserved and linked.
Limited numbers of copies of the FEIS/Feasibility Study are available from Harlan Unrau, National Park Service, Denver Service Center—Planning, P.O. Box 25287, 12795 West Alameda Parkway, Denver, CO 80225-0287, or by calling (303)-969-2254. An electronic copy of the FEIS/Feasibility Study is available on the Internet at
The Feasibility Study identified approximately 500 sites in five states that were associated with the Vicksburg Campaign. The study then evaluated and rated each site according to criteria established by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields (1993); sites were rated as Tier One (Decisive/Major), Tier Two (Formative), and Tier Three (Limited). As of May 2003, 19 Tier One, 26 Tier Two, 131 Tier Three, and 315 associated sites had been identified, for a total of 491 sites included in the VCT Feasibility Study.
The FEIS describes and analyzes the environmental impacts of three alternatives, including a no action alternative, for the future management direction of the VCT Initiative. NPS Preferred Alternative is Alternative C—Comprehensive Preservation. The intent of the proposed action is to link all sites associated with the VCT in a formally designated VCT Initiative. Legislation would be needed to establish the VCT Initiative, modeled after the legislation establishing the Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program.
Emphasis would be placed on protection of all sites associated with the VCT that have been recognized as being nationally significant,
Protection of the Tier One sites would be part of a comprehensive effort that
The VCT Initiative would be established through congressional action with an overall management entity/advisory committee supplemented with working task forces from each State.
The draft Environmental Impact Statement for the VCT was released to the public on April 26, 2004. The public comment period ended June 24, 2004. No substantive comments were received on the draft document; consequently, no changes were made to the alternatives or environmental consequences.
Superintendent, Vicksburg National Military Park, 3201 Clay Street, Vicksburg, MS 39183, (601) 636-0583, or Harlan Unrau, National Park Service, Denver Service Center—Planning, P.O. Box 25287, 12795 W. Alameda Parkway, Denver, CO 80225-0287, (303) 969-2254.
The responsible official for this FEIS is Patricia A. Hooks, Regional Director, Southeast Region, National Park Service, 100 Alabama Street SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a May 3, 2005 initial meeting of the Wekiva River System Advisory Management Commission.
The meeting will be held Tuesday, May 3, 2005 at 7 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Wekiwa Springs State Park, Youth Camp Classroom, 1800 Wekiwa Circle, Apopka, FL 32712. Wekiwa Springs State Park is located off Interstate 4 at exit 49. Take State Road 434 West to Wekiwa Springs Rd. Call (407) 884-2006 or visit
Jamie Fosburgh, Rivers Program Manager, Northeast Region—Boston, 15 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, telephone (617) 223-5191.
The meeting will be open to the public. The agenda will include: Introductions; Review of Commission Charter and Purpose; Review of Management Plan Scope and Purpose; Commission Operating Logistics; and related topics. Any member of the public may file with the Commission a written statement concerning agenda items. The statement should be addressed to the Wekiva River System Advisory Management Commission, National Park Service, 15 State Street, Boston, MA 02109.
The Wekiva River System Advisory Management Commission was established by Pub. L. 106-299 to assist in the development of the comprehensive management plan for the Wekiva River System and provide advice to the Secretary in carrying out management responsibilities of the Secretary under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274).
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before March 26, 2005. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by May 5, 2005.
United States International Trade Commission.
Termination of five-year reviews.
The subject five-year reviews were initiated in January 2005 to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on cotton shop towels from Pakistan and the antidumping duty orders on cotton shop towels from Bangladesh and China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry. On April 11, 2005, the Department of Commerce published notice that it was revoking the orders effective February 17, 2005 because “no domestic interested party responded to the sunset review notice of initiation by the applicable deadline” (70 FR 18362). Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject reviews are terminated.
February 17, 2005.
Robert Carpenter (202-205-3172), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
These reviews are being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.69 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 207.69).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Termination of five-year review.
The subject five-year review was initiated in January 2005 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on creatine monohydrate from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry. On April 11, 2005, the Department of Commerce published notice that it was revoking the order effective February 4, 2005 because “the domestic interested parties did not participate in this sunset review” (70 FR 18366). Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject review is terminated.
February 4, 2005.
Robert Carpenter (202-205-3172), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
This review is being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.69 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 207.69).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Termination of five-year reviews.
The subject five-year reviews were initiated in January 2005 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from Japan and Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry. On April 11, 2005, the Department of Commerce published notice that it was revoking the orders effective February 28, 2005 because “the domestic interested parties did not participate in this sunset review” (70 FR 18368). Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject reviews are terminated.
February 28, 2005.
Robert Carpenter (202-205-3172), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
These reviews are being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.69 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 207.69).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigation. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
On December 27, 2004, a petition was filed with the Commission and Commerce on behalf of Florida Citrus Mutual, Lakeland, FL; A. Duda & Sons (d/b/a Citrus Belle) Oviedo, FL; Citrus World, Inc., Lake Wales, FL; Peace River Citrus Products, Inc., Arcadia, FL;
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigation and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission transmitted its determination in this investigation to the Secretary of Commerce on March 7, 2005, and its views were transmitted on March 14, 2005. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3757 (February 2005), entitled Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Investigation No. 731-TA-1089 (Preliminary).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) in the above-captioned investigation granting the Commission investigative attorney's (“IA”) motion for summary determination of no violation because of noninfingement of U.S. Design Patent No. 383,866 (“the ‘866 patent”). Notice is also hereby given that the Commission is requesting briefing on remedy, public interest, and bonding with respect to a respondent previously found in default.
Rodney Maze, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3065. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
This patent-based section 337 investigation was instituted by the Commission based on a complaint filed by complainants Thomas J. Baumgartner and Hillbilly Smokehouse, Inc., both of Rogers, Arkansas (collectively “complainants”). 69 FR 32044 (June 8, 2004). The complainants alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain pet food treats by reason of infringement of the ‘866 patent. The complaint named six respondents including Pet Center, Inc. (“Pet Center”) of Los Angeles, California, and Tsingtao Shengrong Seafood, Inc. of China (“Tsingtao China”). The Commission has terminated the investigation as to four other respondents. No petitions for review of the ALJ's IDs were filed. On November 10, 2004, the ALJ found Tsingtao China in default (Order No. 8).
On January 31, 2005, the IA filed a motion for summary determination of noninfringement of the ‘866 patent with respect to Pet Center. The complainants filed an opposition to the IA's motion on February 11, 2005. On March 18, 2005, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 16) granting the IA's motion for summary determination. No petitions for review of the ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review this ID and to terminate the investigation as to Pet Center.
On November 22, 2004, the complainants filed a declaration requesting immediate relief against defaulting respondent Tsingtao China. Section 337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1), and Commission Rule 210.16(c), 19 CFR 210.16(c), authorizes the Commission to order limited relief against a respondent found in default unless, after consideration of public interest factors, it finds that such relief should not issue. The Commission may issue an order that could result in the exclusion of Tsingtao China's pet food treats from entry into the United States, and/or issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in Tsingtao China being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of its pet food treats. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or are likely to do so. For background,
When the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the President has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document and 12 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above with the Office of the Secretary. Any person desiring to submit a document (or portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 210.16(c) and 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.16(c) and 210.42).
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
Termination of five-year reviews.
The subject five-year reviews were initiated in January 2005 to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty and antidumping duty orders on steel rails from Canada would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic industry. On April 11, 2005, the Department of Commerce published notice that it was revoking the orders effective February 9, 2005 because “no domestic interested party responded to the sunset review notice of initiation by the applicable deadline” (70 FR 18361). Accordingly, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), the subject reviews are terminated.
February 9, 2005.
Robert Carpenter (202-205-3172), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
These reviews are being terminated under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.69 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR § 207.69).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation and request for written submissions.
Following receipt of a request on April 14, 2005, from the Acting United States Trade Representative (USTR) under authority delegated by the President and pursuant to section 104 of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3805 note), the Commission instituted investigation No. Morocco FTA-103-11,
April 15, 2005.
Information may be obtained from Janis Summers, Office of Tariff Affairs (202) 205-2605,
According to USTR, the United States and Morocco (“the Parties”) drafted the Agreement based on the assumption that it would enter into force at the beginning of a calendar year, and the date on which the Agreement was to enter into force was January 1, 2005. Due to subsequent events, the Parties agreed that the date of entry into force of the Agreement should be delayed until July 1, 2005. Accordingly, the Parties agreed to amend the Agreement so that the first stage of negotiated tariff reductions and related measures will become effective on that date, with the second stage starting on January 1, 2006. In addition, the Parties agreed to amend the Agreement so that the in-quota quantities of the tariff-rate quotas for agricultural and apparel goods and the quantities of textile and apparel goods that receive preferential tariff treatment, as set out in the Agreement, be reduced by fifty percent for the period July 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005, after which the previously agreed treatment would be accorded.
According to USTR, the Parties will exchange letters to modify the Agreement as specified in the preceding paragraph in order to effect a date of entry into force of July 1, 2005; no other amendments to the Agreement will be made.
Section 201 of the Act authorizes the President, subject to the consultation and layover requirements of section 104 of the Act, to proclaim such tariff modifications and other customs treatment as are necessary to carry out or apply specified provisions of the Agreement with Morocco. One of the requirements set out in section 104 of the Act is that the President obtain advice from the United States International Trade Commission.
USTR asked that the Commission provide advice on the probable effect of the modifications to the Agreement described above, with a view toward identifying any changes in the Commission's previous advice concerning the impact of the Agreement.
As requested, the Commission will submit its advice to USTR by April 28, 2005, and shortly thereafter issue a public version of the report with any confidential business information deleted.
The Commission has styled this as a section 103 investigation to make it part of a series of reports, generally submitted under section 103 of the U.S. implementing legislation for a free trade agreement (
All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the
Any submissions that contain confidential business information must also conform with the requirements of section 201.6 of the
The Commission may include some or all of the confidential business information submitted in the course of this investigation in the report it sends to the USTR and the President. As requested by USTR, the Commission will publish a public version of the report. However, in the public version, the Commission will not publish confidential business information in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS)
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
April 28, 2005 at 11 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agenda for future meetings: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Inv. No. 731-TA-653. (Second Review) (Sebacic Acid from China)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before May 11, 2005.)
5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on April 7, 2005, a proposed Consent Decree in
This Consent Decree obligates the 40 settling defendants at the Maryland Sand and Gravel Superfund Site (the “Site”) to implement the Record of Decision for the third operable unit at the Site. This is the third consent decree in this action for remedial action at the Site. EPA estimates that the work to be performed under the decree will be approximately $23 million. In the decree, the United States covenants not to sue the settling defendants under Section 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, for the third operable unit, subject to certain standard reopeners for new information or unknown conditions.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, District of Maryland, 36 South Charles Street, Baltimore, MD, 21201, and at U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Notice is hereby given that on April 8, 2005, a proposed consent decree in
The complaint, filed concurrently with lodging of the consent decree, seeks reimbursement pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607, of response costs incurred and to be incurred by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, at the Walker Mine Tailings Site, located in the Plumas National Forest, Plumas County, California. The consent decree provides that Atlantic Richfield will pay $2.5 million towards the United States' response costs. In exchange for that settlement payment, Atlantic Richfield will receive a site-wide covenant-not-to-sue, subject to certain reservations.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined on the following Department of Justice website,
Pursuant to 28 CFR 50.7 and RCRA Section 7003, 42 U.S.C. 6973, notice is hereby given that on April 8, 2005, a Consent Decree with Edwards Oil Service, Inc., was lodged with the United States District Court for the Eastern district of Michigan in the matter of
In that action the United States seeks to recover from the Defendant pursuant to Section 3008(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, commonly known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. 6928(a), and Section 311(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. 1321(e), as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 33 U.S.C. 2701
Under the proposed Consent Decree, Defendant Edwards Oil Service would undertake various injunctive measures and pay a civil penalty of $11,000.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. In accordance with RCRA Section 7003(d), 42 U.S.C. 6973(d), commentors also may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area to discuss the proposed covenants not to sue under RCRA Section 7003, 42 U.S.C. 6973.
All comments, and/or requests for a public meeting under RCRA Section 7003(d) should refer to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Eastern District of Michigan, 211 W. Fort Street, Detroit, Michigan 48226-3211; and at EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604 (contact Richard Murawski, Esq. (312) 886-6721). During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site:
A copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood (
The notice dated March 29, 2005, and published in the
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(1)), the Attorney General shall, prior to issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II and prior to issuing a registration under 21 U.S.C. 952(a) (2) (b) authorizing the importation of such substances, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
Therefore, in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on August 13, 2004, Clinical Trial Services (US), Inc., 2661 Audubon Road, Audubon, Pennsylvania 19403, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as an importer of Fentanyl (9801), a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule II.
The company plans to import small quantities of the listed controlled substance in dosage form to conduct clinical trails.
Any manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances may file written comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative, Liaison and Policy Section (ODL); or any being sent via express mail should be sent to DEA Headquarters, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL, 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must be filed no later than May 20, 2005.
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with and independent of the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Application for Authority to Employ Full-Time Students at Subminimum Wages in Retail/Service Establishments or Agriculture (WH-200 and WH-202). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before June 20, 2005.
Ms. Hazel M. Bell, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-0418, fax (202) 693-1451,
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201
The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
The Department of Labor seeks the approval of the extension of this information collection to grant employer requests to employ students at subminimum wages.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Employment Standards Administration, Labor.
Notice of Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Justice and Labor.
The Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, is providing notice of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Justice and Labor (MOU), signed January 18, 2005. The MOU describes the responsibilities of each agency in the performance of functions under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (Act). The purpose of the MOU is to revise a previous Memorandum of Understanding Between the Departments of Justice and Labor (1960 Memorandum of Understanding) concerning the allocation of such responsibilities. The MOU enhances administrative efficiency in the investigation and prosecution of crimes and civil violations arising under the Act. A copy of the MOU is set forth below.
January 18, 2005.
Mr. John H. Heaney, Chief, Division of Enforcement, Office of Labor-Management Standards, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5119, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693-1229 (this is not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD, 1-800-877-8339.
The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (Pub. L. 86-257; 29 U.S.C. 401-531) is designed to protect the rights and interests of individual employees and union members as they relate to the activities of labor organizations, labor organization officers and employees, employers, labor relations consultants, and their officers and representatives. Section 607 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 527) provides that, in order to avoid unnecessary expense and duplication of functions among government agencies, the Secretary of Labor may make agreements for cooperation and mutual assistance in the performance of the Secretary's functions under the Act. The first such agreement was entered into between the Departments of Labor and Justice in the 1960 Memorandum of Understanding.
In addition, the MOU contains a provision, not present in the 1960 Memorandum of Understanding, that specifies the respective roles of the Departments of Justice and Labor in regard to relief from the employment disabilities arising under § 504 of title V, 29 U.S.C. 504. Section 504 prohibits persons convicted of crimes specified in the statute from serving in stated capacities with an LMRDA-covered labor organization or employer association; from serving as a labor relations consultant or in a position with a corporation or association having specific collective bargaining authority or direct responsibility for labor-management relations; and from having decisionmaking authority or control of labor organization assets (other than as a member of the labor organization). The disability imposed by Section 504 extends until 13 years following a disqualifying conviction or end of any imprisonment resulting from such conviction.
Whereas, the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (Public Law 86-257; 73 Stat. 519) imposes certain duties and responsibilities upon the Attorney General and Secretary of Labor with regard to prosecution of crimes arising under the Act and civil enforcement actions under the Act; and
Whereas, that Act, in section 601, imposes upon the Secretary of Labor the responsibility for conducting investigations of persons who have violated, or are about to violate, any provision of the Act (except title I, or amendments made by this Act to other statutes); and
Whereas, that Act, in section 607, provides that the Secretary of Labor may make interagency agreements to avoid unnecessary expense and duplication of functions among Government agencies and ensure cooperation and mutual assistance in the performance of functions under the Act; and
Whereas, it is desirable and essential that areas of responsibility and procedures in connection with any investigations, prosecutions of offenses and civil enforcement actions arising under the Act should be the subject of formal agreement between the Departments;
It is hereby agreed and understood between the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor as follows:
1.
2.
(a) The Department of Labor will through its own staff investigate those criminal matters arising under:
1. Title II (Reporting by labor organizations, officers and employees of labor organizations and employers).
2. Title III (Trusteeship).
3. Section 501(c) (Embezzlement of union funds) of title V.
4. Section 502 (Bonding) of title V.
5. Section 503 (Making of loans and payment of fines) of title V.
6. Section 504 (Prohibition against certain persons holding office) of title V.
7. Section 602 (Extortionate picketing) of title VI.
8. Section 610 (Deprivation of rights by force and violence) of title VI.
(b) The Department of Justice will investigate those criminal matters arising under section 505 (Containing an amendment to section 302, Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended) of title V, and under delegation from the Secretary of Labor, section 501(c) (Embezzlement of union funds) of title V, section 504 (Prohibition against certain person holding office) of title V, and section 610 (Deprivation of rights by force and violence) of title VI.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. Periodic reviews of this agreement will be made to determine any adjustments which seem necessary based on experience under this Act.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice; announcement of OMB approval of information collection requirements.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announces that OMB has extended its approval for a number of information collection requirements found in sections of 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926. OSHA sought approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95), and, as required by that Act, is announcing the approval numbers and expiration dates for those requirements.
This notice is effective April 20, 2005.
Todd Owen or Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202) 693-2222.
In a series of
In accordance with PRA-95 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), OMB renewed its approval for these information collection requirements and assigned OMB control numbers to these requirements. The table below provides the following information for each of these OMB-approved requirements: the title of the collection; the date of the
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an agency cannot conduct, sponsor, or require a response to a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number and the agency informs respondents that they are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Jonathan L. Snare, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comment.
OSHA solicits comments concerning its request for an extension of the information-collection requirements contained in the Electrical Standards for Construction (29 CFR part 1926, subpart K) and for General Industry (29 CFR part 1910, subpart S).
Comments must be submitted by the following dates:
You may submit comments, identified by OSHA Docket No. ICR-1218-0130 (2005), by any of the following methods:
Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2222.
You may submit comments and supporting materials in response to this document by (1) hard copy, (2) FAX transmission (facsimile), or (3) electronically through the OSHA Web page. Because of security-related problems, a significant delay may occur in the receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY (877) 889-5627) for information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery, and messenger service.
All comments, submissions, and background documents are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA
Electronic copies of this
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and cost) is minimal, collection instruments are understandable, and OSHA's estimate of the information-collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information-collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and cost) of the information-collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information-collection and -transmission techniques.
OSHA is proposing to extend the information-collection requirements contained in the Electrical Standards for Construction (29 CFR part 1926, subpart K) and General Industry (29 CFR part 1910, subpart S). In doing so, the Agency is proposing to adjust the total burden hours of these subparts from 84,803 hours to 13,291 hours. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information-collection requirements contained in the standards.
Jonathan L. Snare, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (6765008).
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101.6, announcement is made for the following committee meeting:
This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend must be submitted to the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than April 29, 2005. ISOO will provide additional instructions for gaining access to the location of the meeting.
J. William Leonard, Director Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives Building, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20408, telephone number (202) 219-5250.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by June 20, 2005, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site:
Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, T-5 F53, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by Internet electronic mail to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Pre-License Application Presiding Officer Board will hold a case management conference at 9 a.m. EDT on May 4, 2005 in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel's hearing room, third floor, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Counsel for the United States Department of Energy (DOE), the NRC Staff, and the State of Nevada (State) shall attend and participate in the conference. Because DOE, the NRC Staff, and the State are all represented by multiple counsel, the Board expects there will not be any motions to alter the conference date. Counsel for any other potential participants, interested Indian Tribes, and interested units of local government (collectively Potential Participants) are encouraged to attend. Even though no Potential Participants submitted proposed case management orders on the subject of privilege log formats and procedures pursuant to the Board's January 24, 2005 First Case Management Order or subsequent March 11, 2005 Order, the Potential Participants, at the discretion of the Board, may be allowed to participate in the conference.
The Administrator of the Licensing Support Network (LSN) shall also attend to respond to Board and participant questions concerning the design capabilities of the LSN and to provide technical information and recommendations regarding those portions of the proposed case management order submitted by DOE and the NRC Staff impacting the LSN. In this regard, DOE, the NRC Staff, and the State shall each have in attendance their respective information technology data management specialist or administrator who can address computer hardware and software issues that may arise in the development and use of electronic privilege logs and procedures. Counsel for Potential Participants are similarly encouraged to bring their respective information technology data management specialist or administrator to the conference.
The Board will issue a subsequent order detailing the matters that DOE, the NRC Staff, the State, and counsel for Potential Participants should be prepared to discuss. The Board intends to conduct the conference quickly and efficiently but notes that the number of subjects to be covered may make it necessary to reconvene following a recess for lunch. All attendees should plan accordingly.
To expedite entry into the NRC headquarters complex, counsel for DOE, the NRC Staff, and the State should, no later than
Upon arrival at the main entrance of the NRC headquarters Two White Flint North building on May 4, all participants and members of the public seeking to attend the conference shall be required to present photo identification and then undergo security screening. All non-NRC employees must be escorted to the hearing room by an authorized NRC employee. Because of the time required for the security procedures, all counsel should arrive no later than
For the Pre-License Application Presiding Officer Board.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental assessment.
Jeremy A. Smith, Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-8500; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) is considering issuance of an exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the provisions of 10 CFR 72.72(d) to Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Maine Yankee or applicant). The requested exemption would allow Maine Yankee to maintain a single set of spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and reactor-related Greater Than Class C (GTCC) waste records in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(d)(1), for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at Maine Yankee in Wiscasset, Maine.
The proposed action before the Commission is whether to grant this exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7.
10 CFR 50.71(d)(1) provides requirements for the maintenance of nuclear power plant records. The regulation states:
Records which must be maintained pursuant to this part may be the original or a reproduced copy or microform if such reproduced copy or microform is duly authenticated by authorized personnel and the microform is capable of producing a clear and legible copy after storage for the period specified by the Commission regulations. The record may also be stored in electronic media with the capability of producing legible, accurate, and complete records during the required retention period. Records such as letters, drawings, specifications, must include all pertinent information such as stamps, initials, and signatures. The licensee shall maintain adequate safeguards against tampering with and loss of records.
Regulatory Guide 1.88, “Collection, Storage, and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plant Quality Assurance Records,” establishes guidance for the storage of nuclear plant quality assurance records. Maine Yankee plans to implement Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.88, with minor exceptions described in the Maine Yankee Quality Assurance Plan (QAP).
The requirements in ANSI N45.2.9-1974 have been endorsed by the NRC in Regulatory Guide 1.88 as adequate for satisfying the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, which states in part that “records shall be identifiable and retrievable.” Additionally, conditions in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B establish that “[c]onsistent with applicable regulatory requirements (including 10 CFR 50.71(d)(1)), the applicant shall establish requirements concerning record retention, such as duration, location, and assigned responsibility.” ANSI N.45.2.9-1974 also satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR 72.72 by providing for adequate maintenance of records regarding the identity and history of the spent fuel in storage. Such records would be subject to and need to be protected from the same types of degradation mechanisms as nuclear power plant Quality Assurance records.
The environmental impacts of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51. Based upon the foregoing Environmental Assessment, the Commission finds that the proposed action of granting the exemption from 10 CFR 72.72(d), so that Maine Yankee may store spent fuel records for the ISFSI in a single records storage facility which meets the requirements of ANSI N.45.2.9-1974, with the given exception listed in the Maine Yankee QAP, will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption is not necessary.
The request for exemption was docketed under 10 CFR Part 72, Docket 72-30. For further details with respect to this exemption request, see the Maine Yankee letter requesting the exemption
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on May 4, 2005, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Fire Protection will hold a meeting on May 4, 2005, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the NRC/EPRI joint work on the improved fire risk assessment methodology. The Subcommittee will discuss NUREG/CR-6850, “EPRI/NRC-RES Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities.” The Subcommittee will also discuss the NRC staff's efforts on verification and validation of fire models. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff, representatives of the EPRI, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Hossein P. Nourbakhsh (Telephone: 301-415-5622) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official or the Cognizant Staff Engineer between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact one of the above named individuals at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.
In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on May 5-6, 2005, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of this meeting was previously published in the
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting Mr. Sam Duraiswamy, Cognizant ACRS staff (301-415-7364), between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., ET.
ACRS meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at
Videoteleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m., ET, at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the videoteleconferencing link. The availability of videoteleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NSCC is seeking to enhance its Automated Customer Account Transfer Service (“ACAT Service”) to permit the automated notification of changes to the broker-dealer of record for applicable insurance products.
In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
Information regarding the broker-dealer of record for an annuity or life insurance product is maintained by the insurance company that is the issuer of the product. Currently there is no mechanism within the ACAT Service that can automate notification of changes to the broker-dealer of record. Annuity and life insurance products have a manually-intensive processing stream connected with account transfers relative to the automated processing of assets such as equity and debt securities and mutual fund shares.
Under the proposed rule change, the delivering and receiving broker-dealers for annuities or life insurance products would be able to communicate information regarding the change of broker-dealer of record through the ACAT Service. The ACAT Service would communicate the information through a link to a new product of NSCC's Insurance Processing Services (“IPS”) called Inforce Transactions (“IFT”). IFT would relay the information to the issuer insurance company and would also communicate to the ACAT Service whether the insurance company had confirmed, rejected, or requested a modification of the change. NSCC would not debit or credit a receiving or delivering firm for the value of any applicable insurance product that is part of a customer account transfer.
In order for the receiving and delivering broker-dealers and the issuer insurance company to be able to effect the change through the ACAT Service, the insurance company must participate in IPS, the receiving broker-dealer must participate in the ACAT Service and IPS, and the delivering broker-dealer must participate in the ACAT Service.
Although the proposed rule change relates to the ACAT Service as it interfaces with IPS, NSCC is also proposing to make certain technical changes to the ACAT Service rule. For purposes of bringing efficiencies to the financial marketplace, NSCC's Rule 50, which governs the ACAT Service, would cover all asset types regardless of whether NSCC has the operational capability to effect the transfer of such assets. As proposed, NSCC either would undertake to cause the asset transfer or asset reregistration to occur or would issue a document evidencing each delivering firm's obligation and each receiving firm's entitlement that would result from an ACAT Service transfer. Such instructions, regardless of their form, are commonly referred to as receive and deliver instructions, and NSCC would add a definition, “ACAT Receive and Deliver Instruction,”
“The term ‘ACAT Receive and Deliver Instruction’ shall mean such document, form, file, report or other information issued by the Corporation [NSCC] to a Member or to a QSD (as defined in Rule 50), on behalf of such QSD's participants, which identifies Automated Customer Account Transfer receive and deliver obligations. ”
NSCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of section 17A of the Act
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose a burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
NSCC has worked closely with an industry business advisory group in developing the enhancements that are the subject of this rule filing. Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by NSCC.
Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change; or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange hereby proposes an amendment to Rule 344 (Research Analysts and Supervisory Analysts) and Rule 472 (Communications with the Public) to amend the definition of “research analyst” in the respective Rules to include “associated persons.”
Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is italicized.
Research analysts and supervisory analysts must be registered with, qualified by, and approved by the Exchange.
Adopted: June 18, 1964.
.10 For purposes of this Rule, the term “research analyst” includes a member, allied member,
.11—No Change.
Approval of Communications and Research Reports
(a)—.30—No Change.
.40 For purposes of this Rule, the term “research analyst” includes a member, allied member,
For purposes of this Rule, the term “household member” means any individual whose principal residence is the same as the research analyst's principal residence. Paragraphs (e)(1), (2), (3), (4)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v), (k)(1)(iii)b., c., and (k)(2)(i)b. and e. apply to any account in which a research analyst has a financial interest, or over which the research analyst exercises discretion or control, other than an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The trading restrictions applicable to research analysts and household members (
.50—.120—No Change.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend its definition of “research analyst” to include “associated persons” in order to cover natural persons who control or are under the control of members and member organizations.
As proposed, an “associated person” is defined as a natural person engaged in investment banking, or a securities or kindred business, who is directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by a member or member organization, whether or not any such person is registered, applying for registration or exempt from registration with the NYSE (
The statutory basis for this proposed rule change is section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 5-day pre-filing notice. The Commission believes that waiving the five-day pre-filing requirement for this proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. In addition, in light of the Commission's approval of NASD Rules 1050 and 2711, which include “associated persons” within the purview of the definition of “research analyst,” the April 4, 2005 deadline for satisfaction of the Research Analyst Qualification Examination Requirement,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 10, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1080, Philadelphia Stock Exchange Automated Options Market (AUTOM) and Automatic Execution System (AUTO-X), to reflect system changes to AUTOM that are intended to increase the number of orders that are handled and executed electronically on the Exchange and to specify when orders that are not executed automatically on the Exchange would be routed through the Intermarket Option Linkage (“Linkage”).
Proposed Exchange Rule 1080(c)(v) provides that if the Exchange receives a market order that is not eligible for automatic execution when any of the conditions described in Exchange Rule 1080(c)(iv) exist, such market order, if not already executed manually by the specialist, would be executed automatically in two situations. First, if a market order has not already been executed manually by the specialist, it would be automatically executed against a limit order on the limit order book or a quotation that becomes the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) while the market order is pending. Second, a market order that is being handled manually by the specialist would be automatically executed against an inbound limit order or quotation priced at or better than the NBBO.
Under proposed Exchange rule 1080(c)(vi), when the Exchange's disseminated quotation is not the NBBO, marketable public customer limit orders would be exposed to the trading crowd and to participants in Phlx XL for a period of three seconds following receipt. At the end of this three second exposure period, if the Exchange's disseminated price is still not the NBBO, any unexecuted contracts remaining in such an order would be automatically sent as Principal Acting as Agent (“P/A”) Order
Proposed Exchange Rule 1080(c)(vi)(A)(2) would require that a specialist submit prior written instructions to the Exchange regarding the routing of any P/A Orders that the specialist would send through the Linkage.
Under proposed Exchange Rule 1080(c)(vi)(B), marketable limit orders for the proprietary account(s) of a broker-dealer (or any account in which a broker-dealer or an associated person of a broker-dealer has any direct or indirect interest) received when the Exchange's disseminated quotation is not the NBBO would be automatically cancelled by the AUTOM System. A message indicating the cancellation would be automatically sent to the sender of the order.
Proposed Exchange Rule 1080(i) would automate the handling of market orders to sell when the disseminated bid price is zero. Currently, Exchange Rule 1080(c)(vi)(G) provides that such orders are handled manually by the specialist. Under the proposed rule change, the AUTOM system would automatically convert market orders to sell when the bid price is zero to limit orders to sell with a limit price of $.05. Such market orders to sell, as well as limit orders to sell, would be placed on the limit order book in price-time priority. In the event that the bid price in the particular series becomes $.05 or greater, thus establishing a bid price that makes the booked limit orders to sell marketable, such orders to sell at the $.05 limit price or better would be executed in the order in which they were received (
The Exchange also proposed a technical change to an example noted in Exchange Rule 1080(c)(iv)(A) to reflect decimal pricing.
The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change, as amended, and finds that it is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that the proposal automating the execution of certain market orders that currently are handled manually by the specialist will provide more efficient and immediate executions.
Finally, the Commission believes that the automated handling of market orders to sell when the bid price is zero should also provide more efficient executions of such orders.
The Exchange has requested accelerated approval of the proposed rule change. The Commission notes that a portion of the proposed rule change is similar to rules previously approved by the Commission for another exchange.
Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr R. Sulzynsky, the Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, (telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of State by the laws of the United States, including Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651 a), I hereby delegate to E. Anthony Wayne, to the extent authorized by law, all authorities vested in the Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs, including all authorities vested in the Secretary of State or head of agency that have been or may be delegated or re-delegated to the Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs.
Any authorities covered by this delegation may also be exercised by the Secretary of State or the Deputy Secretary of State.
Any act, executive order, regulation, or procedure subject to, or affected by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive order, regulation, or procedure as amended from time to time.
This delegation shall enter into effect upon signature and shall expire upon the appointment and entry upon duty of a new Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs.
Any re-delegation of authority by the Under Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs now in effect shall remain in effect.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the laws of the United States, including Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651 a), I hereby delegate to William J. Burns, to the extent authorized by law, all authorities vested in the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, including all authorities vested in the Secretary of State or head of agency that have been or may be delegated or re-delegated to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs.
Any authorities covered by this delegation may also be exercised by the Secretary of State or the Deputy Secretary of State.
Any act, executive order, regulation, or procedure subject to, or affected by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive order, regulation, or procedure as amended from time to time.
This delegation shall enter into effect upon signature and shall expire upon the appointment and entry upon duty of a new Under Secretary for Political Affairs.
Any re-delegation of authority by the Under Secretary for Political Affairs now in effect shall remain in effect.
This delegation of authority shall be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for Public Comment.
Under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47153(c), the Federal Aviation Administration is requesting public comment on the Louisville Regional Airport Authority's request to change a portion (3.49 acres) of airport property from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use. The property is to be sold to Huber's Inc., d/b/a Budget Truck and Car Rental (“Budget”) for commercial development.
The 3.49 acres is located in the Highland Park neighborhood, north of the Intrastate 264, and is located one block on the west side of Crittenden Drive between East Adair and Wawa Avenues.
Comments must be received on or before May 20, 2005.
Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Memphis Airports District Office, 2862 Business Park Drive, Building G, Memphis, TN 38118-1555.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Charles T. Miller, Executive Director, Louisville Regional Airport Authority at the following address: P.O. Box 9129, Louisville, Kentucky 40209-0129.
Tommy L. Dupree, Program Manager, Memphis Airports District Office, 2862 Business Park Drive, Building G, Memphis, TN 38118-1555, (901) 322-8185. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA is reviewing a request by Louisville Regional Airport Authority to release 3.49 acres of aeronautical property at the Louisville International Airport. The property will be purchased by Huber's Inc., d/b/a Budget Truck and Car Rental (“Budget”) for commercial development. A detailed legal description of the property proposed for release can be requested or seen at either of the contacts given above. However, the general description is 3.49 acres located in the Highland Park neighborhood, north of the Intrastate 264, located one block on the west side of Crittenden Drive between East Adair and Wawa Avenues.
The net proceeds from the non-aeronautical use or the sale of this property will be used for airport purposes.
Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its determination that the noise exposure maps submitted by Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority for Nashville International Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501
The effective date of the FAA's determination on the noise exposure maps is April 12, 2005.
Peggy S. Keeley, FAA, Memphis Airports District Office, 2862 Business Park Drive, Building G, Memphis, Tennessee 38118-1555 Telephone (901) 322-8186.
This notice announces that the FAA finds that the noise exposure maps submitted for Nashville International Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of part 150, effective April 12, 2005. Under 49 U.S.C. section 47503 of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using
The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation submitted by metropolitan Nashville Airport Board. The documentation, “Nashville International Airport Noise Exposure Map Update”, that constitutes the “noise exposure maps” as defined in section 150.7 of part 150 includes: Existing (2004) Noise Exposure Map, Exhibit NEM-1; Future (2009) Noise Exposure Map, Exhibit NEB-2; Consolidated Jet Aircraft Flight Tracks, Exhibit 2; Consolidated Propeller Aircraft Flight Tracks, Exhibit 3; Tables 1-5 Existing Conditions and Tables 8-12 Future Conditions. The document also contains narrative concerning the development of the maps. The FAA has determined that these noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on April 12, 2005.
FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in appendix A of FAR part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program. If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of section 47506 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under part 150 or through FAA's review of noise exposure maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under section 47503 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under section 150.21 of FAR part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
Copies of the full noise exposure map documentation and of the FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the following locations: Federal Aviation Administration, Memphis Airports District Office, 2862 Business Park Drive, Memphis, Tennessee 38118-1555 and Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority, One Terminal Drive, Suite 501, Nashville, Tennessee 37214-4114. Questions may be directed to the individuals named above under the heading
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces that it is reviewing a revised noise compatibility program and revised five-year forecast condition NEM submitted by the Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority for Lehigh Valley International Airport under the provisions of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-193) and 14 CFR part 150. This program was submitted subsequent to a determination by the FAA that the associated updated noise exposure maps submitted under 14 CFR part 150 for Lehigh Valley International Airport were in compliance with applicable requirements effective May 14, 2004. The proposed noise compatibility program update and revised five-year forecast condition NEM will be approved or disapproved on or before October 9, 2005.
The effective date of the start of FAA's review of the noise compatibility program update and revised five-year forecast condition is April 12, 2005. The public comment period ends, June 11, 2005.
Edward S. Gabsewics, CEP, Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 508, Camp Hill, PA 17011, telephone (717) 730-2832. Comments on the proposed noise compatibility program update and revised five-year forecast condition NEM should also be submitted to the above office.
This notice announces that the FAA is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program update and revised five-year forecast condition NEM for the Lehigh Valley International Airport, which will be approved or disapproved on or before October 9, 2005. This notice also announces the availability of this proposed noise compatibility program update and revised five-year forecast condition NEB for public review and comment.
An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) part 150, promulgated pursuant to Title I of the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes for the reduction of existing noncompatible uses and for the prevention of the introduction of additional noncompatible uses.
The FAA has formally received the noise compatibility program update and revised five-year forecast condition NEM for the Lehigh Valley International Airport, effective on April 12, 2005. It was requested that the FAA review this material and that the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the airport and surrounding communities, be approved as a noise compatibility program update under section 104(b) of the Act. Preliminary review of the submitted material indications that it conforms to the requirements for the submittal of noise compatibility programs, but that further review will be necessary prior to approval or disapproval of the program. The formal review period, limited by
The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR part 150, section 150.33. The primary considerations in the evaluation process are whether the proposed measures may reduce the level of aviation safety, create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, or be reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of reducing existing noncompatible land uses and preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses.
Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program with specific reference to these factors. All comments, other than those properly addressed to local land use authorities, will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of the proposed noise compatibility program update and proposed revised five-year forecast conditions NEM for the Lehigh Valley International Airport are available for examination at the following locations: Lehigh—Northampton Airport Authority, 3311 Airport Road, Allentown, PA 18109 and Federal Aviation Administration, Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 508, Camp Hill, PA 17011.
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading,
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its determination that the noise exposure maps submitted by the City of Flagstaff for Flagstaff Pulliam Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501
The effective date of the FAA's determination on the noise exposure maps is April 7, 2005.
Michelle Simmons, Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Pacific Region Headquarters, PO Box 92007, Los Angeles, California 90009, Telephone: (301) 725-3614.
This notice announces that the FAA finds that the noise exposure maps submitted for Flagstaff Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150, effective April 7, 2005. Under 49 U.S.C. 47503 of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport. An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal aviation Regulations (FAR) part 150, promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional noncompatible uses.
The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation submitted by City of Flagstaff, Arizona. The documentation that constitutes the “Noise Exposure Maps” as defined in section 150.7 of Part 150 includes: Exhibit 1 “Existing Conditions (2003) Noise Exposure Map,” and Exhibit 2 “Five-Year Forecast (2008) Noise Exposure Map.” The Noise Exposure Maps contain current and forecast information including the depiction of the airport and its boundaries, the runway configurations, land uses such as residential, open space, commercial/office, community facilities, libraries, churches, open space, infrastructure, vacant and warehouse and those areas within the Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 65, 70 and 75 noise contours. Estimates for the number of people within these contours for the year 2003 are shown in Table 4B. Estimates of the future residential population within the 2008 noise contours are shown in Table 4D. Exhibit 3J displays the location of noise monitoring sites. Flight tracks for the existing and the five-year forecast Noise Exposure Maps are found in Exhibits 3E, 3F, and 3G. The type and frequency of aircraft operations (including nighttime operations) are found in Tables 3C and 3D. The FAA has determined that these noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on April 7, 2005.
FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in Appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program. If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of section 47506 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through FAA's review of noise exposure maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under section 47503 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under section 150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
Copies of the full noise exposure map documentation and of the FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the following locations:
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petitions for exemption received and of dispositions of prior petitions.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR, dispositions of certain petitions previously received, and corrections. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before May 5, 2005.
You may submit comments (identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FAA-200X-XXXXX) 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
Tim Adams (202) 267-8033, Sandy Buchanan-Sumter (202) 267-7271, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice.
The FHWA is issuing this approved final nationwide programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation (programmatic evaluation) for use in certain Federal (Federal-aid or Federal Lands Highway) transportation improvement projects where the use of publicly owned property from a Section 4(f) park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge or property from a historic site results in a net benefit to the Section 4(f) property. The application of this programmatic evaluation is intended to promote environmental stewardship by encouraging the development of measures that enhance Section 4(f) properties and to streamline the Section 4(f) process by reducing the time it takes to prepare, review and circulate a draft and final individual Section 4(f) Evaluation (individual evaluation) that documents compliance with Section 4(f) requirements. This programmatic evaluation provides a procedural option for demonstrating compliance with the statutory requirements of Section 4(f) and is an addition to the existing nationwide programmatic evaluations, all of which remain in effect. This programmatic evaluation can be applied to specific project situations that fit the criteria contained in the
April 20, 2005.
Mr. Lamar S. Smith, Office of Project Development and Environmental Review, HEPE, (202) 366-8994 and Ms. Diane Mobley, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-30, (202) 366-1366. FHWA office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The offices are located at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
An electronic copy of this notice may be downloaded using a computer, modem, and suitable communications software from the Government Printing Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at
• Background on the Nationwide Section 4(f) Evaluation and Determination.
• Description of Action.
• Why Issue a New Nationwide Section 4(f) Evaluation?
• Actions Taken to Date.
• Comments and Responses on the Draft Nationwide Section 4(f) Evaluation and Determination.
• Examples.
The FTA initially anticipated participating in this proposed programmatic evaluation as reflected in the draft Nationwide Section 4(f) Evaluation and Proposed Determination for Federal-Aid Transportation Projects That Have a Net Benefit to a Section 4(f) Property published at 67 FR 77551, on December 18, 2002. The FTA currently utilizes no programmatic evaluation and relies on individual evaluations to satisfy the requirements of Section 4(f) for transit projects that use Section 4(f) properties. Upon further transit program and policy review, the FTA has elected not to participate in this programmatic evaluation and will continue to perform individual Section 4(f) evaluations in all cases.
Proposed federally funded highway projects that would use property from significant publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges or from significant historic sites are subject to Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-670, 80 Stat. 931, October 15, 1966), a provision now codified in title 49, United States Code, Section 303. Section 4(f) prohibits such use unless the FHWA determines that: (1) There is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative; and (2) that the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property. These efforts are normally documented in an individual evaluation or one of four existing nationwide programmatic evaluations. For some FHWA projects, it may be possible to utilize one or more programmatic evaluations that were developed for specific circumstances.
Final Nationwide Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for Federally-Aided Highway Projects With Minor Involvements With Historic Sites, Issued December 23, 1986, Published in
Negative Declaration/Section 4(f) Statement for Independent Bikeway or Walkway Construction Projects, FHWA Memorandum, May 23, 1977, and can be found at
Court decisions, particularly in the 1970s, resulted in strict interpretations of Section 4(f) requirements. Many of these early decisions resulted from large projects that impacted Section 4(f) properties during the peak of Interstate highway construction and expansion. In recent years, however, some courts have provided a more flexible interpretation, responding to the reduction in the severity of impacts and a transportation program that is currently focused more on system preservation and modernization than on expansion.
Programmatic evaluations reduce the processing time and effort necessary to document the analysis and illustrate that the Section 4(f) requirements have been met. Each of the programmatic evaluations contains specific and limiting applicability criteria and findings. For projects that do not meet the specified applicability criteria, the FHWA must prepare and circulate for comment, a draft individual evaluation, which is subject to internal legal sufficiency review prior to approval and circulation of a final individual Section 4(f) evaluation.
This programmatic evaluation facilitates compliance with Section 4(f) requirements for those situations in which there is agreement among the FHWA, the Applicant and the official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property that the transportation use of Section 4(f) property, the measures to minimize harm and the mitigation incorporated into the project will result in a net benefit to the Section 4(f) property. If an agreement on net benefit cannot be reached among the FHWA, the Applicant and the official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property, then this programmatic evaluation cannot be used. This programmatic evaluation may be used, when applicable, for a project of any class of action as defined in 23 CFR 771.115 of the FHWA Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations).
Individual evaluations are approved after extensive internal review and interagency coordination. The internal process consists of a review of both a draft and final evaluation by the FHWA Division Office and, in some cases, the FHWA Headquarters Office. In addition, each final individual evaluation undergoes a separate review by the FHWA Office of Chief Counsel to ensure legal sufficiency. Interagency coordination is undertaken on all individual evaluations with the official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property and with the DOI. A draft individual Section 4(f) evaluation is provided for coordination and comment for a minimum of 45 days and a final individual Section 4(f) evaluation is prepared to support the FHWA Section 4(f) determination. In addition, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are consulted on those projects involving a Section 4(f) property for which they have program responsibilities.
The process associated with individual evaluation documentation, review and consultation is time consuming. The process is appropriate for projects that have the potential to substantially impair, through use, the activities, features or attributes that qualify the property for Section 4(f) protection. For other projects, where the use of Section 4(f) property is minor and/or does not result in a substantial impairment of specific qualities that make a property eligible for Section 4(f) protection, the project is still subject to the same thorough and time-consuming process of evaluation, unless it qualifies for a simplified review under one of the existing programmatic evaluations. This programmatic evaluation is intended to address those projects where there is agreement among the FHWA, the Applicant and the official(s) with jurisdiction that, (1) a use of property does not result in a substantial impairment; (2) the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, including mitigation; and (3) that the cumulative result is an overall improvement and enhancement of the Section 4(f) property.
An understanding of the intent of this programmatic evaluation, applicability requirements and the meaning of net benefit is a prerequisite to agreement.
As established in this programmatic evaluation, the Administration will review the specific facts of a project, compare them to the applicability requirements of the programmatic evaluation and determine if it is applicable. When applicable, appropriate supporting documentation will be placed in the project file and/or referenced in the appropriate environmental document. Since this programmatic evaluation was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient according to the requirements of 23 CFR 771.135(k), the utilization of this programmatic evaluation on specific projects will not require legal sufficiency review under 23 CFR 771.135(k). Similarly, interagency coordination is streamlined, as described in this programmatic evaluation, by consulting only with the official(s) with jurisdiction, and not with DOI, USDA, or HUD, except when those agencies have an official responsibility related to the property or where conversion of the 4(f) property to highway use is encumbered such that, specific subsequent agency action will be required (
The draft Nationwide Section 4(f) Evaluation and Proposed Determination for Federal-Aid Transportation Projects That Have a Net Benefit to a Section 4(f) Property was published on December 18, 2002, at 67 FR 77551, requesting public and agency comment (FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2002-13290). The proposed programmatic evaluation was provided specifically to the DOI, the USDA, HUD and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).
After careful analysis of all comments received, the FHWA has decided to finalize and approve this programmatic evaluation. Minor changes have been made in this final programmatic evaluation to add clarity and incorporate suggested improvements from insightful comments. This decision is based upon the belief that the programmatic evaluation will assure full compliance with the statute while enhancing Section 4(f) properties and reducing duplicative administrative processes for eligible projects. The decision is consistent with congressional streamlining initiatives.
The following discussion is a summary of comments received on the draft programmatic evaluation. Responses are provided on how the FHWA considered and addressed the concerns and/or issues raised.
Comments were received from 18 entities, including Federal agencies, two national transportation organizations, one national environmental organization, eight State transportation agencies, one transit agency, two State resource agencies, and two private consulting firms. Commenters included the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the National Park Service (NPS), the American Highway Users Alliance (AHUA), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Sierra Club, the State of California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), the Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA), the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), the Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT), the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT), the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WIDOT), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit), the State of Alabama Historical Commission (AHC), the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGF) through its Office of Federal Land Policy, Transportation Environmental Management Inc. (TEM) and the HR Green Company (HR Green). In addition, the FTA provided comments and recommendations for consideration prior to its decision not to be a participant in the programmatic evaluation.
Many comments were general in nature and are summarized and addressed collectively under the following general comment headings: General Comments, Net Benefit, Official(s) with Jurisdiction, and Section 106 Integration. Many comments included recommendations related to a specific section of the programmatic evaluation which are addressed in the section-by-section analysis.
A number of the specific comments received, focused on the overall reform of Section 4(f) and suggested that this programmatic evaluation does not do enough to reform and streamline existing Section 4(f) requirements. All comments and recommendations have been read and considered by the FHWA. These concerns are beyond the scope of this effort and have not been addressed in this document.
Comments received demonstrated a need for additional definition of terms used in the final programmatic evaluation. Definitions were added for: “Administration”, “Applicant”, “net-benefit” and “officials with jurisdiction.”
“Administration” refers to the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Division Administrator or Division Engineer.
“Applicant” refers to the State Highway Agency or State Department of Transportation, or local governmental agency acting through the State Highway Agency or State Department of Transportation.
A “net benefit” is achieved when the transportation use, the measures to minimize harm and the mitigation incorporated into the project results in an overall enhancement of the Section 4(f) property when compared to both the future do-nothing or avoidance alternatives and the present condition of the Section 4(f) property taking into consideration the activities, features and attributes that qualify the property for Section 4(f) protection. A project does not achieve a “net benefit” if it will result in a substantial diminishment of specific functions or values that made the property eligible for Section 4(f) protection.
“Official(s) with jurisdiction” over Section 4(f) property (typically) include: for a park, the Federal, State or local park authorities or agencies that own and/or manage the park; for a refuge, the Federal, State or local wildlife or waterfowl refuge owners and managers; and for historic sites, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), whichever has jurisdiction under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f).
Many commenters expressed overall support for the programmatic evaluation. They generally recognized and noted the potential benefits of the programmatic evaluation in streamlining the procedural requirements of Section 4(f), such as reducing paperwork and internal review, while at the same time, encouraging enhancement of Section 4(f) properties and promoting environmental stewardship.
The guiding principle regarding the use of the programmatic evaluation is that there must be a “net benefit” to the Section 4(f) property. The ability of the FHWA, the Applicant and the official(s) with jurisdiction to reach agreement with respect to the impacts, measures to minimize harm, mitigation and that a net benefit will result is inherent in the decision of whether or not the programmatic evaluation is applicable. “Negotiations” in this regard, should be no more complicated or require skills other than those required for normal project development and Section 4(f) consultations related to impacts, measures to minimize harm and mitigation.
A situation where the necessary agreement or determination of applicability is substantially difficult to achieve or make may be an indication that an individual Section 4(f) evaluation is appropriate in that case. On the other hand, this situation may be an indication that one or more of the participants lack understanding of the intent of the programmatic evaluation or the individual applicability requirements. As stated above, an understanding of the intent of the applicability and net benefit requirements is a prerequisite to agreement. Where conflict arises in coordinating agreement with the officials with jurisdiction, the FHWA should assess the nature of the disagreement to see if it is procedural or substantive before deciding not to use this programmatic evaluation.
The FHWA is committed to providing additional guidance, if needed, on a case-by-case basis to ensure that misunderstanding about the intent of the programmatic evaluation is not an impediment to its use.
Although only a few comments received can be characterized as negative or in general opposition to this programmatic evaluation, many commenters requested clarification and/or refinement of the language used.
The Sierra Club generally objected to the programmatic evaluation because in its view, it contradicts judicial interpretations of Section 4(f), derails the regulatory safeguards and circumvents the 4(f) mandate that special effort be taken to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside, public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. The Sierra Club also suggested that FHWA has provided no evidence that the new programmatic evaluation will result in any tangible benefits to areas currently protected under Section 4(f) and the streamlining approach may severely reduce the number of protected natural areas and historic sites.
This programmatic evaluation is not a waiver or relaxation of any of the Section 4(f) standards or judicial interpretations of the legislative requirements. All existing Section 4(f) legislative provisions remain intact. In addition, the use of the programmatic evaluation will allow an increase in environmental stewardship opportunities resulting in greater protection and enhancement of Section 4(f) protected properties.
The requirement for a documented agreement of the resulting net benefit to a Section 4(f) property will safeguard the preservation provisions of Section 4(f) law by ensuring that there will be an enhancement of the functions and values that originally qualified the property for Section 4(f) protection. There is no less protection afforded by this programmatic evaluation than with an individual evaluation and its application will allow a more efficient process of the regulatory requirements.
The DOI was neutral regarding the advantages of the programmatic evaluation and recommended that FHWA expand on and clarify what “net benefits” to a Section 4(f) property means, especially with regard to resources under its jurisdiction. The DOI also noted that that without further clarification the programmatic may not satisfy the statutory mandate to consult with DOI on Section 4(f) issues. In response to this and other similar comments, we have clarified the definition of “net benefit” in the final programmatic.
The PennDOT commented that the programmatic would provide some time savings in processes but that it would be limited. The NYSDOT and the TEM offered similar comments regarding limited benefit, suggesting that the procedure for utilizing a programmatic evaluation is the same as that required for an individual evaluation.
The intent of this programmatic evaluation is to address administrative burden when it is in the interest of all parties involved to take an action where a use of Section 4(f) property will result in an enhancement of that property. There may be a limited history of experience with this programmatic evaluation; however, there are many examples of “missed opportunities” to benefit or enhance an existing property where a transportation use was imminent.
This programmatic evaluation constitutes an approved evaluation for which the FHWA need only to demonstrate compliance with the criteria contained in the programmatic evaluation. The independent review by the DOI and the USDA or HUD official(s) of the draft and final individual Section 4(f) evaluations and the legal sufficiency review by the FHWA necessary for an individual evaluation are not required for this or other programmatic evaluations. In many instances the time necessary to conduct these regulatory internal reviews for individual Section 4(f) evaluations are not apparent to the parties not directly involved in the evaluation process. Procedurally, the time savings may be limited to 3 to 6 months in normal project development; however, the overall benefit is enough to encourage its use and will result in efforts that enhance Section 4(f) properties while avoiding some procedural steps.
The Sierra Club commented that the proposed changes do not “streamline” the Section 4(f) procedural requirements. As an example, the Sierra Club noted that the programmatic evaluation cannot be utilized if a feasible and prudent alternative exists and when a project has no prudent and feasible alternative, the agency with jurisdiction must agree to mitigation measures to ensure the proposed action results in a net benefit. The Sierra Club further opined that under this scenario, the programmatic evaluation expands FHWA's discretion and the review process, without full consideration of benefits or losses to Section 4(f) areas.
As stated above, the programmatic evaluation does not waive any of the existing Section 4(f) requirements including the determination that there are no feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives to the Section 4(f) use of the property, and that the project includes all possible measures to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property. The savings that are being sought through use of the programmatic evaluation come from eliminating internal reviews within the FHWA and the case-by-case coordination with the DOI and other Federal agencies currently required for individual evaluations. Coordination, consultation and agreement with the officials with jurisdiction are essential components of compliance.
There is an important distinction to be made in understanding the programmatic evaluation and how the agreement of net benefit is reached, documented, and approved by the Administration. Comments received from the Sierra Club and others appear to have interpreted the FHWA as the “official with jurisdiction.” This is not the case. For clarification, the definition of “official(s) with jurisdiction” was added to the final programmatic evaluation. The Sierra Club's concerns regarding the expansion of agency discretion are unfounded, given that the FHWA must reach an agreement with the official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property in order for the programmatic evaluation to apply. If anything, the role of the officials with jurisdiction is enhanced due to their required participation and agreement on achieving a net benefit.
The MDSHA and the AHC commented that the official(s) with jurisdiction over Section 4(f) property may be the SHPO or THPO and recommended changes to
The definition of “officials with jurisdiction” has been clarified as to the role of the SHPO or THPO as the official in the case of historic properties. As previously noted, there may be instances where a Section 4(f) property has more than one official with jurisdiction.
The Sierra Club expressed concern that without a coherent set of criteria to measure the impact of the project on the Section 4(f) area itself, the proposed changes alter the FHWA's role in parkland and historic site preservation by placing undue weight on external factors.
The role of the FHWA throughout the history of Section 4(f) has been to protect and preserve specific defined properties. That role or responsibility does not change with this programmatic evaluation; indeed, protection of Section 4(f) properties is enhanced, by providing an incentive to improve the property and a less cumbersome mechanism when agreement on net benefit can be reached.
The FHWA retains the responsibility for determining the applicability of Section 4(f) and of this programmatic evaluation, which is dependent on agreement of net benefit. The FHWA will give deference to the official(s) with jurisdiction to assist in determining whether the project will “substantially diminish” the function or values for which Section 4(f) was found to be applicable to the property, and all parties involved must reach agreement as to whether a proposed project will result in a “net benefit” to the property. If agreement is not reached, this programmatic evaluation will not apply.
The programmatic evaluation also does not include impact criteria as part of the applicability standards. This was done intentionally to allow the official(s) with jurisdiction, the FHWA and the Applicant flexibility in determining the measures appropriate to each individual property necessary to generate a net benefit. Deference is given to officials with jurisdiction, who have special expertise in the property, to determine positive outcomes where there will be a use of the property by a transportation project.
Through the review of all the comments, it was noted that some questions or confusion might be attributable to the inconsistent use of the terms Section 4(f) “land”, “property” and “resource” throughout Section 4(f) regulations, guidance, documents and even the statute itself. For this final programmatic evaluation, the term “property” has been used as consistently as possible, when not quoted from or directly related to the language of an existing document.
Several commenters asked for further clarification on what constitutes a “net benefit” and who makes that determination.
The DOI suggested that the term “net benefits” is subjective and could potentially lead to counterproductive proposals. DOI recommended that the definition of “net benefit” to Section 4(f) property be expanded and clarified.
Both the ACH and the MDSHA questioned how and by whom the determination of “net benefit” would be made. Several commenters also recommended that criteria be developed to ensure that people with knowledge about the property have key roles in the determination of net benefit.
There is a wide range of what will constitute a net benefit, which will vary depending on the property and the project situation. In other words, net benefit determination is property and project specific, rather than generally subjective, and the development of criteria would serve to restrict the ability to develop mutually agreeable net benefits. For this reason the FHWA, the Applicant and the official(s) with jurisdiction must work collaboratively to define and agree upon what is reasonable and required to achieve a net benefit to a particular Section 4(f) property, on a case-by-case basis. Each of the participants plays an important role in this joint determination to ensure that individual resource experts will be involved. Net benefit is a joint decision, but it is only one of the prerequisites to application of this programmatic evaluation. Consistent with the responsibilities and authorities provided by Section 4(f) itself, the FHWA will determine whether the proposed action satisfies the applicability criteria for the use of this programmatic evaluation.
The AASHTO recognized one major difference in this programmatic evaluation compared to the existing programmatic evaluations related to historic properties considered under the National Historic Preservation Act. In some cases, this programmatic evaluation could apply where a Section 106 “adverse effect” finding has been made. The AASHTO, however, expressed some concern that it would apply only if the project had a net benefit on each individual historic property affected by the project and recommended that the programmatic evaluation allow the net “benefit” finding to be made for the project as whole rather than each individual property affected by a project. Similarly the NYSDOT recommended revising the net benefit finding to apply to the project as a whole, as a change more likely to promote environmental stewardship.
As noted earlier, this programmatic evaluation does not allow for the waiver or relaxation of existing Section 4(f) standards or the judicial interpretation of the legislative requirements. As such, each Section 4(f) protected property must continue to be considered individually as is currently required for any project or Section 4(f) evaluation. Generally speaking, impacts and benefits to individual Section 4(f) properties must be considered when applying the Applicability criteria. An individual Section 4(f) property, such as an historic district or park complex, might have multiple components. The net benefit must be achieved for an individual Section 4(f) property and for the functions and values that qualified that property for Section 4(f) protection. Although a historic district may experience a net benefit and be appropriately covered by this programmatic evaluation, each property within the historic district that is individually eligible for the National Register and is used by the project must be considered separately under this programmatic evaluation, if it applies, or in an individual Section 4(f) evaluation.
There can be impacts to the functions and values of the Section 4(f) property,
The AASHTO recommended that the net benefit finding take into account the likely future condition of the historic property if the transportation project is not implemented,
The revised definition of net benefit included in the final programmatic evaluation addresses this comment, in part. This determination relies on a comparison of Section 4(f) functions and values of the property without the transportation project and use to determine net benefit.
The WIDOT commented that agreements on what constitutes “net benefit” could be difficult to reach among the stakeholders involved.
The WIDOT recognized the potential difficulties that may occur when working out the details sufficiently enough that all officials with jurisdiction are satisfied that a net benefit will result. Because the range of what constitutes a net benefit will vary from property to property, by the official(s) with jurisdiction, and by the policies of both the FHWA and the Applicant, creative measures used to achieve net benefits on a project level should be developed and shared with the larger environmental and transportation community in the form of “Best Practices.” The flexibility inherent within the language of the programmatic evaluation provides official(s) with jurisdiction an opportunity and incentive to participate in efforts that maintain and achieve benefits to Section 4(f) properties under their protection. The Applicant and the FHWA are encouraged to communicate the beneficial qualities of the programmatic evaluation with the official(s) with jurisdiction in order to maximize its potential benefit to the Section 4(f) property.
Several commenters noted that the use of the term “net benefit” is inconsistent throughout the programmatic evaluation. It was unclear whether there merely needs to be a net benefit, or does the project have to preserve, rehabilitate, enhance, and have a net benefit. It was further noted that in some situations, it would be difficult to argue that the project does all four even though it may have an overall net benefit.
From these comments and others, the FHWA recognizes the need to clarify the term “net benefit.” Therefore, as noted above, the definition of net benefit has been modified and simplified for consistency in the final programmatic evaluation. This definition clarifies that the resulting Section 4(f) functions and values of the property are “better,” overall, than if the project did not use the Section 4(f) property. The “net benefit” determination may be based on a number of approaches to mitigate and minimize harm as long as there is an overall enhancement or betterment from the future do-nothing or avoidance condition.
As previously discussed, further instruction has been provided in this programmatic evaluation on how the net benefit is determined and by whom it is determined.
The NPS expressed concern with the definition of “net benefit” and objected to the inclusion of the “substantial diminishment” requirement without providing standards for measuring what is or is not substantial.
The subjectivity of individual values and functions of a significant Section 4(f) property demonstrate the variability of impacts, mitigation, and net benefits, thus, providing guidance or strict criteria on this determination may be viewed as overly prescriptive. There is similar subjectivity and context in determining “substantial diminishment.” For these reasons, it is important to consider the insight of the official(s) with jurisdiction when it comes to deciding “net benefit” and/or “substantial diminishment” and the officials with jurisdiction are in the best position to assist in these determinations. Therefore, some deference should be given to the officials with jurisdiction when determining if the project will “substantially diminish” the activities, features or attributes that qualify the property for Section 4(f) protection. And this determination is essential to deciding if there is a “net benefit.” If agreement on net benefit cannot be reached, this programmatic evaluation will not apply to the property.
Addressing park, recreational, wildlife and waterfowl resources and cultural, historic, and tribal properties within a single nationwide programmatic evaluation has created some confusion when discussing coordination with appropriate individuals or official(s) with jurisdiction. Several comments were received that reflect a general concern about the definition and intended role of the official(s) with jurisdiction.
For example, the AHC asked that the programmatic evaluation clarify who has official jurisdiction over Section 4(f) property and whether it must take the SHPO's advice into consideration.
A substantial effort has been made to clarify language in the final programmatic evaluation. Consistent with existing Section 4(f) regulations and guidance, whichever of the SHPO and/or THPO has responsibility under the Section 106 regulations is considered the official with jurisdiction over an historic property. The FHWA must seek and consider the opinion of the SHPO when determining effect under the Section 106 regulations and would likewise, under Section 4(f), seek the opinion of the SHPO as an official with jurisdiction when determining whether a net benefit will result from the Section 4(f) use of an historic site. In an example of an historic park owned by a municipality that was purchased with funding from the Land and Water Conservation Funds Act, the officials with jurisdiction would be the municipal parks department and the SHPO. All officials with jurisdiction must agree with a net benefit determination to a Section 4(f) property for this programmatic evaluation to apply. Coordination with the NPS would also be required in this case, relative to its responsibilities under the LWCFA, to assist in determining appropriate and acceptable mitigation for the project's Section 4(f) use.
Several commenters expressed a desire to improve the integration of Section 4(f) requirements with those of the Section 106 process. The NYSDOT commented that the programmatic evaluation would do little or nothing to streamline the Section 4(f) process with respect to an historic property. The TEM recommended that the programmatic evaluation “adopt” the conclusion of the Section 106 process such that, if a project has been found to have no effect, no adverse effect, or results in a MOU that addresses adverse effects, it should
The current laws and regulations continue to apply. The FHWA has, to the extent consistent with both laws, combined the common elements of the two processes for this programmatic evaluation. Much of the coordination required, the assessment of impacts, and mitigation is basically the same whether intended to comply with NEPA, Section 106 or Section 4(f). An integrated approach that satisfies multiple requirements is consistent with existing FHWA policy to use the NEPA process as the “umbrella” under which all environmental and related laws and regulations are addressed. It is within the unique requirements of Section 4(f) that this programmatic evaluation will provide relief in the preparation of a single evaluation rather than a draft and a final, the elimination of certain internal FHWA reviews, and the elimination of project-by-project review by the DOI and the USDA, and the HUD, all of which are now required for an individual Section 4(f) evaluation.
Revisions were made to several sections of the programmatic evaluation based upon either suggestions or comments received. The substantive changes not discussed above are considered in this Section-by-Section Analysis.
In response to comments, the Preamble has been revised to improve its consistency with the main body of the programmatic evaluation and to respond to the comments received.
Several comments were received on the examples provided in the draft to illustrate application and implementation of the programmatic evaluation. These examples have been rewritten to provide further clarity on the use of the programmatic evaluation.
The TXDOT commented on the example of a renovated historic railroad station with the opinion that such renovation, if completed in compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines, should result in a “no adverse effect” determination, and thus, no 4(f) analysis would be required.
In specific instances, where the purpose of a project was to improve an existing transportation facility, the observation of the TXDOT would be correct (as provided in 23 CFR 771.135(f)). However, for situations not covered by 23 CFR 771.135(f), the FHWA's determination of “no adverse effect,” as defined by the regulations implementing the NHPA, and its subsequent concurrence by the SHPO, would not necessarily eliminate the need for a Section 4(f) evaluation. The programmatic evaluation provides additional flexibility in addressing adverse impacts and Section 106 “adverse effects” to historic property, where, notwithstanding these impacts, there results an overall enhancement of the Section 4(f) property. In the example cited above, if the Applicant or the FHWA developed plans to renovate the historic railroad station in such a way that the functions and values of the station were enhanced yet the design still did not meet the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines (
The MDSHA commented on the example where a Section 106 adverse effect determination was rendered; that it was not clear how the programmatic evaluation could be applied as the official with jurisdiction would be contradicting itself by agreeing that the action had a beneficial effect.
This result would depend upon the enhancement and mitigation provided and, in the end, how the officials with jurisdiction view the results of that mitigation and enhancement. The FHWA may determine that a project has an adverse effect as defined in the Section 106 regulation on a particular function or value of a Section 4(f) property, but for the programmatic evaluation to apply there cannot be a “substantial diminishment” of the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for Section 4(f) protection. Not every adverse effect rises to the level of substantial diminishment. For instance, the removal or moving of one contributing component of a historic district may result in an improvement to the access or continuity of the overall property. An example would be the creation of a pedestrian promenade within the historic district that recreates a lost element of the district and improves its economic vitality. Additionally, the Section 106 process does not consider the future do-nothing alternative, yet within this programmatic evaluation the future do-nothing is considered when determining net benefit. Therefore, the SHPO, without conflict, may concur with an adverse effect determination under Section 106, but may agree that the proposed project has a net benefit and will not result in substantial diminishment of the property under this programmatic evaluation.
When the FHWA utilizes this programmatic evaluation, documentation should be requested from the official(s) with jurisdiction that a net benefit will result from implementation of the project and that there is no substantial diminishment of protected activities, features or attributes of the protected property. This agreement may be incorporated into the Section 106 Agreement or other correspondence related to the Section 106 consultation process where the Section 4(f) protected property is historic, however, it should be clear that the Section 4(f) related request is separate and distinct from Section 106 consultation. If a historic property also meets other Section 4(f) criteria (
In response to the comments received concerning needed guidance and in recognition of the need to further clarify the intended use of this programmatic evaluation, the examples from the draft were rewritten and new examples were added.
Referring to the last sentence of the Introduction, the NPS commented that the listing of these few programs in the proposed programmatic evaluation might lead to the incorrect interpretation that the list is all-inclusive rather than a sampling.
Not to mislead any intending user of the programmatic evaluation, the partial listing has been removed and the portion of the all-inclusive discussion stating, “any other applicable Federal environmental requirements” was retained.
The WIDOT commented that the proposed programmatic evaluation is limited in its scope and will apply only to a small subset of projects.
Initially, utilization of the programmatic evaluation may be limited, but over time it is anticipated that it will have increased use as Applicants, the official(s) with jurisdiction, and the FHWA learn how to incorporate actions beneficial to Section 4(f) properties into transportation projects and realize the reduction in regulatory and internal review times that will result from the application of this programmatic evaluation.
The TXDOT and others requested clarification of language found in
The concern expressed in this comment is recognized and the recommendation has been adopted in part. The language has been reworded to eliminate “other appropriate parties.” This change respects the distinction between Section 4(f) and 36 CFR part 800.
The NPS commented that the success of existing “minor involvement” programmatic Section 4(f) evaluations has been due to the following factors, (1) they are restricted to improvements on essentially the existing alignment, (2) the maximum acreage limitations are defined, and (3) they do not apply to projects for which an EIS is prepared.
The essence of this programmatic evaluation is distinct from the existing “minor uses” programmatic evaluations in that its application is dependent on a resulting positive outcome instead of a minor use. For this reason its application is appropriate and allowable in conjunction with both existing and new alignments. The maximum-acreage-allowable criterion was specified in the programmatic evaluation for minor uses of parks, recreation areas and wildlife and waterfowl refuges to assist in defining minor use in spatial terms. The amount of property used is not an appropriate factor in determining the net benefit and may inappropriately limit application of this evaluation in some cases. Therefore, the application of this programmatic will remain the same so as not to reduce its potential effectiveness and application.
Since this programmatic evaluation can provide the impetus necessary to develop creative measures of avoidance, minimization, and enhancement for impacts to protected Section 4(f) properties, it is appropriate for use with all environmental class of actions, including EISs, in which the applicability criteria is satisfied.
The NPS and DOI noted that the programmatic evaluation does not clearly define the role of agencies holding a contractual or real estate interest in the subject property.
We do not believe it is necessary to specify a criterion that singles out the NPS or any other agency in determining applicability of the programmatic evaluation. Such an encumbrance would not be affected by FHWA's Section 4(f) determination. Where the NPS or another agency has the “last word”, under another statute, that responsibility remains intact. A sentence was added to the final programmatic evaluation requiring coordination with the appropriate agency, where such encumbrances exist, to clarify the process.
For Section 4(f) properties, other than privately owned historic resources, the FHWA and the Applicant shall pursue with due diligence, during early stages of project development, determination of whether or not the property in question received a LWCFA grant. If the Applicant or the FHWA have concerns about whether a park area might have received a LWCF grant they should contact one of the National Park Service field offices or State Agency, as listed in the “Contact List” on the following Web site:
The NEPA documentation, project file or Section 4(f) documentation shall include evidence of the determination.
The DOI suggested that “National Historic Landmarks” should be explicitly identified as National Register eligible property and that additional stipulations to address situations that involve National Natural Landmarks be added.
Since there is no distinction between National Historic Landmarks and other National Register eligible properties where Section 4(f) is concerned, the draft language is retained. Also, the programmatic evaluation would apply to those National Natural Landmarks that met the statutory definition of a Section 4(f) protected property.
The NPS also expressed concern that the FHWA will have the “sole responsibility” for determining whether a public park area will receive a net benefit. The programmatic evaluation requires the FHWA to reach agreement with the officials with jurisdiction; therefore, FHWA will never have the “sole responsibility” for determining net benefit.
As stated above, the language in the final programmatic evaluation addresses the concerns of the NPS. If agreement is not reached among the FHWA, the Applicant and official(s) with jurisdiction, then the programmatic evaluation cannot be used. If, for example, the NPS requires full replacement of federally encumbered property pursuant to LWCFA, then that obligation will continue to require at least full replacement of the impacted land as determined under that statute whether or not there is a net benefit finding. This holds true for any necessary provision, whether Federal or State, that relates to the impacts of a Section 4(f) property. This is why early consultation and input from all appropriate official(s) with jurisdiction is necessary and required.
The MDSHA commented on an apparent discrepancy between one of the examples and the
Changes have been made to the
Relating this back to the example at hand, even though the wall is considered an important function or value in determining Section 106 significance of the historic property, the reconstruction of the wall is neither considered a substantial diminishment nor a major alteration but rather an improvement over its existing condition, the anticipated condition of the future no-build and the condition of the historic site itself, thereby qualifying as a net benefit.
The MDSHA commented on
Where required by 36 CFR part 800, an MOA or Programmatic Agreement would be a prerequisite for Section 4(f) approval under this programmatic evaluation similar to the Final Nationwide Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for Federally-Aided Highway Projects with Minor Involvements with Historic Sites and the Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for FHWA Projects that Necessitate the Use of Historic Bridges. The conditions and measures to achieve a net benefit may be established in the MOA. However, the MOA, or any additional or separate documentation, must clearly record that agreement has been reached among the officials with jurisdiction, the FHWA and the Applicant and all appropriate documentation must be retained for the project record consistent with NEPA project documentation retention practices and policies.
In summation, any written agreement developed as part of the Section 106 process can suffice for the
Regarding
The language in
The NYSDOT commented on the “substantial diminishment” requirement related to determining “net benefit” in the
Programmatic evaluations by their nature are limited to projects that meet a specific set of facts and applicability requirements. A project that will result in a substantial diminishment of any of the functions or values that originally qualified the property for Section 4(f) protection should be evaluated using an individual evaluation. The wording of this programmatic evaluation is designed to ensure that a net benefit is achieved without substantial diminishment of the functions or values (features or attributes) that make the property eligible for Section 4(f) protection. Still, there is flexibility in determining what function or values are keys to the properties' eligibility for protection and what constitutes a substantial diminishment of those functions and values.
The AHC commented that it is difficult to discern how the programmatic evaluation helps the FHWA when it comes to its avoidance alternatives analysis and the PennDOT recognized that the programmatic evaluation limits the alternatives that must be analyzed and documented.
The PennDOT is correct; the avoidance alternatives that must be considered are all-inclusive. This approach is consistent with the existing programmatic evaluations.
The DOI suggested that the “Do Nothing Alternative” be replaced with the term “No Action Alternative,” in accordance with NEPA guidance.
To avoid confusion, the term “Do Nothing Alternative” will be retained, as it is consistent with the other programmatic evaluations.
The PennDOT recommended that the “qualitative importance or value” of each Section 4(f) resource should be considered in determining whether or not an avoidance alternative is feasible and prudent. It further recommended that for historic properties, the condition and ownership should be considered as well.
The programmatic addresses those situations where the transportation use results in an overall enhancement of the property as agreed to by the official(s) with jurisdiction, the FHWA and the Applicant. The ability to benefit the property must be factored into the feasible and prudent determination. The consideration of the avoidance alternative comes from the Section 4(f) statutory requirements, which have not changed. The Section 4(f) legislation addresses historic properties regardless of ownership of the property.
The DOI recommended revising the first sentence to indicate that to apply the programmatic evaluation to a project, the required no-action and avoidance alternatives must be found not feasible and prudent through a written determination.
The wording has been changed to reflect the comment.
The DOI suggested inserting the phrase “jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat,” before the phrase “substantial damage to wetlands”. The suggested language has been incorporated.
The NYSDOT commented on the proposed language, “An accumulation of these kinds of problems must be of extraordinary magnitude when compared to the proposed use of the Section 4(f) land to determine that (the avoidance) alternative is not feasible and prudent.” It was suggested that this approach would seem more valid in the context of a full 4(f) evaluation where there is a net negative effect to a historic property, than in a programmatic evaluation context where the “net” effect is positive.
This language is consistent with existing Section 4(f) implementation policy and has been incorporated in essence. The first condition of Section 4(f) use is the determination that no feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives exist. The programmatic evaluation must include this determination in order to facilitate compliance with the statute and regulations. This programmatic evaluation identifies the variables that must be considered when making the determination of feasible and prudent. Application of this programmatic evaluation is optional and an individual evaluation may be prepared at the discretion of the Administration in those cases where it is appropriate.
The AHC asked about how the evidence of no feasible and prudent alternative will be collected and distributed.
Appropriate evidence that no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of Section 4(f) property exists must be a part of the FHWA's administrative record for the project. This supporting
The AHC also asked about what would constitute a “substantial increase in cost” and suggested that we include an approximate figure or at least a percentage.
The FHWA, in consultation with the Applicant, will determine what is considered a substantial increase. The language is identical to that used in previous programmatic evaluations.
The AHC commented that Findings 2(e) seem to be intended to play one resource improvement against another's adverse effect.
The statement found in Findings 2(e) is not intended to play one property against another. The purpose of the statement is to give appropriate consideration and weight to the beneficial measures of the project when determining whether an alternative is prudent and feasible.
In regard to item number 2(e), the NPS questioned whether “a missed opportunity” to benefit a Section 4(f) property has any relevance in determining whether or not an alternative is feasible and prudent.
Section 4(f) established a two-fold emphasis for the Secretary of Transportation: to protect and to enhance significant resources identified for special consideration. To date, programmatic evaluations have focused on projects with minor impacts to these protected properties. This programmatic evaluation is designed to allow the FHWA, the Applicant and official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) properties, to look for opportunities where transportation actions can enhance Section 4(f) properties, even where there is a use of some property. Because a net benefit on a property can only be determined when all parties agree, the programmatic evaluation will only be used when it is deemed appropriate and in the best interests of the protected property. To ensure that 2(e) is not abused or equated to a low bar, we included language to clarify that for a project to qualify for 2(e) there must be a substantial missed opportunity to benefit a Section 4(f) property.
Several commenters indicated a confusion regarding the wording of this section and offered suggestions. The principal reason is the combination of “Measures to Minimize Harm” and “Mitigation Measures.” When put together, commenters read it as “Measures to Minimize Harm and Measures to Minimize Mitigation”. Obviously this is not the intent; however, to rectify this misunderstanding the language has been changed to read: “Mitigation and Measures to Minimize Harm.” Although, measures to minimize harm are considered mitigation, this language is consistent with the Section 4(f) statute.
The NPS recommended that the programmatic evaluation require that all projects be coordinated with the appropriate DOI bureaus.
As noted earlier, for those projects where an agency or bureau of DOI is an official with jurisdiction, or where the LWCFA applies, coordination will be necessary as a procedure in meeting the applicability requirements and approval of this programmatic evaluation.
Another comment questioned the statement regarding the need for the FHWA to coordinate with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) before applying the programmatic evaluation to projects requiring a Section 9 Bridge permit.
When the proposed programmatic evaluation was issued, the USCG was still a part of the USDOT and therefore it had Section 4(f) responsibilities. Since that time, the USCG has been relocated to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, eliminating its Section 4(f) responsibility. However, the USCG still has responsibility related to issuance of Section 9 Bridge permits. Wording has been changed to remove coordination with the USCG relative to Section 4(f) compliance.
The WIDOT noted that the constructive consultation of transportation officials, the officials with jurisdiction and resource agency staff is encouraged.
Consultation is not only encouraged, it is required. For this programmatic evaluation to be successful, good coordination and consultation are imperative.
There were no substantive comments regarding this section and no changes have been made.
The AHC asked, relative to the last sentence of Item Number 6, if the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation agreed to review all programmatic evaluations.
The last sentence in Item Number 6 of the
One example of a net benefit to a historic property would be the reconstruction of a deteriorated or lost historic feature (such as a rock wall or auxiliary building) where mitigation related to Section 106 consultation includes the reconstruction of the feature in a slightly different location because of the design requirements of a needed improvement to the adjacent transportation facility. Consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) would likely result in an “adverse effect” determination. However, the SHPO, the FHWA, and the Applicant all agree that the reconstruction would enhance those qualities for which the property was determined eligible, even with the removal and replacement of the historically associated feature. In this case, the existing FHWA Final Nationwide Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for Federally-Aided Highway Projects with Minor Involvements with Historic Sites would not be applicable, but if SHPO, as the official with jurisdiction, agrees that the impacts do not reach a level of substantial diminishment, the FHWA may determine that this programmatic evaluation would be applicable if the evaluation finds that the use of the property is prudent.
A second example involves a partial or even total relocation of a Section 4(f) property (such as a community park) to a location within the community that would have a greater value and use to that community. In this case, the existing nationwide minor use programmatic could not be used because the take of land would exceed the limitation included in it and would impair the use of the remaining Section 4(f) land. Again, this programmatic evaluation would be applicable if the officials with jurisdiction agree that the partial (or total) relocation would be a net benefit to the park and that the relocation does not result in the substantial diminishment of the activities, feature or attributes for which
A final example is the rehabilitation of an historic railroad station to maintain its major historic elements and to permit its continued use as a historic transportation facility. In some cases, such rehabilitation, even with considerable sensitivity to the historic character of the resource, cannot be accomplished without a Section 106 adverse effect determination, and neither the regulatory provision at 23 CFR 771.135(f) related to historic transportation facilities nor the historic site programmatic could be used. The adverse effect may be caused, for example, by modifications to provide access for the disabled or by interior reconfiguration to provide retail space to keep the station economically viable as a transportation facility. The SHPO, as the official with jurisdiction, may concur with the FHWA determination of “adverse effect,” but may also recognize the net benefits of the restoration of the station and the assurance of its continued use may greatly outweigh the adverse effect,
There will be situations when this programmatic evaluation would not apply. For example, the owner of an individually eligible historic building has abandoned the building so that it is likely to continue to deteriorate. The transportation agency proposes to demolish the building for a transportation improvement, and agrees to record the building in accordance with the standards set by the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) prior to its demolition. In the project design year (20 years hence) without the project, the building may be effectively demolished through neglect. In the design year of the project, the building will be demolished but a record of the building will be made. Although having the record of the demolished building is an improvement over not having such a record, it is not a net benefit to the resource, as the resource will no longer exist. Therefore, this programmatic evaluation would not apply because it requires that there be a resource to which a net benefit would result. In this case, an individual Section 4(f) evaluation would be needed. On the other hand, if the same abandoned historic building (contributing component) lies within a large commercial historic district, where the officials with jurisdiction (
The FHWA recognizes and appreciates the effort of all parties who provided comments for consideration in the development and finalization of this programmatic evaluation.
49 U.S.C. 303; 23 U.S.C. 138; 49 CFR 1.48.
The text of the FHWA Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for Transportation Projects That Have a Net Benefit to a Section 4(f) Property is as follows:
This nationwide programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation (programmatic evaluation) has been prepared for certain federally assisted transportation improvement projects on existing or new alignments that will use property of a Section 4(f) park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic property, which in the view of the Administration and official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property, the use of the Section 4(f) property will result in a net benefit to the Section 4(f) property. Definitions:
“Administration” refers to the Federal Highway Division Administrator or Division Engineer (as appropriate).
“Applicant” refers to a State Highway Agency or State Department of Transportation, local governmental agency acting through the State Highway Agency or State Department of Transportation.
A “net benefit” is achieved when the transportation use, the measures to minimize harm and the mitigation incorporated into the project results in an overall enhancement of the Section 4(f) property when compared to both the future do-nothing or avoidance alternatives and the present condition of the Section 4(f) property, considering the activities, features and attributes that qualify the property for Section 4(f) protection. A project does not achieve a “net benefit” if it will result in a substantial diminishment of the function or value that made the property eligible for Section 4(f) protection.
“Official(s) with jurisdiction” over Section 4(f) property (typically) include: for a park, the Federal, State or local park authorities or agencies that own and/or manage the park; for a refuge, the Federal, State or local wildlife or waterfowl refuge owners and managers; and for historic sites, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), whichever has jurisdiction under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f).
The Administration is responsible for review of each transportation project for which this programmatic evaluation is contemplated to determine that it meets the criteria and procedures of this programmatic evaluation. The information and determination will be included in the applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation and administrative record. This programmatic evaluation will not change any existing procedures for NEPA compliance, public involvement, or any other applicable Federal environmental requirement.
This programmatic evaluation satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f) for projects meeting the applicability criteria listed below. An individual Section 4(f) evaluation will not need to be prepared for such projects:
1. The proposed transportation project uses a Section 4(f) park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site.
2. The proposed project includes all appropriate measures to minimize harm and subsequent mitigation necessary to preserve and enhance those features and values of the property that originally qualified the property for Section 4(f) protection.
3. For historic properties, the project does not require the major alteration of
4. For historic properties, consistent with 36 CFR part 800, there must be agreement reached amongst the SHPO and/or THPO, as appropriate, the FHWA and the Applicant on measures to minimize harm when there is a use of Section 4(f) property. Such measures must be incorporated into the project.
5. The official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property agree in writing with the assessment of the impacts; the proposed measures to minimize harm; and the mitigation necessary to preserve, rehabilitate and enhance those features and values of the Section 4(f) property; and that such measures will result in a net benefit to the Section 4(f) property.
6. The Administration determines that the project facts match those set forth in the Applicability, Alternatives, Findings, Mitigation and Measures to Minimize Harm, Coordination, and Public Involvement sections of this programmatic evaluation.
This programmatic evaluation can be applied to any project regardless of class of action under NEPA.
To demonstrate that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of Section 4(f) property, the programmatic evaluation analysis must address alternatives that avoid the Section 4(f) property. The following alternatives avoid the use of the Section 4(f) property:
1. Do nothing.
2. Improve the transportation facility in a manner that addresses the project's purpose and need without a use of the Section 4(f) property.
3. Build the transportation facility at a location that does not require use of the Section 4(f) property.
This list is intended to be all-inclusive. The programmatic evaluation does not apply if a feasible and prudent alternative is identified that is not discussed in this document. The project record must clearly demonstrate that each of the above alternatives was fully evaluated before the Administration can conclude that the programmatic evaluation can be applied to the project.
For this programmatic evaluation to be utilized on a project there must be a finding, given the present condition of the Section 4(f) property, that the do-nothing and avoidance alternatives described in the Alternatives section above are not feasible and prudent. The findings (1, 2, and 3. below) must be supported by the circumstances, studies, consultations, and other relevant information and included in the administrative record for the project. This supporting information and determination will be documented in the appropriate NEPA document and/or project record consistent with current Section 4(f) policy and guidance.
To support the finding, adverse factors associated with the no-build and avoidance alternatives, such as environmental impacts, safety and geometric problems, decreased transportation service, increased costs, and any other factors may be considered collectively. One or an accumulation of these kinds of factors must be of extraordinary magnitude when compared to the proposed use of the Section 4(f) property to determine that an alternative is not feasible and prudent. The net impact of the do-nothing or build alternatives must also consider the function and value of the Section 4(f) property before and after project implementation as well as the physical and/or functional relationship of the Section 4(f) property to the surrounding area or community.
1.
The Do-Nothing Alternative is not feasible and prudent because it would neither address nor correct the transportation need cited as the NEPA purpose and need, which necessitated the proposed project.
2.
It is not feasible and prudent to avoid Section 4(f) property by using engineering design or transportation system management techniques, such as minor location shifts, changes in engineering design standards, use of retaining walls and/or other structures and traffic diversions or other traffic management measures if implementing such measures would result in any of the following:
(a) Substantial adverse community impacts to adjacent homes, businesses or other improved properties; or
(b) Substantially increased transportation facility or structure cost; or
(c) Unique engineering, traffic, maintenance or safety problems; or
(d) Substantial adverse social, economic or environmental impacts; or
(e) A substantial missed opportunity to benefit a Section 4(f) property; or
(f) Identified transportation needs not being met; and
(g) Impacts, costs or problems would be truly unusual, unique or of extraordinary magnitude when compared with the proposed use of Section 4(f) property after taking into account measures to minimize harm and mitigate for adverse uses, and enhance the functions and value of the Section 4(f) property.
Flexibility in the use of applicable design standards is encouraged during the analysis of these feasible and prudent alternatives.
3.
It is not feasible and prudent to avoid Section 4(f) property by constructing at a new location if:
(a) The new location would not address or correct the problems cited as the NEPA purpose and need, which necessitated the proposed project; or
(b) The new location would result in substantial adverse social, economic or environmental impacts (including such impacts as extensive severing of productive farmlands, displacement of a substantial number of families or businesses, serious disruption of community cohesion, jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or resulting in the destruction or adverse modification of their designated critical habitat, substantial damage to wetlands or other sensitive natural areas, or greater impacts to other Section 4(f) properties); or
(c) The new location would substantially increase costs or cause substantial engineering difficulties (such as an inability to achieve minimum design standards or to meet the requirements of various permitting agencies such as those involved with navigation, pollution, or the environment); and
(d) Such problems, impacts, costs, or difficulties would be truly unusual or unique or of extraordinary magnitude when compared with the proposed use of the Section 4(f) property after taking into account proposed measures to minimize harm, mitigation for adverse use, and the enhancement of the Section 4(f) property's functions and value.
Flexibility in the use of applicable design standards is encouraged during the analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives.
This programmatic evaluation and approval may be used only for projects where the Administration, in accordance with this evaluation, ensures that the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm, includes appropriate mitigation measures, and that the official(s) with jurisdiction agree in writing.
In early stages of project development, each project will require coordination with the Federal, State, and/or local agency official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property. For non-Federal Section 4(f) properties,
Copies of the final written report required under this programmatic evaluation shall be offered to the official(s) with jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) property, to other interested parties as part of the normal NEPA project documentation distribution practices and policies or upon request.
The project shall include public involvement activities that are consistent with the specific requirements of 23 CFR 771.111, Early coordination, public involvement and project development. For a project where one or more public meetings or hearings are held, information on the proposed use of the Section 4(f) property shall be communicated at the public meeting(s) or hearing(s).
This programmatic evaluation approval applies only after the Administration has:
1. Determined that the project meets the applicability criteria set forth in
2. Determined that all of the alternatives set forth in the
3. Determined that the findings in the programmatic evaluation (which conclude that the alternative recommended is the only feasible and prudent alternative) result in a clear net benefit to the Section 4(f) property;
4. Determined that the project complies with the
5. Determined that the coordination and public involvement efforts required by this programmatic evaluation have been successfully completed and necessary written agreements have been obtained; and
6. Documented the information that clearly identifies the basis for the above determinations and assurances.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), United States Department of Transportation (DOT).
Public notice and invitation to comment.
FMCSA invites interested parties to submit comments on an application by The American Trucking Associations, Inc. for an administrative determination as to whether Federal hazardous materials transportation law preempts highway routing requirements of the District of Columbia in restricting transportation of certain hazardous materials.
Comments received on or before June 6, 2005, and rebuttal comments received on or before July 19, 2005, will be considered before an administrative ruling is issued. Rebuttal comments may discuss only those issues raised by comments received during the initial comment period and may not discuss new issues.
You may submit comments, identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FMCSA-2005-20930, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
•
•
•
•
Mr. William Quade, Chief, Hazardous Materials Division (MC-ECH), (202) 366-2172; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
A copy of each comment must also be sent to Richard Moskowitz, Assistant General Counsel, American Trucking Associations, 2200 Mill Road, Alexandria, VA 22314. Certification of sending a copy to Mr. Moskowitz must accompany your comments. (The following format is suggested: “I certify copies of this comment have been sent to Mr. Moskowitz at the address specified in the
The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can get electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the “help” section of the DMS Web site. If you want us to notify you of receiving your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page displaying after receipt of on-line comments.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
The American Trucking Associations, Inc. (“ATA”) has applied for an administrative determination that Federal hazardous material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101
A copy of the ATA application for preemption determination is in the docket for this notice. You may view or obtain a copy of the application online by visiting
In the application, ATA challenges the following two sections of the DC Act:
(1) Section 4 of the DC Act, titled “Prohibition on shipments of hazardous materials.” Section 4 makes it illegal, except in cases of emergency, to transport in the Capitol Exclusion Zone without a permit any of the materials in the list below. Section 4 also makes it illegal in the Capitol Exclusion Zone, without a permit, to operate a vehicle which is capable of containing, and has exterior placarding or other markings indicating it contains, any of these materials:
(a) Explosives of Class 1, Division 1.1, or Class 1, Division 1.2, as designated in 49 CFR 173.2, in a quantity greater than 500 kilograms;
(b) Flammable gasses of Class 2, Division 2.1, as designated in 49 CFR 173.2, in a quantity greater than 10,000 liters;
(c) Poisonous gasses of Class 2, Division 2.3, as designated in 49 CFR 173.2, in a quantity greater than 500 liters, and belonging to Hazard Zones A or B, as defined in 49 CFR 173.116; and
(d) Poisonous materials, other than gasses, of Class 6, Division 6.1, in a quantity greater than 1,000 kilograms, and belonging to Hazard Zones A or B, as defined in 49 CFR 173.133.
Section 3 of the DC Act defines an “emergency” as an unanticipated, temporary situation that threatens the immediate safety of individuals or property, as determined by the District of Columbia Department of Transportation.
(2) Section 5 of the DC Act, titled “Permits.” Section 5 of the DC Act enables the District of Columbia Department of Transportation to issue a permit authorizing transport of the materials listed in Section 4 if there is no “practical alternative route”—defined in Section 3 of the DC Act as a route which lies entirely outside the Capitol Exclusion Zone and whose use would not make shipment of the hazardous materials cost-prohibitive. The permit may require the adoption of safety measures, including time-of-day restrictions. Section 5 authorizes the District of Columbia Department of Transportation to collect fees, not to exceed the cost of implementing and enforcing the DC Act, for the issuance of the permits.
In its application for a preemption determination, ATA states the DC Act was enacted without regard to the procedures set forth in the Federal hazardous materials routing regulations. Specifically, ATA asserts the District of Columbia failed to provide the requisite notice and comment period as required by 49 CFR 397.71(b)(2) and failed to hold a public hearing. ATA further states the District of Columbia failed to consult with officials of neighboring jurisdictions as required by 49 CFR 397.71(b)(3). Additionally, ATA asserts the District of Columbia did not engage in the risk analysis required by 49 CFR 397.71(b)(4). Lastly, ATA states the DC Council's testimony and findings include no discussion or analysis of population density or special populations in the area outside the Capitol Exclusion Zone, characteristics of the alternative highways to be used, an analysis of the number of shipments that would be impacted by the DC Act, an analysis of the impact upon emergency response capabilities, consideration of comments and concerns of affected persons, impact upon commerce, delays in transportation, or traffic conditions, including motor vehicle accident experience. ATA points out FMCSA's routing regulations relating to non-radioactive hazardous materials require analysis of these factors prior to enacting a routing restriction.
Title 49 U.S.C. 5125 includes several preemption provisions. Section 5125(c)(1) allows a State or Indian tribe to establish, maintain, or enforce a highway routing designation over which hazardous material may or may not be transported by motor vehicles, or a limitation or requirement related to highway routing, only if the designation, limitation, or requirement complies with 49 U.S.C. 5112(b).
Section 5112(b) requires the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary), in consultation with the States, to prescribe by regulation standards for the States and Indian tribes to follow when designating specific highway routes for transportation of hazardous materials. The Secretary has delegated to FMCSA authority and responsibility for highway routing of hazardous materials.
The standards required by 49 U.S.C. 5112(b) for establishing highway routing requirements for non-radioactive hazardous materials are set forth in 49 CFR part 397, subpart C, and apply to any designations established or modified on or after November 14, 1994.
The preemption provisions in 49 U.S.C. 5125 carry out Congress's view that a single body of uniform Federal regulations promotes safety in the transportation of hazardous materials. In sec. 2 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA) [Pub. L. 101-615, November 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3244], Congress underscored the need for uniform regulations relating to transportation of hazardous materials:
(4) because of the potential risks to life, property, and the environment posed by unintentional releases of hazardous materials, consistency in laws and regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials is necessary and desirable;
(5) in order to achieve greater uniformity and to promote the public health, welfare, and safety at all levels, Federal standards for regulating the transportation of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce are necessary and desirable.
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, when reporting in 1990 on the bill to amend the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) [Pub. L. 93-633 section 112(a), 88 Stat. 2161 (1975)], stated “The original intent of HMTA was to authorize [DOT] with the regulatory and enforcement authority to protect the public against the risks imposed by all forms of hazardous materials transportation, and to preclude a multiplicity of State and local regulations and the potential for varying as well as conflicting regulations.”
A Federal Court of Appeals has indicated uniformity was the “linchpin” in the design of the HMTA, including the 1990 amendments expanding the original preemption provisions.
Title 49 U.S.C. 5125(d) provides for issuance of binding preemption determinations by the Secretary. The Secretary has delegated to FMCSA authority to make determinations of preemption concerning highway routing of hazardous materials
Preemption determinations are governed by procedures under 49 CFR part 397, Subpart E and 49 U.S.C. 5125. The FMCSA Administrator issues the preemption determination. The preemption determination includes a written statement setting forth the relevant facts and the legal basis for the determination.
In making preemption determinations under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d), FMCSA is guided by the principles and policies set forth in Executive Order 13132, titled “Federalism.”
Preemption determinations do not address issues of preemption arising under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution or under statutes other than the HMTA unless it is necessary to do so in order to determine whether a requirement is “otherwise authorized by Federal law.” A State, local jurisdiction or Indian tribe requirement is not “otherwise authorized by Federal law” merely because it is not preempted by another Federal statute.
FMCSA seeks comments on whether 49 U.S.C. 5125 preempts the District of Columbia's highway routing requirements challenged by ATA. Comments should specifically address the preemption criteria detailed in Part II above.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT.
Notice of safety advisory.
The FRA is issuing Safety Advisory 2005-02, which provides information on the potential catastrophic failure of locomotive main reservoir tanks manufactured by R&R Metal Fabricators, Incorporated, and installed on General Electric Transportation System (GETS) locomotives. The GETS has informed FRA that a total of 5,826 suspect main reservoir tanks were manufactured between 1988 and 1995. To date, four of these main reservoir tanks have failed catastrophically while in service, and additional tanks have been removed for leaking through the welded seams.
George Scerbo, Railroad Safety Specialist, Motive Power and Equipment Division (RRS-14), FRA Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone: (202) 493-6249 or Darrell Tardiff, Staff Attorney, FRA Office of Chief Counsel, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone: (202) 493-6037.
In January of 2005, FRA became aware of concerns being raised by GETS regarding locomotives with main reservoirs manufactured by R&R Metal Fabricators, Incorporated (R&R). The involved main reservoirs were manufactured between 1988 and 1995. R&R provided 5,826 main reservoirs that were manufactured during this period to GETS. At the time of GETS' notification, four of the suspect reservoirs had ruptured while in service, and the ruptures resulted in rapid splitting and deformation of the tank along the longitudinal weld seam. None of the four failed reservoirs has resulted in any injuries. The GETS has informed FRA that a hazard risk assessment process was utilized and it was determined that corrective action is required as soon as practical (i.e. within 120 days).
On January 18, 2005, GETS provided FRA a list of approximately twenty-seven hundred locomotives (2,700) that have likely been equipped with the suspect main reservoirs. Additional main reservoirs may have been mounted onto GETS locomotives through maintenance and repair. No other manufacturer's locomotives have been
The GETS has informed FRA that it has contacted the affected railroads and has provided them each a list of locomotive road numbers and a gauge to determine if the reservoir is geometrically offset (out of round) and seams misaligned, which may result in high bending stresses that can lead to weld failure. The GETS also published a Field Maintenance Instruction number 24-15309 to assist the railroads in performing the inspections, and provided replacement reservoirs for those failing to pass the gauge inspection. Locomotives that have had the main reservoir tanks inspected will be identified as follows: a blue dot next to the reservoir tank badge plate indicates the tank has passed the test, a red X indicates that the tank has failed and must be replaced. The Association of American Railroads is aware of this safety issue and, in conjunction with its member railroads, is planning to issue an industry-wide “Early Warning” letter in the near future.
The FRA may modify this Safety Advisory 2005-02, issue additional safety advisories, or take other appropriate action necessary to ensure the highest level of safety on the nation's railroads.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 seq.), this notice announces that the Information Collection abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The nature of the information collection is described as well as its expected burden. The
Comments must be submitted on or before May 20, 2005.
Rita Jackson, Maritime Administration, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-0284; FAX: 202-366-7403; or e-mail:
Maritime Administration (MARAD).
Comments are invited on: 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; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
49 CFR 1.66.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel INTERLUDE.
As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2005-20991 at
Submit comments on or before May 20, 2005.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2005 20991. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Sharon Cassidy, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5506.
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel INTERLUDE is:
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel KATRINA ANN.
As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2005-20992 at
Submit comments on or before May 20, 2005.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2005 20992. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Sharon Cassidy, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5506.
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel KATRINA ANN is:
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel WOLF.
As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2005 20990 at
Submit comments on or before May 20, 2005.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2005 20990. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to The Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Sharon Cassidy, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5506.
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel WOLF is:
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of public meeting; Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council.
The Maritime Administration announces that the Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council (MTSNAC) will hold a meeting to discuss MTS needs, regional MTS outreach initiatives, the West Coast port congestion issue, Council team assignments, and other issues. A public comment period is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. on Thursday, May 5, 2005. To provide time for as many people to speak as possible, speaking time for each individual will be limited to three minutes. Members of the public who would like to speak are asked to contact Richard J. Lolich by April 27, 2005. Commenters will be placed on the agenda in the order in which notifications are received. If time allows, additional comments will be permitted. Copies of oral comments must be submitted in writing at the meeting. Additional written comments are welcome and must be filed by May 12, 2005.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 4, 2005, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. and Thursday, May 5, 2005 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held in the Radisson Hotel Sacramento, 500 Leisure Lane, Sacramento, CA 95815. The hotel's phone number is (800) 333-3333.
Richard Lolich, (202) 366-4357; Maritime Administration, MAR-830, Room 7201, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590;
49 CFR 1.66
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of a petition to modify an exemption from the parts marking requirements of a previously approved antitheft device.
On May 15, 1995, this agency granted in full General Motors Corporation's (GM) petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard for the Chevrolet Lumina and Monte Carlo vehicle line (
The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with model year (MY) 2006.
Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.
On May 15, 1995, NHTSA published in the
This notice grants in full GM's February 15, 2005 second petition to modify the exemption of the previously approved antitheft device for the MY 2006 Chevrolet Impala/Monte Carlo. GM's February 15, 2005 submission is a complete petition, as required by 49 CFR part 543.9(d), in that it meets the general requirements contained in 49 CFR part 543.5 and the specific content requirements of 49 CFR part 543.6. GM's petition provides a detailed description of the identity, design and location of the components of the antitheft system proposed for installation beginning with the 2006 model year.
GM described the MY 1996 device (PASS-Key II) installed on the Impala/Monte Carlo as a passively activated device. It also stated that the device utilized an electrically-coded ignition key, an ignition lock-cylinder and a decoder module. GM stated that the MY 2000 device (PASS-Lock) provides the functionality of its “PASS-Key” devices but features a coded-lock cylinder instead of an electrically-coded ignition key. When the electronic sensor detects proper lock rotation, it sends a code to the body function controller. If the correct code is received, the controller enables fuel and starting of the vehicle. If an incorrect code is received, the controller disables fuel and starting of the vehicle.
In GM's MY 2006 petition to modify the exemption, it stated that the Chevrolet Impala/Monte Carlo vehicle
The controller module translates the radio frequency signal received from the key into a digital signal and compares the received response to an internally calculated value. If the values match, the key is recognized as valid, and a vehicle security password (one of 65,534), is transmitted through a serial data link to the engine control module to enable fuel and starting of the vehicle. If an invalid key code is received, the PASS-Key III+ controller module will send a disable password to the engine control module through the serial data bus, and starting, ignition and fuel will be inhibited. In the event the engine control module does not receive a password signal from the PASS-Key III+ controller, engine operation will remain inhibited. GM also stated that the PASS-Key III+ device has the capability of producing billions of codes, requiring centuries for someone to scan through them to allow theft of a vehicle.
GM stated that although its modified antitheft device provides protection against unauthorized starting and fueling of the vehicle, it does not provide any visible or audible indication of unauthorized entry by means of flashing vehicle lights or sounding of the horn. Since the system is fully operational once the vehicle has been turned off, specific visible or audible reminders beyond key removal reminders have not been provided.
Based on comparison of the reduction in the theft rates of GM vehicles using a passive theft deterrent device with an audible/visible alarm system to the reduction in theft rates for GM vehicle models equipped with a passive antitheft device without an alarm, GM finds that the lack of an alarm or attention attracting device does not compromise the theft deterrent performance of a system such as PASS-Key III+. The agency has previously agreed with the finding that the absence of a visible or audible alarm has not prevented these antitheft devices from being effective protection against theft.
In order to ensure the reliability and durability of the device, GM conducted tests based on its own specified standards. GM provided a detailed list of tests conducted and believes that its device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its specified requirements for each test. The tests conducted included high and low temperature storage, thermal shock, humidity, frost, salt fog, flammability, altitude, drop, shock, random vibration, dust, potential contaminants, connector retention/strain relief, terminal retention, connector insertion, crush, ice, immersion and tumbling. Additionally, GM stated that the design and assembly processes of the PASS-Key III+ device and components are validated for a vehicle life of 10 years and 150,000 miles of performance.
GM compared its MY 2006 antitheft device with devices which NHTSA has already determined to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-marking requirements. To substantiate its beliefs as to the effectiveness of the new device, GM compared the MY 2006 modified device to its “PASS-Key”-like systems. GM indicated that the theft rates, as reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center, are lower for GM models equipped with the “PASS-Key”-like systems which have exemptions from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, than the theft rates for earlier models with similar appearance and construction which were parts-marked. Based on the performance of the PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASS-Key III systems on other GM models, and the advanced technology utilized by the modification, GM believes that the MY 2006 modified antitheft device will be more effective in deterring theft than the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
On the basis of this comparison, GM stated the antitheft device (PASS-Key III+) for model years 2006 and later will provide essentially the same functions and features as found on its MY 1996-2005 “PASS-Key”-like devices and therefore, its modified device will provide at least the same level of theft prevention as parts-marking. GM believes that the antitheft device proposed for installation on its MY 2006 Chevrolet Impala/Monte Carlo vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing thefts as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541.
The agency has evaluated GM's MY 2006 petition to modify the exemption for the Chevrolet Impala/Monte Carlo vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, and has decided to grant it. It has determined that the PASS-Key III+ system is likely to be as effective as parts-marking in preventing and deterring theft of these vehicles, and therefore qualifies for an exemption under 49 CFR part 543. The agency believes that the modified device will continue to provide four of the five types of performance listed in Section 543.6(b)(3): promoting activation; preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer contemplates making any changes the effects of which might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.
49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), pursuant to supplemental agreement Nos. 1 and No. 2 entered into between BNSF and D&I Railroad Company (D&I), has agreed to grant certain non-exclusive trackage rights to D&I over BNSF's rail line between milepost 145.91 and milepost 145.45 on BNSF's Corson Subdivision, as well as between milepost 0.0 and milepost 1.09 on BNSF's Madison Subdivision, in Sioux Falls, SD, a total distance of approximately 1.55 miles. D&I will operate its own trains with its own crews over the trackage.
The purpose of the trackage rights is to provide D&I with a route to replace trackage being removed in connection with a redevelopment project by the City of Sioux Falls.
D&I indicates that consummation of this transaction was scheduled to occur on or after April 7, 2005.
As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34685, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Jack Parliament, P.O. Box 5829, Sioux Falls, SD 57117-5829.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, § 10(a)(2), that a meeting will be held at the Hay-Adams Hotel, 16th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, on May 3, 2005 at 2:45 p.m. of the following debt management advisory committee:
The agenda for the meeting provides for a charge by the Secretary of the Treasury or his designate that the Committee discuss particular issues, and a working session. Following the working session, the Committee will present a written report of its recommendations. The meeting will be closed to the public, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, § 10(d) and Pub. L. 103-202, § 202(c)(1)(B)(31 U.S.C. 3121 note).
This notice shall constitute my determination, pursuant to the authority placed in heads of agencies by 5 U.S.C. App. 2, § 10(d) and vested in me by Treasury Department Order No. 101-05, that the meeting will consist of discussions and debates of the issues presented to the Committee by the Secretary of the Treasury and the making of recommendations of the Committee to the Secretary, pursuant to Pub. L. 103-202, section 202(c)(1)(B). Thus, this information is exempt from disclosure under that provision and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3)(B). In addition, the meeting is concerned with information that is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A). The public interest requires that such meetings be closed to the public because the Treasury Department requires frank and full advice from representatives of the financial community prior to making its final decisions on major financing operations. Historically, this advice has been offered by debt management advisory committees established by the several major segments of the financial community. When so utilized, such a committee is recognized to be an advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 2, § 3.
Although the Treasury's final announcement of financing plans may not reflect the recommendations provided in reports of the Committee, premature disclosure of the Committee's deliberations and reports would be likely to lead to significant financial speculation in the securities market. Thus, this meeting falls within the exemption covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(A).
Treasury staff will provide a technical briefing to the press on the day before the Committee meeting, following the release of a statement of economic conditions, financing estimates and technical charts. This briefing will give the press an opportunity to ask questions about financing projections and technical charts. The day after the Committee meeting, Treasury will release the minutes of the meeting, any charts that were discussed at the meeting, and the Committee's report to the Secretary.
The Office of Debt Management is responsible for maintaining records of debt management advisory committee meetings and for providing annual reports setting forth a summary of Committee activities and such other matters as may be informative to the public consistent with the policy of 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). The Designated Federal Officer or other responsible agency official who may be contacted for additional information is Jeff Huther, Director, Office of Debt Management, at (202) 622-1868.
In rule document 05-6956 beginning on page 17898 in the issue of Friday, April 8, 2005, make the following correction:
On page 17900, in the first column, in 110.158(a)(1)(i), in the table, under the column “
Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Request for Comments; Draft Technical Assistance Manual.
On April 5, 2000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) required DOT to provide a technical assistance manual to air carriers and individuals with disabilities concerning their rights and responsibilities under the Air Carrier Access Act and DOT regulations. Several years after the enactment of AIR-21, DOT received funding to develop the Technical Assistance Manual (TAM). This TAM responds to a Congressional mandate and incorporates input from stakeholders. The TAM is being published in the
Comments must be received on or before 30 days from the date of publication in the
Please include the docket number of this document in all comments submitted to the docket. Written comments should be sent to Docket Clerk, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. For confirmation of the receipt of written comments, commenters may include a stamped, self-addressed postcard. The Docket Clerk will date-stamp the postcard and mail it back to the commenter. Comments will be available for inspection at this address from 10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Comments can also be reviewed through the Dockets Management System (DMS) pages of the Department's Web site
Mike Spollen or Omar Guerrero, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 4116, Washington, DC 20590. Phone: (202) 366-9349; TTY: 1-800-455-9880; Fax: (202) 366-7152. E-mail:
On April 5, 2000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) amended the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) and required, among other things, that DOT provide a technical assistance manual to air carriers and individuals with disabilities concerning their rights and responsibilities under the ACAA and 14 CFR part 382 (Part 382). See 49 U.S.C. 41705(c). Responding to this legislative mandate, in September 2003, DOT awarded a contract to the Key Bridge Foundation (KBF) to create a TAM and model training program (MTP) relating to air travel by passengers with disabilities.
In addition, AIR-21 extended the ACAA to cover foreign air carriers. Although a final rule modifying Part 382 to cover foreign air carriers has not yet been issued, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to extend the provisions of Part 382 to foreign carriers, among other revisions to Part 382, was published on November 4, 2004. 69 FR 64364. The public comment period on the NPRM closed on March 4, 2005. 70 FR 4058. The NPRM proposing to modify Part 382 to cover foreign air carriers is a separate rulemaking and completely distinct from the publication of this TAM. If the NPRM proposals are adopted, however, it will necessitate significant revisions to the TAM, which is based on the current rule.
In addition to the NPRM revising Part 382 and extending it to cover foreign air carriers, the Department is also currently working on two separate NPRMs which address possible additional accommodations for: (1) Passengers who are deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind; and (2) passengers who require inflight medical oxygen. Any final rules resulting from these two NPRMs will also necessitate changes to the TAM.
The TAM is designed to serve as an authoritative source of information about the services, facilities, and accommodations required by the ACAA and the provisions of Part 382. The manual does not expand air carriers' legal obligations or establish new requirements under the law. The primary purpose of the manual is to provide guidance to air carriers' employees and contractors who provide services, facilities, and accommodations to passengers with disabilities. The manual should give air carriers a better understanding of their responsibilities under the law and a greater awareness about the perspective of an air traveler with a disability, particularly through Chapter 7 titled “Interacting with People with Disabilities”. This manual is also designed to provide air travelers with disabilities useful information about their rights under the ACAA and Part 382.
In connection with the development of the TAM, DOT and KBF consulted and held meetings with representatives from the disability community, air carriers, and contractors providing disability-related services to air carriers. Prior to this publication of the TAM in the
The TAM is a guidance document which contains an overview of part 382 and provides examples of how the law applies to different factual scenarios. The manual follows the chronological path of an air traveler with a disability from making a reservation through the completion of the trip. The manual also addresses the complaint resolution process, should an air traveler with a disability decide to make a disability-related complaint. In addition, the TAM contains a separate chapter on sensitivity and awareness issues when interacting with people with disabilities. This final chapter of the TAM contains general tips and also tips for communicating and interacting with individuals with specific types of disabilities.
DOT received comments from a broad range of stakeholders such as air carriers, industry-related associations, and disability community organizations. Specifically, DOT received comments from (i) one group made up of four trade associations for air carriers (Air Transport Association of America (ATA), Regional Airline Association (RAA), National Air Carrier Association (NACA), and Air Carrier Association of America (ACA)); (ii) five air carriers (JetBlue Airways, MN Airlines, LLC d/b/a Sun Country Airlines, Continental Airlines, SkyWest Airlines, and Delta Air Lines); (iii) six disability community organizations (Association of Blind Citizens, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, National Association of the Deaf, United Spinal Association, and International Association of Assistance Dog Partners); (iv) two members of the public; and (v) the Access Board. DOT read and considered each comment fully. Indeed, DOT has accommodated almost all of the stakeholders' comments. Below is a summary of the comments DOT received on the overall document and the reasons that DOT decided to accommodate or not to accommodate those comments.
DOT received general comments on the TAM conveying: (i) An overall positive impression of the TAM with requests for additional and different examples; (ii) some confusion about the difference between the NPRM on foreign air carriers issued in November 2004 and this TAM; (iii) questions about the organization of the information in the TAM and concern that there may be some redundancy; and (iv) a recommendation for standard training in connection with the TAM.
Most of the commenters seemed to find the document to be of high-quality and the issues to be thoroughly presented. In particular, a number of stakeholders remarked on the usefulness of the examples throughout the TAM where specific provisions of part 382 are applied to factual scenarios, the frequently asked questions and answers section of the TAM as well as the sensitivity and awareness components of the TAM. With respect to the examples, a few stakeholders suggested additional examples and sought a change to the facts contained in certain existing examples.
Several stakeholders noted some redundancy within the TAM,
Many stakeholders sought some modification of the provisions of part 382 itself. Moreover, the air carrier associations and several carriers expressed concern that publication of the TAM at this time would be premature and suggested delaying its publication pending the conclusion of the NPRM proposing to extend coverage of part 382 to foreign carriers. They also sought assurances from DOT that the TAM would not expand air carriers' legal obligations under part 382, the TAM's use would not be mandatory, and DOT would not pursue enforcement action against any carrier determined to be out of compliance with part 382 in connection with its cooperation in the development of the TAM. Finally, two commenters expressed the need for a standard, basic training session for part 382 to be used by all air carriers.
With regard to comments concerning redundancy in the TAM, DOT recognizes that following the path of a trip requires raising a particular topic more than once,
DOT appreciates the reason that various stakeholders recommended that the publication of the TAM be delayed until the rulemaking regarding part 382 has been completed. However, there has already been too lengthy a delay in the publication of this TAM. Congress required DOT to provide a technical assistance manual to air carriers and individuals with disabilities in April 2000, and it is likely that the rulemaking regarding part 382 will not be finalized until 2006. Therefore, DOT opts not to delay completion of the TAM. The TAM will be revised, as needed, after the rulemaking is completed.
With respect to concerns expressed by stakeholders about situations where DOT becomes aware that a carrier is not in compliance with the ACAA and part 382 through its cooperation in the development of the TAM, DOT restates the position set forth in a December 16, 2003, letter to ATA, RAA, NACA, and ACA that it will consider enforcement action, “only if a carrier, after being given notice and a chance to comply, does not come into compliance with the ACAA and part 382.”
For those stakeholders recommending a standard training course in connection with the TAM, DOT is pleased to announce that it is currently working with KBF to develop a model training program (MTP) using the TAM as a training tool and promoting it as a resource on the job for employees and contractors of air carriers. The MTP will integrate “best practices” from part 382 training models currently used by air carriers. In addition, the MTP will incorporate techniques to supplement air carriers' part 382 training models. The MTP will also use the TAM as a framework, including the appendices, and emphasize the value of the manual as a practical guide for both employees and contractors of air carriers as well as for air travelers with disabilities.
Several commenters suggested revising the definition of “assistive device.” For example, one carrier sought a “reasonableness” standard, especially where limited storage space is available
Several commenters sought to add or modify specific language,
One carrier also expressed concern that the statement about allowing a service animal to sit in close proximity to its user, as written, could be interpreted to mean that the service animal can sit anywhere close to its user. This carrier indicated that the passenger should be aware that the service animal must “sit” and not “stand” during the flight.
DOT has modified the language in the TAM regarding stowage of passengers' wheelchairs in the cabin of the aircraft because part 382 may require that more than one passenger's wheelchair be stowed in the cabin. Specifically, § 382.21(a)(2) requires that aircraft of a certain size and age have a space to stow at least one passenger's folding wheelchair in the cabin. In addition, § 382.41(e)(1) requires carriers to permit passengers to stow wheelchairs or parts of wheelchairs in the overhead bin or under seats, consistent with FAA safety regulations. Finally, § 382.41(e)(2) provides that if a closet or other approved stowage area is provided in the cabin for carry-on items and if that space would accommodate a wheelchair, then the carrier must designate priority stowage space for at least one passenger's folding wheelchair. Therefore, when these sections are read together, a carrier could be required to accommodate more than one wheelchair in the cabin.
With respect to the seating of a passenger accompanied by a service animal, DOT disagrees with the commenter and interprets the regulation to permit service animals to occupy space within close proximity of the passenger. Moreover, DOT disagrees that there is an outright prohibition on service animals standing. Whether a service animal must sit depends on the size of the service animal and where it is located. DOT refers the commenter to Appendix VI titled “DOT Guidance Concerning Service Animals in Air Transportation” and the FAA Flight Standards Information Bulletin for Air Transportation titled “Location and Placement of Service Animals on Aircraft Engaged in Public Air Transportation.” FAA FSAT #04-01A.
One disability organization requested that the word “required” rather than “allowed” be used by DOT when addressing situations where carriers may ask passengers for medical certificates (
One carrier suggested adding information about battery types and requirements under 49 CFR 173.159(d) and other applicable FAA safety regulations when discussing mobility aids and assistive devices. Additionally, this carrier suggested adding language stating that a service animal is not permitted to occupy an empty passenger seat, that service animals should remain in their owners' immediate control, that service animals should not be permitted to eat or drink from a passenger's tray table, and that owners should carry a leash for their service animals.
With regard to the request to add information about FAA safety regulations when discussing mobility aids in this chapter, DOT declines to do so because a detailed discussion on battery-powered wheelchairs has been provided in a subsequent chapter of the TAM. With respect to the comments about service animals, DOT refers the commenter to Appendix VI titled “DOT Guidance Concerning Service Animals in Air Transportation” published in May 2003.
One carrier sought clarification as to whether a passenger who has already paid for the flight and volunteers to serve as an attendant receives a refund from the carrier for serving as the attendant. In addition, a disability organization suggested identifying the specific areas within the terminal (
As for the request that DOT list all of the areas within the terminal that are covered by the ADA, DOT declines to do so because such a list would be too limiting since all terminal facilities and services owned, leased, or operated by a carrier at a commercial service airport (including parking and ground transportation) must comply with the Standards for Accessible Design under the ADA. DOT has incorporated the suggestion that it include language in the TAM stating that with regard to making flight connections, passengers should be permitted to use their own wheelchairs or assistive devices to the extent practicable. Section 382.41(f) requires carriers to provide for the timely return of passengers' wheelchairs and other assistive devices as close as possible to the door of the aircraft so that passengers may use their own equipment to the extent practicable.
One carrier asked whether individuals with prosthetic devices are qualified to occupy the aircraft emergency exit row seating. A disability organization appears to seek a revision to the law by asking about the feasibility of moveable armrests where tray tables and video entertainment systems are installed, suggesting a requirement that allows the bulkhead seats not used by a passenger accompanied by a service animal or a passenger with a fused or immobilized leg to be reserved for use by other passengers with disabilities, and recommending that the requirement that carriers train employees “to proficiency” be defined further to render it a meaningful standard.
DOT has not adopted any of the comments seeking revisions to various sections of Part 382 as the TAM is a guidance document and is not the appropriate vehicle under which to change, expand, or reduce air carriers' legal obligations under Part 382.
Two disability organizations expressed concern about incidents in which “meet and greet” staff have left passengers with disabilities unattended, particularly deaf-blind passengers. The comments appear to seek further clarification of the connecting assistance requirement under Part 382.
Several disability organizations suggested additional topics for frequently asked questions. For example, one disability organization requested that a carrier's responsibility to passengers with disabilities traveling in a group be better defined. For example, it posed the scenario in which some passengers with disabilities traveling in a group are forced to travel on a different flight because the aircraft they were intending to fly on could not accommodate all of the assistive devices of the entire group.
This manual is a guide to the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) and its implementing regulations, 14 CFR part 382 (part 382). It is designed to serve as a brief but authoritative source of information about the services, facilities, and accommodations required by the ACAA and the provisions of part 382. The primary purpose of the manual is to help you, employees/contractors of air carriers and employees/contractors of indirect air carriers that provide services or facilities to passengers with disabilities, to assist those passengers in accordance with the law. Knowing your legal responsibilities will help ensure consistent compliance with the law and protect the civil rights of air travelers with disabilities when providing services, facilities, and accommodations to them.
Throughout the manual, rather than talking about air carriers' or indirect air carriers' employees/contractors such as yourself in the third person, the word “you” is used. In most instances, the word “you” refers to personnel who deal directly with the traveling public. Moreover, the obligations and responsibilities under the law as set forth in the manual must be read within the context of each specific employee's duties on the job.
A second purpose of this manual is to offer air travelers with disabilities information about their rights under the ACAA and the provisions of part 382. Accordingly, in addition to the other useful information in this manual, Appendix I contains a list of “Tips for Air Travelers with Disabilities” to help ensure a smooth and comfortable trip. In addition, Appendix III provides a list of “Frequently Asked Questions” and answers and Appendix IV contains a list of “Recent DOT Enforcement Orders Related to the ACAA.” These DOT enforcement orders are useful because they provide examples in which DOT has interpreted some of the provisions of the ACAA and part 382 under particular circumstances.
In 1986, Congress passed the ACAA, which prohibits discrimination by U.S. air carriers against qualified individuals with disabilities. 49 U.S.C. 41705. In 1990, the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued Part 382, the regulations defining the rights of passengers with disabilities and the obligations of U.S. air carriers under the ACAA. Since then, these regulations have been amended a number of times. DOT has also issued guidance to air carriers on the ACAA and Part 382 in a variety of ways: preambles to regulatory amendments, industry letters, correspondence with individual carriers or complainants, enforcement actions, website postings, and informal conversations with the public and air carriers.
On April 5, 2000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (“AIR-21”; Pub. L. 106-181) amended the ACAA to cover foreign air carriers. Although a final rule modifying part 382 to cover foreign air carriers has not yet been issued, in May 2000 DOT's Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) issued a notice informing the public of its intent to use the provisions of part 382 as guidance in investigating any complaints of non-compliance with the ACAA by foreign carriers. In addition, in July 2003 DOT amended part 382 by adding a new section 382.70, that requires both U.S. carriers and foreign carriers to record and report to DOT on written disability-related complaints that they receive. At the present time, section 382.70 is the only provision of Part 382 that specifically states that it applies to foreign carriers. Finally, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to extend the other provisions of Part 382 to foreign carriers was published on November 4, 2004. Therefore, while the majority of this manual does not expressly apply to foreign carriers, they should look to this document and Part 382 in satisfying their general nondiscrimination obligations under AIR-21 and DOT's May 2000 guidance.
In 2000, Congress required DOT to create a technical assistance manual to provide guidance to individuals and entities with rights or responsibilities under the ACAA. This manual responds to that mandate. In creating this manual, DOT held meetings with representatives
A step-by-step process for resolving issues involving passengers with disabilities appears later in this manual. Whether the issue is a matter of law, customer service, or both, the ACCESS checklist will be useful in identifying the needs of passengers with disabilities and determining what accommodations the air carriers are required to provide as a matter of law. See chapter 6, section B.
This manual is structured in the same sequence as the steps a passenger would encounter on a trip,
• Planning a flight,
• The airport experience,
• Enplaning, deplaning, and making connections,
• Services during a flight, and
• Responding to disability-related complaints.
This manual contains the following tools to assist you in quickly and easily finding the answer to your questions:
• A Table of Contents at the beginning of the manual;
• An Alphabetical Index at the back of the manual; and
• A part 382 Index listing the citations to part 382 at the back of the manual.
Also, the following appendices appear at the end of the manual:
• Appendix I: “Tips for Air Travelers with Disabilities” as they relate to the most commonly-used accommodations, facilities, and services that carriers are required to make available to such passengers;
• Appendix II: A list of concerns applicable mainly to air carrier management, as opposed to frontline customer service personnel;
• Appendix III: A list of “Frequently Asked Questions” and answers;
• Appendix IV: A list of “Recent DOT Enforcement Orders Related to the ACAA”;
• Appendix V: The full text of Part 382; and
• Appendix VI: The DOT document “Guidance Concerning Service Animals in Air Transportation.”
This manual highlights the difference between actions you must take according to the law as stated in part 382 and actions that you may choose to take in an effort to provide superior customer service to passengers with disabilities. Legal requirements are generally designated by the words, “must” or “shall” in the manual. Words such as “should” or “may” indicate accommodations that part 382 does not require but that DOT recommends and that you may decide to provide as a matter of good customer service.
Where applicable, this manual discusses how to properly and lawfully consider aircraft and passenger safety when providing transportation to passengers with disabilities. Part 382 does not require or authorize you to disregard FAA safety regulations. Where different treatment of passengers with disabilities or other restrictions are mandated by an FAA safety regulation, part 382 allows you to comply with the FAA safety regulation. For example, if an FAA safety rule provides that only persons who can perform certain functions can sit in an exit row, then you can request that an individual unable to perform those functions (regardless of whether that individual has a disability) sit in another row. If the passenger refuses, you can properly deny transportation to such passengers.
However, where an optional carrier action that is not required by FAA rules would result in different treatment of passengers with disabilities, or in other restrictions, then the ACAA and the provisions of part 382 prohibit you from implementing the optional carrier action even if it might ensure safety. For instance, suppose ABC Airways required only passengers with disabilities— not all passengers—to provide correct answers to a quiz about the content of a safety briefing and a passenger with a disability either refused to respond or failed such a quiz. It would not be appropriate to deny transportation to a passenger with a disability on such grounds unless the carrier's policies and procedures consistently treated all passengers in a similar manner.
In short, part 382 is consistent with FAA safety requirements as it allows you to follow FAA safety rules and to ensure that the safe completion of the flight or the health and safety of other passengers are not jeopardized. Determinations about whether an FAA rule requires different treatment of a passenger with a disability for safety reasons often depend on the circumstances you encounter. Therefore, it is important that you seek information from passengers with disabilities and their traveling companions and make a reasonable judgment considering all available information.
The FAA safety mandates can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR parts 60 through 139), FAA guidance interpreting these regulations, and Airworthiness Directives (
This manual addresses security procedures, particularly those enacted after the terrorist hijackings and tragic events of September 11, 2001, which affect or may affect the types of accommodations and services provided to passengers with disabilities. Similar to the situation involving FAA safety requirements, part 382 is consistent with security requirements mandated by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). For example, TSA has strict rules as to which persons can go beyond the screener checkpoints, but these TSA rules are consistent with part 382 and do not invalidate your obligation to provide enplaning and deplaning assistance requested by passengers with disabilities, including assistance beyond screener checkpoints. You do have discretion in how that assistance is provided. You can provide (i) a “pass” allowing an individual who needs to assist a passenger with a disability to go through the screener checkpoint without a ticket; (ii) assistance directly to the passenger; or (iii) both.
This manual recognizes the important role that contractors play in providing services, equipment, and other accommodations to passengers with disabilities. A contractor is an entity that has a business arrangement with an air carrier to perform functions that the ACAA and part 382 would otherwise require the air carrier to perform with its own employees. Contractors provide a variety of services on behalf of air carriers in furnishing assistance to persons with disabilities. For example, contractors often provide wheelchair service, assist passengers with disabilities on and off aircraft, transport passengers with disabilities between departure gates, and work as baggage handlers who handle passengers'
Following is a list of key words whose definitions will help you fully understand this manual.
• Has a physical or mental impairment that, on a permanent or temporary basis,
• Substantially limits one or more major life activities,
• Has a record of such an impairment, or
• Is regarded as having such an impairment. [Sec. 382.5]
• Accompanies or meets a traveler using airport facilities;
• Seeks information about schedules, fares, or policies;
• Attempts to use facilities or services offered to the general public by an air carrier;
• Has a ticket, or makes a good faith attempt to buy a valid ticket for a flight;
• Arrives with a valid ticket for the flight; and
• Meets reasonable, nondiscriminatory requirements applicable to all passengers. [Sec. 382.5]
Dogs, cats, and monkeys are among those that have been individually trained and act as service animals. Service animals may assist people with disabilities by, for example:
• Guiding persons with vision impairments;
• Alerting persons with deafness to specific sounds;
• Alerting persons with epilepsy of imminent seizure onset;
• Pulling a wheelchair;
• Assisting persons with mobility impairments with balance; and
• Providing emotional support for persons with disabilities. [Sec. 382.55]
• What does the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) say? The ACAA prohibits U.S. and foreign air carriers from discriminating against an air traveler with a disability on the basis of such disability (49 U.S.C. 41705).
• What is 14 CFR part 382 (part 382)? Part 382 is a detailed set of rules that define air carriers' responsibilities under the ACAA and ensures that individuals with disabilities will be treated without discrimination consistent with the safe carriage of all passengers.
• Who has to follow part 382? The following organizations and individuals must comply with part 382: (1) Air carriers and their employees (
• Who is protected by part 382? Part 382 protects three categories of individuals with disabilities: (1) Individuals who have a physical or mental impairment that, on a permanent or temporary basis, substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) individuals who have a record of such impairment; and (3) individuals who are regarded as having such an impairment, whether they have the impairment or not.
• What is a physical or mental impairment? Physical impairments include (1) physiological disorders or conditions; (2) cosmetic disfigurements; or (3) anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory including speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.
Examples of physical impairments include orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, HIV disease, drug addition, and alcoholism.
Mental impairments include mental or psychological disorders, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.
Physical characteristics such as the color of one's eyes, hair, or skin, baldness, and left-handedness do not constitute physical impairments. Similarly, neither age nor obesity alone constitutes a physical impairment. Disadvantages due to cultural or economic factors are not covered by part 382. Moreover, the definition of “physical or mental impairment” does not include personality traits such as poor judgment or a quick temper, where these are not symptoms of a mental or psychological disorder.
• What is a substantial limitation on major life activities? To qualify as a “disability” under part 382 a condition or disease must substantially limit a major life activity. Major life activities include, but are not limited to, activities such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.
• When does an impairment “substantially limit” a major life activity? There is no absolute standard for determining when an impairment is a substantial limitation. Some impairments obviously limit the ability of an individual to engage in a major life activity.
A person who is deaf is substantially limited in the major life activity of hearing.
A person with traumatic brain injury may be substantially limited in the major life activities of: (a) Caring for himself or herself; and (b) working, because of memory deficiency, confusion, contextual difficulties, and the inability to reason appropriately.
An individual who is paraplegic may be substantially limited in the major life activity of walking.
• Are temporary mental or physical impairments covered by part 382? Yes.
While on a skiing trip, Jane breaks her leg and is placed in a cast that keeps her from bending her leg and walking without the use of crutches. Jane will eventually recover the full use of her leg, but in the meantime she is substantially limited in the major life activity of walking. Because Jane's broken leg will substantially limit a major life activity for a time, Jane would be considered to have a disability covered by part 382 during that time. You would be required to provide her certain services and equipment under part 382 if requested (
• Who is a person with a “record of” a disability under part 382? Part 382 protects individuals from discrimination who have a “record of” (history of) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity or who have been classified, or misclassified, as having such an impairment. Therefore, individuals who do not have an actual current impairment that substantially limits a major life activity would still be protected under part 382 based upon a past diagnosis (or a misdiagnosis) of an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. Individuals with a history of cancer or epilepsy are examples of people with a record of impairment.
Adam, a passenger who has had severe epileptic seizures in the past that rendered him unable to work, is denied transportation by airline personnel because of their concern that he may have a seizure on board the aircraft. This denial of transportation would be unlawful if based solely on the fact that Adam has had seizures in the past, because epilepsy may be controlled by medication. Airline personnel can lawfully deny transport to Adam only if they reasonably believe, based on the information available, that his seizure disorder poses a real safety risk to him or other passengers.
• When is a person “regarded as” having a disability? Part 382 also protects an individual who is “regarded as” having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, whether or not that person actually has an impairment. People can be “regarded as” disabled if: (1) Their non-limiting or slightly limiting impairments are viewed by others as substantially limiting; (2) they have no impairments but are viewed by
John, an individual with a mild heart condition controlled by medication, is denied transportation because airline personnel believe that flying will cause John to have heart problems necessitating diversion of the aircraft during flight. John is not substantially limited in any major life activity by his condition. John has informed the air carrier personnel that his heart condition is controlled by medication and that for the past five years he has flown on a near weekly basis without incident. Even though John does not actually have an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, he is protected by the provisions of part 382 because he is treated as though he does. The airline personnel's refusal to provide transportation to John must be reasonable under the facts and circumstances presented. Arguably, excluding John from the flight was unreasonable because John had informed the airline employee that he was taking medication and that he had flown frequently in the recent past without incident. The reasonableness of the decision depends on John's credibility and any additional information provided. Regardless of the reasonableness of the decision, the airline employee is legally required under section 382.31(e) to provide a written explanation to John within 10 calendar days setting forth the specific safety or other reason(s) for excluding John from the flight.
Karen, an individual born with a prominent facial disfigurement, has been refused transportation on the grounds that her presence has upset several passengers who have complained to gate agents about her appearance. Karen's physical disfigurement becomes substantially limiting only as a result of the attitudes of others and she is protected by the provisions of part 382. Refusing to provide transportation to Karen would violate section 382.31 because you must not refuse to provide transportation to a qualified individual with a disability, such as Karen, solely because her appearance may offend or annoy other passengers. As in the example above, and regardless whether the decision to refuse transportation was correct, you must provide Karen with a written explanation of the specific basis for the refusal within 10 calendar days of the incident.
• How do I determine whether a person is an individual with a disability? Provide an opportunity for the passenger to self-identify by asking how you can best assist him or her.
• How do I assist a passenger with a disability? Ask the passenger how you can best assist him or her. A passenger with a disability has the most information about his or her abilities, limitations, level of familiarity with the airport and airline, and needs in connection with traveling by air.
• May I ask an individual what his or her disability is? Only to determine if a passenger is entitled to a particular seating accommodation pursuant to section 382.38. Generally, you may not make inquiries about an individual's disability or the nature or severity of the disability. However, you may ask questions about an individual's ability to perform specific air travel-related functions, such as enplaning, deplaning, walking through the airport, etc.
You may not ask a person, “What is your disability?” You may not ask, “Do you have diabetes?'
You may ask, “Can you walk from the gate area to your aircraft seat?” You may ask, “Are you able to transfer from the aisle chair over a fixed aisle seat armrest?” You may ask, “Can you walk from this gate to your connecting gate?” You may ask (by writing a note if necessary), “Do you need me to notify you if I make any announcements over the public address speaker?”
Susan asks for a bulkhead seat because the condition of her leg necessitates her need for greater legroom. You may ask, “Are you unable to bend your leg or is your leg fused or immobilized?” [Sec. 382.38]
• What are some of the requirements of part 382 that you should be aware of? Following are some of the principal requirements of part 382. It is important to note that the requirements of part 382 listed below are not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, it is a list of requirements governing situations that you are likely to encounter on a regular basis.
• You must not discriminate against qualified individuals with a disability. [Sec. 382.7(a)(1)] You must not require a passenger with a disability to accept special services (including, but not limited to, pre-boarding) not requested by the passenger. [Sec. 382.7(a)(2)] Instead, you may ask a passenger with a disability if he or she would like a particular service, facility, or other accommodation. In addition, you must not exclude a qualified individual with a disability from or deny the individual the benefit of any air transportation or related services that are available to other passengers. [Sec. 382.7(a)(3)] For example, if you choose to provide ground transportation and overnight accommodations to passengers because of a flight cancellation, you must ensure that the ground transportation to the hotel, and the hotel itself, are accessible to a passenger with a disability.
• You must not refuse transportation to a passenger solely on the basis of a disability. [Sec. 382.31(a)]
• You must provide transportation to an individual with a disability who has an impairment that affects his or her appearance or results in involuntary behavior except under limited circumstances specified below. You must provide transportation to such individuals with disabilities even if the disability may offend, annoy, or inconvenience crewmembers or other passengers. [Sec. 382.31(b)] However, if the person's disability results in involuntary behavior that would or might be inimical to the safety of the flight, then the person may properly be refused transportation. [Sec. 382.31(d)]
• You shall not limit the number of individuals with disabilities on a particular flight. [Sec. 382.31(c)]
• If transportation of a passenger with a disability would endanger the safety of the aircraft or the health or safety of its passengers or violate an FAA safety regulation, you may refuse transportation to the individual with a disability. [Sec. 382.31(d)]
• You shall not require a passenger with a disability to travel with an attendant or to present a medical certificate, except in very limited circumstances. [Secs. 382.35(a) and 382.53(a)]
• You shall not exclude a passenger with a disability from any seat in an exit or other row solely on the basis of his or her disability except to comply with FAA safety rules. FAA safety rules establish criteria that must be met in order for a passenger to occupy a seat in the emergency exit rows. [14 CFR 121.585] If a passenger with a disability meets these FAA criteria, he or she must be allowed to sit in an emergency exit row. As with any other passenger, you must look at the individual passenger with a disability and reasonably assess whether he or she meets FAA criteria for exit-row seating. [Sec. 382.37(a)]
• You must provide timely enplaning, deplaning, and connecting assistance to passengers with disabilities requesting such assistance. As part of this duty, you must provide equipment (e.g., wheelchairs, electric carts, and aisle chairs) and personnel (e.g., individuals to propel wheelchairs and aisle chairs and individuals to assist passengers with disabilities in carrying and stowing their baggage). [Secs. 382.39(a)(1) and 382.39(b)(5)]
• You must allow a passenger with a disability to stow his or her cane or other assistive device inside the cabin of the aircraft close to his or her seat if it fits, consistent with FAA safety rules on carry-on items. [Sec. 382.41(c)]
• You must allow passengers to safely stow their wheelchairs or parts of wheelchairs (e.g., wheels, seats, etc.) in the overhead bin or under seats. [Sec. 382.41(e)(1)]
• You must ensure that there is space for at least one passenger with a disability to stow a folding wheelchair in the cabin of the aircraft if the aircraft has a designed seating capacity of 100
• If there is a closet or other approved stowage area for passengers' carry-on items of sufficient size to accommodate a folding, collapsible, or break-down wheelchair, the carrier must designate priority stowage space for at least one wheelchair in that area. A passenger with a disability who takes advantage of the offer of the opportunity to pre-board may stow his or her wheelchair in this area with priority over other carry-on items brought onto the aircraft by other passengers and flight crew enplaning at the same airport. A passenger with a disability who does not pre-board may use this space to stow his or her wheelchair on a first-come, first-served basis along with other passengers stowing their carry-on items. [Sec. 382.41(e)(2)]
• You must have a copy of part 382 available at every airport you serve. Upon request by a passenger at the airport, you must make a copy available for review. [Sec. 382.45(d)]
• You must provide blind or visually-impaired passengers and passengers who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind, timely access to the same information given to other passengers at the airport or on the airplane. This includes, but is not limited to, information concerning gate assignments, delayed flights, and safety. [Secs. 382.45(c) and 382.47]
• You must allow service animals to accompany passengers with disabilities in the cabin consistent with FAA safety requirements. You must allow the service animal to sit in close proximity to its user, as long as the service animal does not block the aisle or other emergency evacuation route in violation of FAA safety regulations. Often this will mean that the service animal will sit under the seat in front of the disabled passenger to avoid obstructing an aisle or other space. Some service animals are held by their users in their arms as an adult would hold a human infant (limited to infants under two years of age) of roughly the same size. [Sec. 382.55]
• You must make available a Complaints Resolution Official (CRO) at the airport—in person or by telephone or TTY—to address disability-related complaints that arise during the travel process at all times when your flights are operating at that airport. You must provide a CRO to a passenger even if the passenger does not use the term “Complaints Resolution Official” or “CRO.” When a passenger with a disability uses words such as “supervisor,” “manager,” “boss,” or “disability expert” in connection with resolving a disability-related issue, you must provide a CRO. [Sec. 382.65]
• You must not charge for services that are required by part 382. This means, for example, you must not ask for a tip when providing wheelchair service to a passenger. You may, however, impose a reasonable charge for services not required by part 382, i.e., optional services. Examples of such optional services include medical oxygen for use on board an aircraft or stretcher service. [Sec. 382.57]
• When am I required to provide disability-related accommodations to an individual? You are required to provide such an accommodation when: (1) An individual with a disability or someone acting on his or her behalf, such as a travel companion, family member, or friend, requests an accommodation required by part 382; or (2) you offer such a required accommodation to a passenger with a disability and he or she accepts such accommodation.
You cannot require passengers with disabilities to provide advance notice of their intention to travel or of their disability except as provided below. [Sec. 382.33(a)]
You may require up to 48 hours' advance notice and one hour's advance check-in from a passenger with a disability who wishes to receive the following services:
• Transportation for a battery-powered wheelchair on an aircraft with fewer than 60 seats;
• Provision by the carrier of hazardous materials packaging for the battery of a wheelchair or other assistive device;
• Accommodations for 10 or more passengers with disabilities who travel as a group; and
• Provision of an on-board wheelchair on an aircraft that does not have an accessible lavatory for passengers with disabilities who can use an inaccessible lavatory but need an on-board chair to do so. [Secs. 382.33(b)(5)-(8)]
While making his reservation, a passenger with a disability gave the reservation agent 48 hours' advance notice that he would need an aisle chair to access the lavatory on his upcoming flight. The flight is on an aircraft with more than 60 seats and it does not have an accessible lavatory. During the call, the passenger is made aware of the fact that the lavatory is inaccessible, but explains that he can use an inaccessible lavatory as long as he has access to a carrier-provided aisle chair. Because the passenger has complied with the advance notice requirement here, normally this information would have been entered into the passenger's reservation record (otherwise known as the passenger name record (PNR)) by the carrier and the request for an aisle chair would have been handled through that notification process. You are a new gate agent for your carrier and when this passenger approaches you at the gate more than an hour before the scheduled departure time of the flight and asks about the aisle chair, you are not sure how to reply. What should you do?
To begin, as a matter of good customer service, you should tell the passenger that you are not sure but you will find out for him. You should ask a colleague and, if necessary, contact a CRO. When you ask your colleague, you are told that all aircraft with more than 60 seats in your carrier's fleet maintain an in-cabin aisle chair. Once you receive this information you should assure the passenger that an aisle chair is available so he can use the inaccessible lavatory on the aircraft.
Although carriers are not required to provide the following services or equipment, if they choose to provide them, you may require 48 hours' advance notice and one hour's advance check-in for:
• Medical oxygen for use on board the aircraft;
• Carriage of an incubator;
• Hook-up for a respirator to the aircraft's electrical power supply; and
• Accommodation for a passenger who must travel on a stretcher. [Secs. 382.33(b)(1)-(4)]
If appropriate advance notice has been given and the requested service is available on that particular flight, you must ensure that the service or equipment is provided.
In addition, even if a passenger with a disability does not meet the advance notice or check-in requirement, you must make a reasonable effort to furnish
Mr. Thomas uses a battery-powered wheelchair. He travels frequently between Washington, DC, and New York for business. One day, he finds out that he has an important business meeting in New York and must travel up to New York that afternoon. He has no time to provide advance notice regarding the transportation of his battery-powered wheelchair and arrives at the gate 45 minutes before his flight is scheduled to depart. The aircraft for the flight has fewer than 60 passenger seats. What should you do?
Carriers may require 48 hours' advance notice and one-hour advance check-in for transportation of a battery-powered wheelchair on a flight scheduled to be made on an aircraft with fewer than 60 seats. Carriers may require the same advance notice for provision of hazardous materials packaging for a battery. However, airline personnel are required to make reasonable efforts to accommodate a passenger who fails to provide the requisite notice to the extent it would not delay the flight. Therefore, you must make a reasonable effort to accommodate Mr. Thomas as long as it would not delay the flight.
Mr. Thomas is a frequent traveler on this particular route and he knows that usually it is feasible to load, store, secure, and unload his battery-powered wheelchair and spillable battery in an upright position [Sec. 382.41(g)(2)] or detach, “box”, and store the spillable battery [Sec. 382.41(g)(3)] within about 20-25 minutes. If this is the case, you must accommodate Mr. Thomas, his battery-powered wheelchair, and the spillable battery even though Mr. Thomas did not provide advance notice, since doing so would not delay the flight.
Ms. Webster must travel with medical oxygen and shows up at the airport without providing advance notice of her need for medical oxygen. As a policy, your carrier does not provide medical oxygen on any flights. What should you do?
To begin, you should confirm that your carrier does not provide the optional service of medical oxygen for use on board a flight. If no medical oxygen service is available on your carrier, you should explain this to Ms. Webster and tell her that the carrier cannot accommodate her.
As a matter of customer service, you may direct Ms. Webster to another carrier that does provide medical oxygen service in that market. The passenger should be aware, however, that the provision of medical oxygen involves coordination with the passenger's physician to determine the flow rate and the amount of oxygen needed and arranging for the delivery of the oxygen by the carrier to the point of origin of the passenger's trip. Therefore, normally, it is not possible to accommodate a passenger who needs medical oxygen on a flight unless the advance notice is provided because the accommodation cannot be made without delaying the flight.
Even if a passenger with a disability provides advance notice, sometimes weather or mechanical problems require cancellation of the flight altogether or the substitution of another aircraft. Under these circumstances, you must, to the maximum extent feasible, assist in providing the accommodation originally requested by the passenger with a disability. [Sec. 382.33(f)]
You should be familiar with and be able to provide information about aircraft accessibility for passengers with a disability when they request this information. [Secs. 382.21 and 382.45] When feasible, you should provide information pertaining to a specific aircraft to be used for a specific flight. In general, you must take into account safety and feasibility when seating passengers with disabilities. [Secs. 382.37(a) and 382.38(j)]
If requested, you should be able to provide information on the following:
• Any limitations concerning the ability of the aircraft to accommodate an individual with a disability;
• The location of seats, if any, in a row with a movable aisle armrest and any seats which the carrier does not make available to individuals with a disability (e.g., exit rows);
• Any limitation on the availability of storage facilities in the cabin or in the cargo bay for mobility aids or other equipment commonly used by an individual with a disability; and
• Whether the aircraft has a lavatory accessible to passengers with a disability.
If, in assisting a passenger with a disability, a carrier employee or contractor takes apart the passenger's mobility aid or assistive device (e.g., a wheelchair), another carrier employee or contractor must reassemble it and ensure its prompt return to the passenger with a disability in the same condition in which the carrier received it. [Secs. 382.43(a) and (b)] You must permit passengers with a disability to provide written instructions concerning the disassembly and reassembly of their wheelchairs. [Sec. 382.41(h)] You cannot require passengers with disabilities to sign a waiver of liability for damage to or loss of wheelchairs or other assistive devices. [Sec. 382.43(c)] However, you may note preexisting damage to wheelchairs or other assistive devices.
A service animal is (i) an animal individually trained and which performs functions to assist a person with a disability; (ii) an animal that has been shown to have the innate ability to assist a person with a disability, e.g., a seizure alert animal; or (iii) an emotional support animal. You should be aware that there are many different types of service animals that perform a range of tasks for individuals with a disability.
You must permit dogs and other service animals used by passengers with a disability to accompany the passengers on their flights. In addition, you must permit a dog or other service animal to accompany a passenger with a disability to the passenger's assigned seat and remain there as long as the animal does not obstruct the aisle or other areas that must remain unobstructed for safety reasons. [Sec. 382.55(a)] The service animal must be allowed to accompany the passenger unless it poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others or presents a significant threat of disruption to the airline service in the cabin. See also Appendix VI, DOT Guidance Concerning Service Animals in Air Transportation; FAA Flight Standards Information Bulletin for Air Transportation (FSAT) #04-01A, “Location and Placement of Service Animals on Aircraft Engaged in Public Air Transportation”
If a service animal cannot be accommodated at the seat of the passenger with a disability and if there is another seat where the passenger and the animal can be accommodated, you must offer the passenger the opportunity to move to the other seat with the service animal. Switching seats must be explored as an alternative before requiring that the service animal travel in the cargo compartment. [Sec. 382.37(c)]
Under particular circumstances, you may see a need to verify whether an animal accompanying a passenger with a disability qualifies as a service animal under the law. You must accept the following as evidence that the animal is indeed a service animal:
• The credible verbal assurances of a passenger with a disability using the animal,
• The presence of harnesses or markings on harnesses,
• Tags, or
• Identification cards or other written documentation. [Sec. 382.55(a)(1)]
Keep in mind that passengers accompanied by service animals may not have identification or written documentation regarding their service animals. See also Appendix VI, DOT Guidance Concerning Service Animals in Air Transportation.
Carriers may require that passengers traveling with emotional support animals present current documentation (i.e., dated within a year of the date of travel) from a mental-health professional stating that:
• The passenger has a mental health-related disability;
• The passenger needs the animal for the mental-health condition; and
• The provider of the letter is a licensed mental-health professional (or a medical doctor) and the passenger is under the individual's professional care.
Even if you receive sufficient verification that an animal accompanying a passenger is indeed a service animal, if the service animal's behavior in a public setting is inappropriate or disruptive to other passengers or carrier personnel, you may refuse to permit the animal on the flight and offer the passenger alternative accommodations in accordance with part 382 and your carrier's policy (e.g., accept the animal for carriage in the cargo hold).
A passenger arrives at the gate accompanied by a pot-bellied pig. She claims that the pot-bellied pig is her service animal. What should you do?
While generally speaking, you must permit a passenger with a disability to be accompanied by a service animal, if you have a reasonable basis for questioning whether the animal is a service animal, you may ask for some verification. Usually no written verification is required though.
You may begin by asking questions about the service animal, e.g., “What tasks or functions does your animal perform for you?” or “What has its training been?” If you are not satisfied with the credibility of the answers to these questions or if the service animal is an emotional support animal, you may request further verification.
You should also call a CRO if there is any further doubt in your mind as to whether the pot-bellied pig is the passenger's service animal.
Finally, if you determine that the pot-bellied pig is a service animal, you must permit the service animal to accompany the passenger to her seat as long as the animal doesn't obstruct the aisle or present any safety issues and the animal is behaving appropriately in a public setting.
A deaf passenger is planning to board the plane with his service animal. The service animal is a hearing dog and is small enough to sit on the deaf passenger's lap. While waiting to board the flight, the hearing dog jumps off the passenger's lap and begins barking and nipping at other passengers in the waiting area. What should you do?
Since you have already made the determination that the hearing dog is a service animal and may accompany the deaf passenger on the flight, you may reconsider the decision if the dog is behaving in a manner that seems disruptive and infringes on the safety of other passengers. You should carefully observe the hearing dog's behavior and explain it in detail to a CRO (if the CRO is on the telephone). If, after careful consideration of all the facts presented, the CRO decides not to treat the dog as a service animal, you should explain your carrier's policy regarding traveling with animals that are not being allowed in the passenger cabin as service animals.
For a disabled passenger traveling with a service animal, you must provide, as the passenger with a disability request, either a bulkhead seat or a seat other than a bulkhead seat. [Sec. 382.38(a)(3)]
If carriers provide special information concerning the transportation of animals outside the continental United States to any passengers, you must provide such information to all passengers with a disability traveling with a service animal on the flights. [Sec. 382.55(a)(3)]
If your carrier makes available a telephone reservation and information service to the public, you must make available a text telephone (TTY) to permit individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to make reservations and obtain information. The TTY must be available during the same hours as the telephone service for the general public and the same wait time and surcharges must apply to the TTY as the telephone service for the general public. [Secs. 382.47(a) and (b)]
Except as described below, you must not (i) refuse transportation to; (ii) require provision of a medical certificate from; or (iii) impose any condition, restriction, or requirement not imposed on other passengers on, a passenger with a communicable disease or infection. [Sec. 382.51(a)]
Only if a passenger with a communicable disease or infection poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, can you take any of the actions listed above. [Sec. 382.51(b)(1)] A direct threat means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.
If you are faced with particular circumstances where you are required to make a determination as to whether a passenger with a communicable disease or infection poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, you must make an individualized assessment based on a reasonable judgment, relying on current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence. If the presentation of a medical certificate would alleviate concerns over the passenger's condition, or reasonable modification of policies, practices, or procedures would lessen the risk to other passengers, then you should consider this in making such an individualized assessment. You should also confer with appropriate medical personnel and a CRO when making this assessment.
If, in your estimation, a passenger with a communicable disease or infection poses a direct threat to the health or safety of other passengers, you may (i) refuse to provide transportation to that person; (ii) require that person to provide a medical certificate stating that the disease at its current stage would not be transmittable during the normal course of a flight or, if applicable, describing measures that would prevent transmission during the flight [Sec. 382.53(c)]; or (iii) impose on that passenger a special condition or restriction (
At all times, as a matter of good customer service, you should treat the passenger with courtesy and respect.
A medical certificate is a written statement from the passenger's physician saying that the passenger is capable of completing the flight safely without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight. Except
You may require a medical certificate only if the passenger with a disability is an individual who:
• Is traveling on a stretcher or in an incubator (where such service is offered);
• Needs medical oxygen during the flight (where such service is offered); or
• Has a medical condition that causes the carrier to have reasonable doubt that the passenger can complete the flight safely without requiring extraordinary medical assistance during the flight. [Sec. 382.53 (a) and (b)]
In addition, if you determine that a passenger with a communicable disease or infection poses a direct threat to the health or safety risk of others, you may require a medical certificate from the passenger. [Sec. 382.53(c)(1)] The medical certificate must be dated within 10 days of the flight date. [Sec. 382.53(c)(2)]
In the event that you determine the need for a medical certificate, you should indicate to the passenger with a disability the reason for the request. You should base your request on the reasons set forth under the law and outlined above.
At all times, you should treat the passenger from whom you are requesting a medical certificate with courtesy and respect.
A passenger arrives at the gate with her six year old daughter. The girl's face and arms are covered with red lesions, resembling chicken pox. What should you do?
Generally, you must not refuse travel to, require a medical certificate from, or impose special conditions on a passenger with a communicable disease or infection. However, if a passenger appears to have a communicable disease or infection that poses a direct threat to the health or safety of other passengers, you may be required to make a determination about the best course of action.
The first thing you should do is interview the passenger and her mother to obtain basic information about the girl's condition. This exchange should be done discreetly and in a courteous and respectful manner. If you still have a question about the nature of the child's condition that will impact decisions about transportation, you should contact a CRO and explain the situation.
Here, the mother tells you and the CRO that the child has chicken pox but is no longer contagious. The CRO would likely consult with appropriate medical personnel to verify whether the child could be contagious based on the mother's statement.
If there is a reasonable basis for believing that the passenger poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, you must choose the least restrictive alternative among the following options: (i) Refusing transportation to the individual; (ii) requiring a medical certificate; or (iii) imposing a special condition or limitation on the individual. If the medical support people indicate that there is a chance that the child is no longer contagious but only if a certain number of days have passed since the outbreak of the lesions, you could request a medical certificate before you permit the child to travel.
Having discussed the situation with the passenger and her mother and consulted the CRO and the medical support personnel, the request for a medical certificate appears to be reasonable under the circumstances and the least restrictive of the three options.
Keep in mind that Section 382.53(c)(2) specifies that the medical certificate be from the child's physician and state that the child's chicken pox would not be communicable to other passengers on the flight. The medical certificate must also include any conditions or precautions that would have to be observed to prevent the transmission of the chicken pox to other passengers and be dated within ten days of the date of the flight. If the medical certificate is incomplete or if the passenger is attempting to travel before the date specified in the medical certificate or without implementing the conditions outlined to prevent transmission, the child would not be permitted to fly.
When assistance getting on or off a plane, making flight connections, or receiving transportation between gates is requested by a passenger with a disability, or offered by carrier personnel and accepted by the passenger, you must provide it. [Sec. 382.39(a)] More specifically, you must provide, as needed, the following:
• Services personnel
• Ground wheelchairs
• Boarding wheelchairs
• Ramps or mechanical lifts. [Sec. 382.39(a)(1)]
Aircraft with more than 60 passenger seats having an accessible lavatory must be equipped with an operable on-board wheelchair. [Sec. 382.21(a)(4)] On-board wheelchairs must be equipped with footrests, armrests which are movable or removable, adequate occupant restraint systems, a backrest height that permits assistance to passengers in transferring, structurally sound handles for maneuvering the occupied chair, and wheel locks or another adequate means to prevent chair movement during transfer or turbulence. The on-board wheelchair must be designed to be compatible with the maneuvering space, aisle width, and seat height of the aircraft on which it is to be used, and to easily be pushed, pulled, and turned in the cabin environment. [Sec. 382.21(a)(4)(iii)]
You must permit a passenger with a disability to provide written instructions and should accept oral advice from the passenger concerning the disassembly and reassembly of the passenger's wheelchair. [Sec. 382.41(h)] In addition, you should be familiar with how (i) a passenger accesses and uses a particular service or piece of equipment; (ii) the passenger's needs are being met by the service or piece of equipment; and (iii) that service should be provided or how that equipment operates, is disassembled, stored properly, and reassembled. Finally, consistent with good customer service, you should treat the passenger with a disability with courtesy and respect at all times by keeping the passenger informed about any problems or delays in providing personnel or equipment in connection with an accommodation.
A passenger using a battery-powered wheelchair arrives at the gate and requests that the footrests and joy stick be removed and stowed. He expresses concern because after his last flight, the airline personnel initially misplaced one of the components of the wheelchair when they disassembled it and stored it during the flight. What should you do?
Presuming the aircraft is the type that can accommodate the storage of a battery-powered wheelchair, you are required to stow his wheelchair properly on board and you may, if needed, provide an aisle chair. As a preliminary matter, you should receive training from your carrier on the use of equipment and services for passengers with a disability, including battery-powered wheelchairs. In addition to the formal training, it is worthwhile to review with the passenger how best to meet his needs. For example, you should ask the passenger to review the procedure for disassembling the wheelchair, storing parts during the flight, and reassembling the wheelchair. Once you are clear about the process, you should communicate with the appropriate employees to ensure that they understand the passenger's needs with respect to his battery-powered wheelchair. Your carrier should have a policy and process for ensuring that the battery-powered wheelchair is returned to the passenger at his destination in the same condition in which it was received by the carrier. Problems concerning the reassembly of expensive battery-powered wheelchairs can be minimized by following Section 382.41(g)(2), which governs the proper storage of such wheelchairs. See also Chapter 5, Section D.
Except under limited circumstances, you cannot require a person with a disability to be accompanied by an attendant. [Sec. 382.35(a)] See chapter 4, Section E for a discussion of the
All terminal facilities and services owned, leased, or operated by a carrier at a commercial service airport, including parking and ground transportation, must comply with the Standards for Accessible Design under the Americans with Disabilities Act. [Sec. 382.23(e)] These terminal facilities and services must be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs. [Sec. 382.23(b)] For example, terminals must provide accessible inter-terminal transportation systems,
As appropriate to your specific responsibilities and duties when dealing with the traveling public and consistent with all carriers' obligation to ensure training to proficiency [Sec. 382.61(a)], you should understand how these services and facilities function as well as their uses by passengers with a disability. You should also know where they are located within or without the terminal.
Carriers must also ensure that there is an accessible path between the gate and the area from which aircraft are boarded. [Sec. 382.23(c)]
Carriers shall not (i) restrict the movements of individuals with disabilities in terminals; (ii) require them to remain in a holding area or other location in order to receive assistance; or (iii) mandate separate treatment for individuals with disabilities except as required or permitted under part 382. [Sec. 382.55(c)]
You must undertake a security screening of a passenger with a disability in the same manner as any other passenger. You must not subject a passenger with a disability who possesses an aid used for independent travel to a special screening procedure if the passenger and the aid or assistive device clear security without activating the security system. [Sec. 382.49(a)]
The statement of the law set forth above would not, however, prohibit you from examining a mobility aid or assistive device if, in your judgment, it may conceal a weapon or other prohibited item even if the mobility aid or assistive device does not activate the security system.
In the event a passenger's mobility aid or assistive device activates the security system, you must conduct the security search of the passenger with a disability in the same manner as you would for other passengers who activate the system.
You must not require a private security screening for a passenger with a disability for any reason different from the reasons other passengers would be subject to a private security screening. However, if a passenger with a disability requests a private security screening in a timely manner, you must provide it in time for the passenger to board the flight. [Sec. 382. 49(b)] If, however, you are able to conduct a security screening of a passenger with a disability without the need for a physical search of the person, you are not required to provide a private screening. [Sec. 382.49(c)]
Finally, under certain circumstances, safety considerations may require you to exercise discretion in making the above decisions. You must always seek assistance from the appropriate designated personnel in making such a decision.
As an employee of the delivering carrier, on request, you must provide assistance to a passenger with a disability in making flight connections and providing transportation between gates. [Sec. 382.39(a)] This is the case regardless whether the delivering carrier has an interline agreement with the other carrier. Where needed and to the extent required by law, you must provide services personnel, wheelchairs, and ramps or mechanical lifts. [Sec. 382.39(a)(1)]
Carriers must not leave a passenger with a disability unattended in a ground wheelchair or other device in which the passenger is not independently mobile for more than 30 minutes. [Sec. 382.39(a)(3)]
A passenger who developed a progressive onset of weakness in his legs during his flight requests a wheelchair when he deplanes to assist him in making it over to the gate of his connecting flight. What should you do?
Because the delivering carrier has an obligation to provide transportation to a passenger with a disability to the gate of his connecting flight, you must provide timely, accessible ground transportation so he makes it to his connecting flight. In addition, you should keep in mind that once the wheelchair service is provided, you cannot leave the passenger unattended for more than 30 minutes if he is not independently mobile. As a matter of good customer service, you should treat the passenger with courtesy and respect throughout this process.
Carriers are responsible for ensuring that passengers with disabilities, including those with vision or hearing impairments, receive the same information in a timely manner that the carrier provides to other passengers in the terminal or on the aircraft, including but not limited to, information about ticketing, flight delays, schedule changes, connections, flight check-in, gate assignments and the checking and claiming of luggage. [Sec. 382.45(c)] Passengers with disabilities who are unable to obtain such information from the audio or visual system used by carriers in airports or on aircraft must request such information to be provided in an accessible manner.
You must make available a TTY to permit individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to obtain information from carriers. See also chapter 3, section E. The TTY must be available during the same hours as the telephone service for the general public and the same wait time and surcharges must apply to the TTY as the telephone service for the general public. [Secs. 382.47(a) and (b)] The TTY must also be available if the passenger who is deaf or hard of hearing wishes to contact a CRO. [Sec. 382.65(a)(2)] In addition, you should inform the individual about the DOT Hotline that is accessible by a TTY. You should be familiar with the use of the
In addition, you should be aware of the option of using a relay operator to connect one party who is using a TTY and one party who is using a voice-operated telephone. By dialing 711 on any telephone (TTY or voice operated) you can contact a relay operator who serves as a “go between” between a person using a TTY and a person using a voice-operated telephone.
A passenger who is deaf complains to you about another employee whom she believes has been rude and humiliated her when she asked for an alternate means of communication because she was unable to hear what was being said to passengers waiting to board the flight. What should you do?
As a matter of good customer service, you should apologize to the passenger for any insensitive behavior on the part of carrier personnel. In general, you should carefully observe and gauge the manner in which this passenger who is deaf communicates. When communicating, try to use the same method, e.g., speaking slowly, communicating in writing or with the assistance of an aid or device, etc. Try to find out what happened and what information she missed by communicating in an accessible manner.
You may also consult with a CRO to see about sign language or other assistive services that might be available for this passenger. If the CRO is made available by telephone and the passenger requests, TTY service must be available for the passenger to communicate directly with the CRO. You should also notify the appropriate flight crew regarding ensuring that the transmittal of information onboard is accessible to this passenger.
You should know that it is generally not appropriate to require a passenger with a disability to be accompanied by a personal care attendant. [Sec. 382.35(a)] Even if you have concerns about a passenger's ability to access the lavatory or the passenger's need for extensive special assistance which airline personnel are not obligated to provide, e.g., assistance in eating, assistance within the lavatory, or provision of medical services [Sec. 382.39(c)], you must not require the passenger with a disability to travel with a personal care attendant except in the circumstances described below.
In the interests of safety, however, you may require that a passenger with a disability travel with an attendant as a condition of receiving air transportation if the passenger is:
• Traveling on a stretcher or in an incubator (where such service is offered);
• Mentally disabled and unable to comprehend or respond appropriately to safety instructions;
• Severely impaired with respect to mobility and would be unable to assist in the passenger's own evacuation from the aircraft; or
• Deaf and severely impaired with respect to vision such that the passenger could not adequately communicate with airline employees to permit transmission of the safety briefing. [Secs. 382.35(b)(1)-(4)]
If, after careful consultation with a CRO and any other personnel required to be consulted by the carrier, you determine that a passenger with a disability must travel with an attendant for one of the reasons described in Section 382.35(b) (see above), then the carrier may require that the passenger be accompanied by an attendant. If your decision is contrary to the self-assessment of the passenger with a disability, then the carrier must not charge for the transportation of the attendant. [Sec. 382.35(c)] In addition, if no seat is available on the flight for the attendant whom the carrier has determined to be necessary and as a result the passenger with a disability with a confirmed reservation is unable to travel on the flight, the passenger with a disability is eligible for denied boarding compensation. [Sec. 382.35(d)] For purposes of determining whether a seat is available for an attendant, the attendant must be deemed to have checked in at the same time as the passenger with a disability. [Sec. 382.35(e)]
In the event you choose to recruit an attendant to accompany the passenger with a disability, even though carriers are not obligated to do so, you may ask (i) an off-duty airline employee traveling on the same flight to function as the attendant; (ii) a volunteer from among the other customers traveling on the flight and offer a free ticket for their assistance; or (iii) the passenger with a disability to choose an attendant and offer a free ticket.
If the attendant is accompanying a passenger traveling on a stretcher or in an incubator, the attendant must be capable of attending to the passenger's in-flight medical needs. [Sec. 382.35(b)(1)] Otherwise, the purpose of the attendant is to assist the passenger with a disability in an emergency evacuation. Other than the situation set forth above when an attendant is accompanying a passenger who is on a stretcher or in an incubator, the attendant is not obligated to provide personal services to the passenger with a disability such as assistance with eating or accessing the lavatory.
A passenger with quadriplegia traveling alone approaches the check-in counter. You have concerns as to whether the passenger's mobility impairment is so severe that he would be unable to assist in his own evacuation from the aircraft. What should you do?
You should begin by communicating with the passenger to determine the extent of his mobility impairment. As a matter of good customer service, you should treat the passenger with courtesy and respect at all times. Under the circumstances, you should contact a CRO to discuss the situation and determine whether the passenger must be accompanied by an attendant. You and the CRO could begin by asking the passenger about his mobility impairment and whether he would be able to assist with his own evacuation in the event of an emergency. More specifically, you should determine whether the passenger has the functional ability to make any progress toward an exit during an evacuation. If the passenger tells you that his ability to assist in his evacuation is limited to shouting “Help!”, you and the CRO should explain to him that the issue is whether he can physically assist in his own evacuation. If not, he must travel with an attendant.
If, after speaking with the passenger, you and the CRO determine that he must be accompanied by an attendant because of his severe mobility impairment, you should explain this requirement to the passenger. Next, you should explain that he can choose someone to serve as his attendant or you can assist him by recruiting an off-duty employee or another passenger on the flight to serve as his attendant. You must not charge for the transportation of the attendant. You should also explain that the purpose of the attendant is to assist in the case of an emergency evacuation.
In order to assist passengers with a disability, it is important for you to have some understanding of how aircraft have been made accessible to accommodate those passengers. The following features are required for aircraft ordered by the carrier after April 5, 1990, or delivered to the carrier after April 5, 1992. In addition, different size airplanes must be equipped with different features according to the law. For example:
• Aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats must have movable aisle armrests on at least half of the aisle seats where it is feasible and it does not interfere with safety. [Secs. 382.21(a)(i) and (ii)] (Movable armrests are not feasible where tray tables and video entertainment systems are installed.);
• Aircraft with 100 or more passenger seats must have priority storage space within the cabin to stow at least one passenger's folding wheelchair [Sec. 382.21(a)(2)] and DOT has interpreted that to mean a space at least 13 inches wide, 36 inches high, and 42 inches long;
• Aircraft with more than one aisle in which lavatories are provided must include at least one lavatory accessible to passengers with a disability accessing the lavatory with an on-board wheelchair [Sec. 382.21(a)(3)];
• Aircraft with more than 60 passenger seats having an accessible lavatory must be equipped with an on-board wheelchair [Sec. 382.21(a)(4)(i)]; and
• Aircraft with more than 60 passenger seats having an inaccessible lavatory must be equipped with an on-board wheelchair when a passenger with a disability informs the carrier (providing advance notice under Sec. 382.33(b)(8)) that the passenger can use an inaccessible lavatory but cannot reach the lavatory from a seat without the use of an on-board wheelchair. [Sec. 382.21(a)(4)(ii)]
Aircraft in service on April 5, 1990, are not required to be retrofitted for the sole purpose of enhancing accessibility. [Sec. 382.21(b)(1)] However, with respect to all aircraft with more than 60 passenger seats operated under 14 CFR part 121, regardless of the age of the aircraft, carriers must provide on-board wheelchairs if (i) the aircraft has an accessible lavatory; or (ii) a passenger with a disability gives up to 48 hours' notice that the passenger can use an inaccessible lavatory. [Sec. 382.21(b)(2)] Whenever an aircraft operating under 14 CFR part 121 which does not have the accessibility features set forth above undergoes replacement of (i) cabin interior elements or lavatories, or (ii) existing seats with newly-manufactured seats (
Where part 382 requires a particular aircraft to have an on-board wheelchair and a stowage space within the cabin for at least one passenger's folding wheelchair, that aircraft must have stowage spaces for both of these chairs and must accommodate both of these chairs as required by law. [Secs. 382.21(a)(4)(i) and 382.21(a)(2)]
Any replacement or refurbishing of the aircraft cabin must not reduce existing accessibility to a level below that specified under the law. [Sec. 382.21(e)] Carriers must maintain aircraft accessibility features in proper working order. [Sec. 382.21(f)]
You must not exclude a passenger with a disability from any seat in an exit row or other location or require a passenger with a disability to sit in a particular seat based on the passenger's disability, except to comply with FAA safety requirements. [Sec. 382.37(a)] If a passenger's disability results in involuntary behavior that would result in refusal of transportation under Section 382.31 and the safety problem could be addressed by seating the passenger in a particular location, you must offer the passenger that particular seat location as an alternative to refusing transportation. [Sec. 382.37(b)]
A passenger with Tourette's syndrome—a neurological disability that manifests itself by episodes of shaking, muscle tics, and/or spasms and uncontrolled shouting, barking, screaming, cursing, and/or abusive language—approaches the check-in desk, self-identifies as a passenger with a disability, and presents brochures explaining the disability to the agent. What should you do?
As long as safety is not an issue, you cannot restrict this passenger from any particular seat, including an exit row. If this passenger's disability causes him to physically touch other passengers or flight crew involuntarily, safety considerations could require that he be seated in his own row, if available, as an alternative to being refused transportation. However, if the physical and/or verbal manifestations of this passenger's Tourette's syndrome are such that the safety of others would be jeopardized,
Otherwise, although the passenger's conduct may create an uncomfortable experience for other passengers, if his involuntary behavior only amounts to an annoyance and not a safety concern, you must not restrict the passenger with Tourette's syndrome from any seating assignment.
• If a passenger self-identifies as an individual with a disability, there are four specific situations where you must provide a particular seating accommodation, if requested. The four situations are as follows:
• If the passenger uses an aisle chair to access the aircraft and cannot readily transfer over a fixed aisle armrest, you must provide a seat in a row with a movable armrest if one exists [Sec. 382.38(a)(1)];
• If the passenger (i) is a passenger who is traveling with an attendant who will be performing functions during the flight that airline personnel are not required to perform,
• If the passenger is accompanied by a service animal, you must provide a bulkhead seat if one exists or a seat other than a bulkhead seat, depending on the passenger's request [Sec. 382.38(a)(3)]; or
• If the passenger has a fused or immobilized leg, you must provide a bulkhead seat if one exists or other seat with more legroom than other seats on the side of the aisle that best accommodates the passenger. [Sec. 382.38(a)(4)]
Regardless of which type of system a carrier uses for handling its seat assignments, you must provide the required seating accommodation in the four specific situations described above, if requested. The type of seat assignment system will determine how a carrier fulfills its obligation to provide these seating assignments. You should be aware of your carrier's method for managing seat assignments and be able to explain it to passengers with disabilities and the general passenger population depending on the circumstances.
Carriers providing advance seat assignments may employ either the seat “blocking” method or the “priority” seating method.
Carriers may “block” an adequate number of seats to provide the seating accommodations discussed above. If carriers employ this “block” method, they must not assign these “blocked” seats to passengers other than the types of passengers entitled to a seating accommodation discussed above until 24 hours before the scheduled departure of the flight. At any time up to 24 hours before the flight, carriers using the “block” system must assign a “blocked” seat to any passenger in need of a particular seating accommodation outlined in the four situations above.
If a passenger with a disability meeting the above requirements does not make a request for a seating accommodation at least 24 hours before the scheduled departure of the flight, a carrier using the “block” system must provide the requested seating accommodation to the extent practicable, but is not required to reassign a seat assigned to another passenger in order to do so. [Secs. 382.38(b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii)]
A passenger with a service animal calls you, a reservation agent, several days before the scheduled departure of her flight and requests a bulkhead seat. What should you do?
The aircraft has four bulkhead seats, two of which are “blocked” under your carrier's reservation system for passengers traveling with a service animal or passengers with an immobilized leg. Since the passenger has requested the seating accommodation more than 24 hours in advance of the scheduled departure of the flight, you must assign one of the “blocked” bulkhead seats to this passenger with the service animal.
If, on the other hand, the passenger with the service animal requests the bulkhead seat within 24 hours of the scheduled departure of her flight, you must provide the bulkhead seat to her and her service animal to the extent practicable, but you are not required to reassign a seat already assigned to another passenger in order to do so.
Carriers may designate an adequate number of “priority” seats for passengers with a disability who meet the above requirements and who request a seating accommodation. In this case, the carrier must provide notice to any passenger assigned to a “priority” seat (other than passengers with a disability entitled to a seating accommodation in one of the four situations discussed above) that they are subject to being reassigned to another seat if necessary to provide a seating accommodation required under the law. The carrier may provide this notice through its computer reservation system, verbal information provided by reservations personnel, counter signs, seat cards or notices, frequent-flyer literature, or other appropriate means. [Sec. 382.38(b)(2)(i)] The carrier must provide a “priority” seat to a passenger with a disability entitled to such accommodation if the passenger requests the accommodation and checks in at least one hour before the scheduled departure of the flight. If all of the designated “priority” seats have been assigned to other passengers who do not have disabilities, the carrier must reassign the seats of the other passengers to accommodate the passenger with a disability entitled to a seating accommodation as discussed above. [Sec. 382.38(b)(2)(ii)]
If a passenger with a disability does not check in at least one hour before the scheduled departure of the flight, a carrier using the “priority” seating system must provide the requested seating accommodation, to the extent practicable, but is not required to reassign a seat assigned to another passenger in order to do so. [Sec. 382.38(b)(2)(iii)]
A passenger with an immobilized leg requests a bulkhead seat and checks in two hours before the scheduled departure of the flight. Your carrier employs the “priority” seating method and has designated all four bulkhead seats on the aircraft as “priority” seating. Three of the bulkhead seats have already been assigned to three passengers traveling with small service animals who have requested the seating accommodations and checked in at least an hour before the scheduled departure of the flight. The fourth “priority” bulkhead seat has been assigned to a passenger who also checked in two hours before the flight and uses an aisle chair to enplane who prefers the bulkhead seat to a seat in a row with a movable armrest. What should you do?
The passenger who uses the aisle chair to enplane should have received notice that she has been assigned a “priority” seat. Because she is not a passenger with an immobilized leg or a passenger traveling with a service animal, she is not automatically entitled to a “priority” bulkhead seat. (However, she would be entitled to a “priority” seat in a row with a movable armrest if she requested one and checked in at least an hour before the scheduled departure of the flight.) The passenger using the aisle chair to enplane should have been notified that you might have to reassign her seat if a passenger with a service animal or a passenger with an immobilized leg requests a “priority” bulkhead seating accommodation and checks in at least one hour before the scheduled departure of the flight. Accordingly, the passenger using the aisle chair would be reassigned to a seat in a row with a movable armrest and the passenger with the immobilized leg would be assigned to the fourth “priority” bulkhead seat.
Passengers with a disability—other than the types of passengers with a disability entitled to a seating accommodation in one of the four specific situations discussed above—may identify themselves as passengers with a disability and request a seating accommodation. [Sec. 382.38(c)]
In this case, a carrier employing the “block” method is not required to offer one of the “blocked” seats when the passenger with a disability makes a reservation more than 24 hours before the scheduled departure time of the flight. However, the carrier must assign the passenger with a disability any seat not already assigned to another passenger that accommodates the passenger's needs, even if that seat is not available for assignment to the general passenger population at the time of the request. [Secs. 382.38(c)(1)(i) and (ii)]
A passenger with arthritis in his spine making his back extremely stiff calls a week before his flight and asks you, the reservation agent, for a bulkhead seat. He explains that it is much easier for him to access a bulkhead seat because he has to be lowered into the seat with assistance from another person. The aircraft has six bulkhead seats, two of which are “blocked” under your carrier's reservation system for passengers traveling with service animals or passengers with immobilized legs. One of the four remaining bulkhead seats is unassigned when he calls. What should you do?
Although your carrier normally reserves such seats for its frequent flier passengers, you must assign the remaining bulkhead seat to the passenger with arthritis in his spine.
In a similar situation, a carrier using the “priority” seating method must assign the passenger with a disability any seat not already assigned to another passenger that accommodates the passenger's needs, even if that seat is not available for assignment to the general passenger population at the time of the request. If this passenger with a disability is assigned to a “priority” bulkhead seat, he/she is subject to being reassigned to another seat if necessary to provide a seating accommodation to a passenger with a disability entitled to a seating accommodation required under the law, as discussed above. [Sec. 382.38(c)(2)(i) and (ii)]
Suppose the same passenger, with arthritis in his spine, in Example 1 above, calls your carrier, asking for a bulkhead seat, but your carrier uses the “priority” seating method. The aircraft has six bulkhead seats, two of which are “priority” seats for passengers traveling with service animals or passengers with immobilized legs. At the time of the call, all
You should assign the passenger with arthritis in his spine one of the two “priority” seats, but you must notify him that he may have his “priority” seat reassigned if another passenger who is entitled to a “priority” seat requests one. On the day of the flight, a passenger with a service animal and a passenger with a fused leg show up for the same flight and request bulkhead seats. In this instance, the passenger with arthritis in his spine would be informed that his “priority” seat must be assigned to one of those passengers and that he must be moved to another seat. As a matter of good customer service, he may be assigned an aisle seat because it would make it easier to access.
If a carrier does not provide advance seat assignments, you must allow passengers who identify themselves as passengers with a disability in need of a seating accommodation to pre-board—even before other passengers entitled to pre-board—and select the seat assignment that best meets their needs. [Sec. 382.38(d)] If a carrier wishes to comply with this requirement in another way, it must receive written approval from DOT. [Sec. 382.38(e)]
You must provide a seat assignment accommodation when requested by a passenger with a disability even if the seat is not otherwise available for assignment to the general passenger population at the time of the request. [Sec. 382.38(f)] You cannot reassign the seat of a passenger with a disability who has received a seat assignment to accommodate a disability in the event of a subsequent request for the same seat unless the passenger with a disability consents to the reassignment. [Sec. 382.38(g)]
You must not deny transportation to any individual on a flight in order to provide a seat accommodation to a passenger with a disability. [Sec. 382.38(h)] You are also not required to provide more than one seat per ticket or a seat in a class of service other than the one the passenger has purchased to accommodate a passenger with a disability requesting a seating accommodation. [Sec. 382.38(i)] You must comply with all FAA safety requirements in responding to requests from individuals with a disability for seating accommodations. [Sec. 382.38(j)]
A passenger with an economy class ticket and an immobilized leg (with a full-leg cast) arrives more than an hour before his flight is scheduled to depart. He arrives at the check-in counter, explains his disability, and insists that he is entitled to a seat in first class to accommodate his extended leg. Your carrier uses the “priority” seating method for advance seat assignments. What should you do?
Since the passenger has identified himself as a passenger with a disability and has requested a seat assignment to accommodate him, you must provide a bulkhead seat or other seat with more legroom than other seats on the side of the aisle that best accommodates him. While first class seats generally have more legroom than economy class seats, you are not required to provide a seat in a class of service other than the one the passenger has purchased in order to accommodate him. You should explain politely and respectfully that under the law, you must seat him in (i) a bulkhead or (ii) an aisle seat in economy class on the side of the plane that would best accommodate his leg. At his subsequent request for a bulkhead seat, you must arrange to move another passenger from the bulkhead seat and give it to the passenger with the immobilized leg. Although you are not required to do so under the law, you may choose to seat him in first class.
If a passenger with a disability requests assistance getting on or off an airplane or you offer assistance and the passenger consents to the type of boarding or deplaning assistance you offer, you must provide such assistance. [Sec. 382.39(a)] The type of assistance you must offer includes, as needed, services personnel and the use of wheelchairs, ramps, or mechanical lifts. [Sec. 382.39(a)(1)]
Keep in mind, however, that a wheelchair is not required or desired in all cases. A wheelchair may not be an appropriate assistive device in a particular situation. For example, a passenger with vision impairment may need a sighted guide, not a wheelchair.
Carriers must train employees to proficiency in the use of the boarding assistance equipment and procedures regarding the safety and dignity of passengers receiving boarding assistance. [Secs. 382.40(d) and 382.40a(d)] Therefore, regardless of the size of the aircraft, you should know how to use mechanical boarding assistance devices and the appropriate procedures for providing boarding assistance.
In addition, you should be aware that when level-entry boarding is not required or if a lift is temporarily not functioning, you must obtain the consent of the passenger with a disability to the means of boarding assistance. [Sec. 382.40(c)(5)] Therefore, in such situations, you should present the various options and provide only the type of boarding assistance to which the passenger consents. If the passenger does not consent to the available means of boarding assistance, you should contact a CRO.
You cannot leave a passenger in a boarding wheelchair or other device in which the passenger is not independently mobile for more than 30 minutes. [Sec. 382.39(a)(3)]
Carriers must provide access to the airplane for a passenger with a disability by a level-entry loading bridge or accessible passenger lounges where these means are available. [Sec. 382.39(a)(2)] But depending on the size of the aircraft, carriers have different obligations to provide boarding assistance to individuals with a disability using mechanical lifts, ramps, or other suitable devices that do not require you to physically lift or carry passengers up stairs. [Secs. 382.40 and 382.40a]
For aircraft with 19 or more seats operating at airports with 10,000 or more annual enplanements where level-entry boarding is not available [Secs. 382.40(a) and 382.40a(a)], carriers must provide boarding assistance to passengers with a disability using mechanical lifts, ramps, or other suitable devices that do not require you to physically lift or carry passengers up stairs. [Secs. 382.40(b) and 382.40a(b)] In addition, carriers may require that a passenger seeking boarding assistance by use of a lift check in for the flight one hour before the scheduled departure time. [Secs. 382.40(c)(3) and 382.40a(c)(3)] You must make a reasonable effort to accommodate the passenger and provide the boarding assistance by lift even if the passenger does not check in one hour before the scheduled departure time, as long as it would not delay the flight.
Boarding assistance by mechanical lift is not required in the following situations:
• On aircraft with fewer than 19 seats;
• On float planes;
• On the following 19-seat capacity aircraft models that are unsuitable for boarding assistance by lift: the Fairchild Metro, the Jetstream 31, and the Beech 1900 (C and D Models);
• On any other 19-seat aircraft model determined by DOT to be unsuitable for boarding assistance by lift; [Sec. 382.40(c)(4)]; or
• On any widebody aircraft determined by DOT to be unsuitable for boarding assistance by lift, ramp, or other device.
If boarding assistance by lift is not required (as set forth above) or it cannot be provided for reasons beyond the
Under no circumstances—except for emergency evacuations—should you physically pick up a passenger with a disability to provide boarding or deplaning assistance. [Sec. 382.39(a)(2)]
A woman asks for assistance in boarding a flight with 30 seats. General boarding for passengers is by a set of stairs on the tarmac. When she arrives at the gate and asks for boarding assistance, she is provided a boarding wheelchair, but you inform her that the mechanical lift is out of order. The passenger tells you to physically pick her up and carry her up the stairs and onto the plane because she really needs to make the flight. What should you do?
Under the law, you must not physically hand-carry the passenger onto the plane. Hand-carrying is only appropriate in the case of an emergency evacuation. Even though the law states that the passenger must consent to the type of boarding assistance and she has requested to be hand carried, you must not hand-carry her onto the aircraft. Instead, you should contact a CRO for advice about options for alternative means of boarding the passenger,
You should be familiar with the legal requirements for storage and treatment of personal equipment used by passengers with a disability, including ventilator/respirators, non-spillable batteries, canes, wheelchairs, and other assistive devices. [Sec. 382.41]
You must allow passengers with a disability to bring their personal ventilators/respirators, including non-spillable batteries, on board the aircraft as long as FAA safety regulations are met. [Sec. 382.41(b)] You must permit passengers to stow their canes and other assistive devices in the cabin and close to their seats, consistent with FAA safety regulations concerning carry-on items. [Sec. 382.41(c)]
Because a passenger with a disability arrived at the airport late, time and space constraints on board the aircraft require you to store her assistive walking device in first class, even though her seat assignment is in the back of the plane in economy class. She insists that she has the right to have her assistive walking device stored near her. She explains further that she would need this device to access and use the lavatory. What should you do?
You must permit a passenger with a disability to bring her assistive devices into the cabin as long as FAA safety regulations are met. [Sec. 382.41(b)] In addition, the rule generally requires you to allow a passenger to stow her assistive device close to her seat, consistent with FAA safety regulations concerning carry-on items. [Sec. 382.41(c)] Under the circumstances, you should reassess the storage space and consider either moving the passenger closer to her walker or the walker closer to the passenger.
You must not count assistive devices brought on board the aircraft by a passenger with a disability toward the limit on the passenger's carry-on items. [Sec. 382.41(d)] Wheelchairs and other assistive devices that cannot be stowed in the cabin must be stowed in the baggage compartment with priority over other cargo and baggage. [Sec. 382.41(f)(3)] In addition, because carriers cannot charge for facilities, equipment, or services required under the law to be provided to qualified individuals with a disability, no charge would be imposed if a wheelchair or assistive device exceeded the weight limit on checked baggage. [Sec. 382.57]
A passenger with multiple sclerosis is one of many passengers on a flight who is informed that the flight will not be taking off because of mechanical problems. It is late at night and the carrier has announced that the passengers will be put up in a hotel for the night and rescheduled on a flight leaving the following morning. The passenger with multiple sclerosis approaches you when she hears the announcement and explains that she needs access to her checked luggage because it contains her syringe and medication for her multiple sclerosis which she must take on a daily basis. What should you do?
The passenger's syringe and medication would be considered an assistive device under the law. Under Section 382.41(f)(1), because the passenger requested the return of her assistive device, you must return it to her. As a matter of customer service, you may also advise such passengers (
Carriers must permit storage in the cabin of wheelchairs or components of wheelchairs, including folding, collapsible, or breakdown battery-powered wheelchairs [Sec. 382.41(e)] as follows:
• In overhead compartments and under seats consistent with FAA safety regulations for carry-on items. [Sec. 382.41(e)(1)]
• If the aircraft contains a closet or storage area of a size sufficient to accommodate a passenger's folding, collapsible, or breakdown wheelchair, the carrier must designate priority stowage space for at least one passenger's wheelchair in that area. If a passenger with a disability decides to pre-board, the passenger may stow the wheelchair in the designated storage space with priority over the carry-on items brought on board by other passengers or crew members boarding the plane at the same airport. If, on the other hand, a passenger with a disability chooses not to pre-board, the passenger may stow the wheelchair in the designated storage space on a first-come, first-served basis along with all other passengers seeking to stow carry-on items in the space. [Sec. 382.41(e)(2)]
• If the aircraft cabin does not contain a storage area of a size sufficient to accommodate a folding, collapsible, or breakdown wheelchair, you must stow the wheelchair in the cargo compartment with priority over other luggage. [Sec. 382.41(e)(3)]
When a folding, collapsible, or break-down wheelchair cannot be stowed in the cabin as carry-on baggage, you must ensure the timely checking and return of the passenger's wheelchair or other assistive device as close as possible to the door of the aircraft, so that the passenger with a disability can use his or her own equipment, where possible, consistent with DOT regulations concerning transportation of hazardous materials. [Sec. 382.41(f)]
If, on the other hand, a passenger with a disability requests, you should return the wheelchair or other assistive device at the baggage claim area instead of at the door of the aircraft. [Sec. 382.41(f)(1)]
A passenger's wheelchair or other assistive device must be stowed in the baggage compartment with priority over
You must accept a passenger's battery-powered wheelchair, including the battery, as checked baggage unless baggage compartment size and aircraft airworthiness considerations prohibit it. [Sec. 382.41(g)]
Carriers may require that a passenger with a disability wishing to have a battery-powered wheelchair transported on a flight (including in the cabin where required) check in for the flight one hour before the scheduled departure time. [Sec. 382.41(g)(1)] You must also make a reasonable effort to accommodate the passenger and transport the wheelchair even if the passenger does not check in one hour before the scheduled departure time, as long as it would not delay the flight.
If (i) the battery on the passenger's wheelchair has been labeled by the manufacturer as non-spillable or (ii) the battery-powered wheelchair with a spillable battery can be loaded, stored, secured, and unloaded in an upright position, you must not require the battery to be removed and separately packaged. You may remove and package separately any battery that appears to be damaged or leaking. [Sec. 382.41(g)(2)]
When it is necessary to detach a battery from a wheelchair, you must provide packaging for the battery and package the battery consistent with appropriate hazardous materials regulations. [Sec. 382.41(g)(3)] You must not charge for such packaging. [Sec. 382.57]
You must not drain batteries. [Sec. 382.41(g)(4)]
If a passenger with a disability requests, you must stow a folding, breakdown, or collapsible battery-powered wheelchair in the cabin consistent with the requirements set forth above. If the wheelchair can be stowed in the cabin without removing the battery, then you must not remove the battery. If the wheelchair cannot be stowed in the cabin without removing the battery, then you must remove the battery and stow it in the baggage compartment in the proper packaging as set forth above. In this case, you must permit the wheelchair, with the battery removed, to be stowed in the cabin. [Sec. 382.41(g)(5)]
You must permit passengers with a disability to provide written instructions concerning the disassembly and reassembly of their wheelchairs. [Sec. 382.41(h)]
When you disassemble wheelchairs or other assistive devices for stowage, you must reassemble them and ensure their prompt return to the passenger with a disability. You must return a wheelchair or other assistive device to the passenger in the same condition in which you received it. [Sec. 382.43(a)]
On domestic flights, the normal baggage liability limits do not apply to loss, damage, or delay concerning wheelchairs or other assistive devices. Instead, the criterion for calculating the compensation for lost, damaged, or destroyed wheelchairs or other assistive devices must be the original price of the device. [Sec. 382.43(b)] Moreover, you must not require a passenger with a disability to sign a waiver of liability for damage to or loss of a wheelchair or other assistive device, although you may make notes about preexisting damage or conditions of wheelchairs or other assistive devices. [Sec. 382.43(c)]
A passenger with a battery-powered wheelchair with a spillable battery arrived at his departure gate for his domestic flight and airline personnel there determined that the wheelchair could not be loaded, stored, secured, and unloaded in an upright position. Therefore, they directed the appropriate personnel to remove and store the battery and gate check the wheelchair. When the passenger arrives at his destination and the battery is replaced, it is done so incorrectly and the entire electronic circuit board of the wheelchair is severely damaged, rendering the wheelchair temporarily unusable. What should you do?
Upon request, you must permit passengers with a disability to provide written instructions concerning the disassembly and reassembly of their wheelchairs. As a matter of good customer service, you should apologize to the passenger for the problem and the resulting inconvenience. In addition, you should explain to the passenger that the carrier will compensate him for the damaged wheelchair in an amount up to the original purchase price of the device. If, for example, the passenger provides you with documentation that the original cost of the wheelchair was $10,000 and verification that it cost $2,900 to be repaired, the carrier would pay the passenger or the repair company $2,900 to cover the cost of the wheelchair repair. In addition, paying for reasonable costs associated with the rental of a wheelchair by the passenger during the repair period could also be recovered by the passenger from the carrier.
Within the aircraft cabin, when requested by a passenger with a disability or when offered and accepted by a passenger with a disability, you must assist the passenger in:
• Moving to and from a seat as part of enplaning and deplaning [Sec. 382.39(b)(1)];
• Preparing for eating, such as opening packets and identifying food [Sec. 382.39(b)(2)];
• If there is an on-board wheelchair, using the on-board wheelchair to enable the passenger to move to and from the lavatory which, if requested, could entail transferring the passenger from a seat to an aisle chair [Sec. 382.39(b)(3)];
• Moving to and from the lavatory, if the passenger is semi-ambulatory, not involving lifting or carrying the individual [Sec. 382.39(b)(4)]; and
• Loading and retrieving carry-on items, including mobility aids and other assistive devices stowed in the cabin [Sec. 382.39(b)(5)];
A passenger using a boarding wheelchair asks for help storing her carry-on item in the overhead compartment because, it is apparent, her disability limits her ability to reach up to the overhead compartment. What should you do?
You must either assist the passenger directly or indicate that you will find the appropriate employee to assist her in stowing her carry-on bag in the overhead compartment.
A passenger who walks onto the plane for an evening flight with a rolling carry-on bag asks for help lifting his bag and putting it in the overhead storage compartment. What should you do?
Since he has not identified himself as a qualified individual with a disability, you may want to ask for further clarification. Because, under the law, normally you cannot ask a passenger if he has a disability, you might ask, “Is there any particular reason you need assistance sir?” or “Could you tell me a little about your need for help?” or “Are you unable to lift it yourself?” If, for example, the passenger explains that he has multiple sclerosis and his muscles are particularly fatigued at the end of the day and therefore he needs help lifting things, you must either assist the passenger directly or indicate that you will find the appropriate employee to assist him in stowing his carry-on bag. If, on the other hand, the passenger states that he is merely tired and doesn't feel like lifting the bag, the passenger is not a qualified individual with a disability and, therefore, you are not obligated to assist him. You may politely decline to assist him, depending on the carrier's policies regarding assistance with stowing carry-on items for passengers.
You are not required to provide extensive special assistance to passengers with a disability such as:
• help with eating, for example, cutting food and feeding the passenger [Sec. 382.39(c)(1)];
• assistance within the restroom or at the passenger's seat with elimination functions [Sec. 382.39(c)(2)]; or
• provision of medical services. [Sec. 382.39(c)(3)]
You cannot require that a passenger with a disability sit on a blanket. [Sec. 382.55(b)]
Under certain circumstances, you must provide individual safety briefings to a passenger with a disability. Federal safety regulations require you to conduct an individual briefing for each passenger who may need assistance to move expeditiously to an emergency exit. You must brief the passenger and the attendant, if any, on the routes to the appropriate exit and on the most appropriate time to move toward the exit in the event of an emergency. In addition, you must ask the passenger and the attendant, if any, the most appropriate manner of assisting the passenger. [14 CFR 121.571(a)(3)] You may offer such briefings to other passengers. [Sec. 382.45(b)(2)]
In the case of private safety briefings for passengers with a disability:
• You must conduct the briefing as inconspicuously and discreetly as possible. [Sec. 382.45(b)(3)]
• You must not require a passenger with a disability to demonstrate that the person has listened to, read, or understood the information presented, except to the extent that you or other employees impose such a requirement on all passengers with respect to the general safety briefing.
• You must not take any action adverse to a passenger with a disability on the basis the individual has not “accepted” the briefing. [Sec. 382.45(b)(4)]
If the safety briefings are presented to passengers on video screens, carriers must ensure that the video presentation is accessible to passengers who are deaf or hard of hearing. [Sec. 382.47(b)] More specifically, carriers must implement this requirement by using open captioning or an inset for a sign language interpreter as part of the video presentation. [Sec. 382.47(b)(1)] A carrier may use an equivalent non-video alternative to this requirement only if neither open captioning nor a sign language interpreter inset could be placed in the video presentation without so interfering with it as to render it ineffective or if it would not be large enough to be readable. [Sec. 382.47(b)(2)] Carriers must implement these requirements by substituting captioned video materials for uncaptioned video materials as the uncaptioned materials are replaced in the normal course of the carrier's operations. [Sec. 382.47(b)(3)]
Carriers must ensure that, upon request, passengers with a disability, including those who are (i) blind or visually impaired; or (ii) deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind, have timely access to information being provided to other passengers, including but not limited to, information concerning ticketing, flight delays, schedule changes, connections, flight check-in, gate assignments, the checking and claiming of luggage, and aircraft changes that will affect the travel of passengers with a disability. [Sec. 382.45(c)] Passengers who are unable to obtain the information from the audio or visual systems in airports or on board must request the information from you. In other words, as a practical matter, passengers may have to identify themselves as (i) blind or visually impaired; or (ii) deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind in order to obtain the information. See Chapter 7 in general and “Tips for Assisting People Who Are Blind or Visually-Impaired” and “Tips for Assisting People Who Are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, or Deaf-Blind” in particular.
Carriers must (i) establish a procedure for resolving disability-related complaints raised by passengers with a disability and (ii) designate at least one CRO to be available to handle disability-related complaints at each airport the carrier serves. [Sec. 382.65(a)] Each CRO must be trained and thoroughly proficient with respect to the rights of passengers with disabilities under the ACAA and accompanying regulations. [Secs. 382.61(a)(7) and 382.65(a)(3)]
Carriers must make a CRO available at all times the carrier is operating at each airport it serves. [Secs. 382.65(a)(1) and (2)] The CRO may be made available in person or by telephone. If the CRO is made available by telephone, it must be at no cost to the passenger. The CRO must be accessible via a TTY for passengers who are deaf or hard of hearing. If a passenger with a disability, or someone on behalf of a passenger with a disability, complains about an alleged violation or potential violation of the law, you must put the customer in touch with a CRO on duty. [Sec. 382.65(a)(1)] A CRO has the authority to resolve complaints by passengers with a disability on behalf of the carrier. [Sec. 382.65(a)(4)]
When a passenger with a disability makes a complaint to a CRO during the course of the trip (
• If no violation of the law has occurred yet, the CRO must take action or direct other employees to take action to ensure compliance. Only the pilot-in-command of an aircraft has final authority to make decisions regarding safety and the CRO cannot countermand a pilot's decisions regarding safety. [Sec. 382.65(a)(5)(i)]
• If a passenger complains about a disability-related issue or alleges a violation of the law that has already occurred and the CRO agrees that a violation has occurred, the CRO must provide the complaining passenger with a written statement summarizing the facts at issue and the steps, if any, the carrier proposes to take in response to the violation. [Sec. 382.65(a)(5)(ii)] This statement must be provided in person to the passenger at the airport, if possible; otherwise, it must be forwarded to the passenger within 10 calendar days of the complaint. [Sec. 382.65(a)(5)(iv)]
• If a passenger alleges a violation of the law but the CRO determines that no violation has occurred, the CRO must provide a written statement including a summary of the facts and the reasons for the determination. [Sec. 382.65(a)(5)(iii)] This statement must be provided in person to the passenger at the airport, if possible; otherwise, it must be forwarded to the passenger within 10 calendar days of the complaint. [Sec. 382.65(a)(5)(iv)]
The written statement provided to the complaining passenger must include information about the right to pursue DOT enforcement action under the law. [Sec. 382.65(a)(5)(iv)]
You should be aware of your carrier's established procedure for resolving written complaints from passengers with a disability. [Sec. 382.65(b)] In addition, under the law, a carrier is not required to respond to a written complaint postmarked more than 45 days after the date of the alleged violation. [Sec. 382.65(b)(1)] Your carrier must provide a dispositive written response within 30 days of receipt of a written complaint describing a situation that would constitute a violation of the law. [Sec. 382.65(b)(3)]
You should provide all information regarding written complaints—and in general—in a polite and respectful manner as a matter of high standards of customer service.
Depending on the carrier's determination, its response to a written complaint must include the following:
• if the carrier agrees that a violation has occurred, the carrier must provide a written statement to the complaining passenger summarizing the facts and stating what steps, if any, the carrier proposes to take in response to the violation. [Sec. 382.65(b)(3)(i)]
• if the carrier denies that a violation has occurred, the written response must include a summary of the facts and the carrier's reasons under the law for making its determination. [Sec. 382.65(b)(3)(iii)]
The written statement provided to the complaining passenger must include information about the right to pursue DOT enforcement action under the law. [Sec. 382.65(b)(3)(iii)]
You should be aware that all personnel dealing with the traveling public should be trained to proficiency regarding the legal requirements and the carrier's policies concerning the provision of air travel to individuals with disabilities. [Sec. 382.61(a)(1)] These employees must receive training regarding awareness about and appropriate responses to individuals with physical, sensory, mental, and emotional disabilities. [Sec. 382.61(a)(2)]
You should be familiar with your carrier's established procedures and the CRO's duties and responsibilities with respect to resolving a complaint raised by a passenger with a disability. You should convey this information to passengers with a disability under the appropriate circumstances.
When resolving complaints from a passenger with a disability, you should keep the following in mind:
• Request assistance from a CRO immediately or assist the passenger with a disability in doing so, if the passenger requests to speak with a “supervisor” or “manager.”
• Contact a CRO if you are having any difficulty providing an accommodation required by law or carrier policy to a passenger with a disability.
• Carry the information about how to contact a CRO with you at all times. Remember a CRO may be available in person or by telephone but a CRO must be available during all hours of the carrier's operation at the airport.
When you receive a complaint from a passenger with a disability, there are certain requirements under the law with which you, your carrier, and a CRO must comply. Even if you call a CRO, it is important to be able to assess the situation firsthand through observation, communication, and information gathering because a CRO is not always available on site and may only be involved in resolving the complaint via telephone.
Having a consistent process for fielding these complaints will assist you in complying with those legal obligations and providing good customer service. Learning what the particular problem is, finding the applicable rule, regulation, or policy that addresses the situation, and remedying the situation by taking affirmative action are important aspects of the process.
The ACCESS checklist set forth below provides an easy way to remember how to respond to these complaints. Remember ACCESS as a thorough and useful process through which you can address the complaint or refer it to a CRO as needed.
Ask the passenger with a disability how you may assist with concerns. Listen actively and carefully to what the passenger tells you and ask for further clarification when necessary.
Call a CRO and report the complaint if you are unable to resolve the problem. If a passenger with a disability would like to contact a CRO directly, you must assist the passenger in doing so. If your carrier has an internal procedure for documenting complaints that requires CRO involvement or for documenting other types of passenger complaints, fill out the appropriate forms, if any, and provide relevant and detailed information to satisfy that internal carrier policy.
Check this manual (and Appendix V containing the full text of Part 382) and your carrier's policies (concerning the law as well as good customer service) to identify the issue at hand. If you need assistance, ask a CRO on duty.
Evaluate the relevant provisions of this manual (and Appendix V containing the full text of Part 382) and your carrier's policies to determine the appropriate options for resolving the problem considering the following factors:
• Does the solution comply with the law?
• Does the solution comply with your carrier's policies?
• Is there a question of airline and passenger safety? (Remember, the pilot-in-command of an aircraft is the final arbiter of a safety issue.)
• Does the solution meet the needs of the passenger with a disability?
• Can the solution be implemented in a timely manner,
Solve the problem by providing the passenger with a disability with the information, services, or appropriate action required under the law.
Satisfy the passenger with a disability to the extent possible when complying with the law. Communicating the basis for the action taken (or not taken) to the passenger with a disability is critical. Thank the passenger for bringing the problem to your attention and ask if the passenger has any additional questions about the solution you or a CRO has provided. Ask if you are able to assist with any other concerns.
• You should familiarize yourself with this manual (and Appendix V containing the full text of Part 382) and your carrier's policies (concerning the law as well as good customer service). First and foremost, you must not violate the civil rights of passengers with a disability. In addition, you should treat passengers in a manner consistent with good customer service policy.
• You should work as quickly as possible to ensure prompt service and, at the same time, respect for the needs of passengers with a disability.
• You should be aware of your carrier's procedures for addressing complaints. You should take the time necessary to resolve the complaint while maintaining flight schedules. If an unfamiliar situation presents itself or you have any doubts or questions, you should contact your immediate
• You should make reasonable attempts to keep the passenger with a disability informed about your or other carrier personnel's progress with respect to resolving a complaint.
• You should avoid engaging in an argument with a passenger with a disability presenting a complaint.
• You should listen carefully and actively, evaluate appropriate options under the law and your carrier's policy, and communicate the basis for the action taken (or not taken) to the passenger with a disability in a respectful and polite manner to ensure effective complaint resolution.
• Even if you call a CRO, it is important to be able to assess the situation firsthand through observation, communication, and information gathering because a CRO is not always available on site and may only be involved in resolving the complaint via telephone.
Certificated U.S. carriers and foreign carriers
When assisting and interacting with individuals with disabilities, you should use language that gives an accurate, positive view of them. You should focus on the person first, not the disability, and avoid language that reinforces myths, stereotypes, and discrimination.
Below is a chart listing some currently acceptable terminology and terminology to avoid when addressing or referring to people with disabilities.
It may not be apparent whether a person is an individual with a disability. You should provide an opportunity for a passenger to self-identify as an individual with a disability by asking if the person needs assistance and, if so, how best you can assist with those needs. Keep in mind that you cannot require an individual with a disability to accept special services, including pre-boarding.
• Orthopedic impairment;
• Deafness (profound hearing loss);
• Hard of hearing (mild to profound hearing loss);
• Vision impairment and blindness;
• Speech disorder;
• Cerebral palsy;
• Epilepsy;
• Muscular dystrophy;
• Multiple sclerosis;
• Cancer;
• Heart disease; and
• Diabetes.
• Mental retardation;
• Depression;
• Anxiety disorders;
• Specific learning disabilities; and
• Brain injury.
Below is a list of general tips to consider when interacting with people with disabilities followed by tips relating to interacting with individuals with one or more of the five basic types of disabilities. These tips are aimed at ensuring that services, facilities, and other accommodations are provided to passengers with disabilities in a respectful and helpful manner.
Some of the tips relate to specific legal requirements, but most of them set forth suggestions for interacting in a way that would constitute good customer service and demonstrate a sensitivity to the issues concerning passengers with disabilities. The following tips should be read and employed with the above qualification in mind.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
It is always important to keep the above tips in mind when assisting and communicating with passengers with disabilities. As a practical matter though, you will need to be aware of different considerations depending on the type of disability the passenger self-identifies as having.
Below are five basic types of disabilities with a list of considerations to keep in mind when you are communicating with and accommodating passengers with each type of disability. Even though these five types of disabilities are set forth here, each passenger with a disability should be considered as an individual with individual needs. It is important for you to communicate with each passenger about that particular passenger's needs under the circumstances and to avoid making assumptions about the passenger's needs. The five basic types of disabilities addressed below are: People who are blind or visually-impaired; people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind; people with mobility disabilities; people who have difficulty speaking, and people with disabilities that are not apparent (
• Only offer assistance if it seems appropriate. Ask the person if you can be of assistance and, if so, how you can help.
• Identify yourself by name and job responsibility first.
• Always communicate using words rather than relying on gestures, facial expressions, or other nonverbal communication. For example, tell the passenger the gate number and the directions to get to the gate. If you are handing a boarding pass to a blind passenger, explain that you have the person's boarding pass and that you would like to place it directly in the person's hand. Always communicate in words what you are doing,
• Make sure a passenger who is blind is made aware of all relevant information as it becomes available to all passengers. For example, if a boarding time is changed and the new boarding time is posted visually at the gate, you must inform the person orally. Advise the passenger when you are leaving the area and answer any questions the person has before you do.
• If individual safety briefings are required, conduct them discreetly with respect for the privacy of the person who is blind or visually-impaired.
• If a person uses a term relating to the condition of being blind or visually-impaired that you are not familiar with or that you don't understand, ask the person to tell you what his or her needs are. If you need additional information, you should contact the CRO to discuss how best to proceed. In addition, be aware that your carrier may provide additional training to educate you about the different types of disabilities in order to enhance your ability to accommodate passengers with disabilities.
• Keep in mind that the special service request (SSR) field of the passenger name record (PNR) may contain information concerning a passenger who is blind or visually impaired.
• Never take the arm of a person who is blind without asking first, because the person could lose balance. In addition, if you don't ask first, the person who is blind could perceive a lack of respect because he or she was not given the option of receiving the assistance. Once you ask if you can offer your arm, let the person who is blind take it. You may direct the person's arm to a railing or the back of a chair to assist with seating.
• Walk approximately a half step ahead of the person if you are serving as a guide through the terminal. When encountering stairs, escalators, moving walkways, revolving doors, etc., give the person who is blind the option to choose whether to use the facility or conveyance. For example, you might
• When you are done guiding the person to his or her destination, ask him or her if any other assistance is needed. Only if the person who is blind has requested should you inform other passengers or carrier personnel of the individual's need for additional assistance.
• Be aware that many people who are blind prefer to walk rather than use wheelchairs, electric carts, etc. You may not require a person who is blind to use a wheelchair and, if requested, you must provide a walking guide for the person who is blind.
• Never pet or distract a service animal accompanying a person who has a disability. Don't separate passengers who are blind from their service animals.
• Don't move a person's cane or assistive device if the person has placed it on the ground near a seat. If you ask and receive permission, you may help the passenger collect things if need be,
• Remember that people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind have various ways of communicating,
• When speaking, look directly at the person who is deaf or hard of hearing. The person may use speech/lip reading as a method of communicating. Use normal lip movement. Use a normal tone of voice when speaking to a person who is deaf or hard of hearing. Don't shout because shouting distorts the sound, words, and lip movement. Sometimes you may need to rephrase your message because many words have the same lip movement,
• Identify yourself by name and job responsibility first.
• If individual safety briefings are required, conduct them discreetly with respect for the privacy of the person who is deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind.
• Make sure a passenger who is deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind receives all relevant information as it becomes available to all passengers. For example, if a boarding time is changed and the new boarding time is announced, you must inform the person through an accessible method of communicating.
• If a person uses a term relating to the condition of being deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind that you are not familiar with or that you don't understand, ask the person to tell you what his or her needs are. If you need additional information, you should contact the CRO to discuss how best to proceed.
• A deaf-blind person may communicate through the printing on palm method, an alternative to using sign language. This method involves “writing” with your fingertip on the palm of the deaf-blind person's hand. Use the fleshy part of your fingertip, not your nail. Always use all upper case letters and use the same reference point for each letter. More specifically, hold the deaf-blind person's hand the same way each time, so the top and bottom letter falls in the same place. Make sure the words you print are “right side up” for the person receiving the message. Write as large as possible and start in the upper left for a “W” and finish in the upper right. Use the entire palm area for each letter. Use one stroke for both the letter “I” and the number “1”. The difference will be obvious from the context of what you are spelling. When you finish a word, “wipe it off” using the palm of your hand. This action indicates that you have finished one word and you are beginning a new word.
• Keep in mind that the special service request (SSR) field of the passenger name record (PNR) may contain information concerning a passenger who is deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind.
• Touch the person gently and offer your arm. Let the person take your upper arm near your body; this way he or she can feel the change in gait as you approach different barriers and prepare for them. Don't take or grab the arm of the person who is deaf-blind (particularly the arm with which the person is holding a cane or guide dog harness) and don't push him or her along. If the person has a guide dog, go to the side opposite the service animal and offer your arm (usually the person's right side). Remember the person who is deaf-blind cannot hear you. Therefore, information regarding obstacles, stairs, etc. must be given tactually. Deaf-blind people often have poor balance so it is helpful to offer a steady hand to aid in orientation. Never leave a deaf-blind person in an open space, place his or her hand on a wall, post, railing, or whatever is available.
• Never pet or distract a service animal accompanying a person who has a disability. Don't separate passengers who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind from their service animals.
• If a person uses a term to describe a mobility disability that you are not familiar with or that you don't understand, ask the person to tell you what his or her needs are. If you need additional information, you should contact the CRO to discuss how best to proceed.
• If individual safety briefings are required, conduct them discreetly with respect for the privacy of the person with a mobility disability.
• When having a long conversation with a person who is using a wheelchair, stoop down or sit nearby so that you are closer to eye level.
• Be aware of the types of wheelchairs and assistive devices used by people with mobility disabilities when traveling. You must be able to provide information to people about the different types of wheelchairs, services, and other equipment provided or accommodated by your carrier on the particular flight.
• Understand the proper function and storage of the different types of wheelchairs and assistive devices. Ask the person with the mobility disability the best way to handle the device.
• Consider keeping information handy about businesses providing wheelchair repair in the area in case a person with a mobility disability needs the information.
• If you must transfer a person with a mobility disability from an aisle chair to a seat on the aircraft, or perform any other kind of transfer, explain the transfer procedures and listen to any instructions or preferences from the person before undertaking the transfer.
• Be aware that, under the law, you can never physically hand-carry a person with a mobility disability (even if both of you are willing) except in an emergency evacuation situation.
• When providing transportation between gates, ask the person with the mobility disability if the person would prefer to be pushed or not. If the answer is yes, use elevators and avoid escalators and moving walkways. When maneuvering through the terminal, say, “Excuse us.” Not, “Excuse me.”
• Be aware that, under the law, carriers are not permitted to charge passengers with disabilities for services or equipment required by part 382. If, however, a passenger with a disability voluntarily offers to tip you for providing a service, you should consult your carrier's policy to determine whether you can accept it.
• Never pet or distract a service animal accompanying a person who has a mobility disability. Don't separate passengers with a mobility disability from their service animals.
• Ask the person how he or she prefers to communicate.
• A pencil and paper may be okay for short conversations.
• If you do not understand something that is said, tell the person you don't understand and ask the person to repeat.
• Be patient, it may take a while to communicate.
• Let the individual speak without attempting to finish his or her sentence.
• To obtain information quickly, ask short questions that require brief “yes” or “no” answers.
• Don't shout.
• Difficulty speaking does not indicate a lack of intelligence.
• Do not make assumptions about the needs of people if their behavior appears to be unusual to you. Cognitive disabilities may cause people to reason, draw conclusions, or respond more slowly. People with cognitive disabilities may appear easily distracted. Depending upon the disability, the person may understand materials in written form or through a verbal explanation. They may also find the background noise of a busy airport terminal extremely distracting.
• Disregard any speech impairments or physical tics by being patient and aware of your own body language and facial expressions that could convey your own discomfort.
• If individual safety briefings are required, conduct them discreetly with respect for the privacy of the person with a disability that is not apparent. Similarly, if there is a concern that the person is not medically stable enough for air travel, conduct the inquiry in a discreet manner and involve the CRO, if necessary.
• If a person with a disability that is not apparent uses a term to describe a disability that you are not familiar with or that you don't understand, ask the person to tell you what his or her needs are. If you need additional information, you should contact the CRO to discuss how best to proceed.
• Be aware that people who have disabilities that are not apparent may travel with emotional support animals or other service animals. Never pet or distract a service animal accompanying a person who has a disability that is not apparent. Don't separate passengers from their service or emotional support animals.
There are some commonly used accommodations, facilities, and services that carriers are required to make available to passengers with disabilities. Appendix I sets forth a list of tips or general guidelines for air travelers with disabilities to keep in mind that relate to these commonly used accommodations, facilities, and services. Therefore, the “you” referred to herein is an air traveler with a disability or air travelers with disabilities. Below are some specific tips.
Know what to ask carrier personnel. You can ask for and carrier personnel must be able to provide information about aircraft accessibility, seating and movable armrests, lavatory accessibility, boarding options, and storage facilities on board, among other things.
Although advance notice is not generally required, understand that providing detailed information about the accommodations you need in advance of travel will assist carrier personnel in providing those accommodations in a correct and timely manner.
If you are transferring planes, you may want to investigate whether your trip involves more than one carrier. If so, contact each carrier to determine whether it is able to fully accommodate you. Keep in mind that carriers might provide such optional accommodations on their “mainline” flights only, not on the flights operated by their smaller code-share affiliates. For example, some carriers do not provide medical oxygen on board. Don't assume that by communicating with the carrier for the first leg of your trip, other carriers handling the rest of the journey are fully briefed and able to accommodate you. Similarly, when booking reservations online, you may want to consider contacting each carrier by telephone to determine the carrier's individual policies and to provide and receive specific information to ensure your needs are met for each leg of your journey.
If you are receiving assistance with transportation between gates by ground wheelchair, remember to instruct the personnel assisting you on your specific needs,
Directing carrier personnel to remove footrests (if possible) and other removable parts of personal wheelchairs and stow them in the cabin may help to reduce the potential for damage to the wheelchair while it is stowed in the cabin or in the cargo hold.
When communicating to carrier personnel about your need for boarding assistance, be as specific as possible about the type or level of boarding assistance you require. More specifically, if, for example, you are completely immobile, ask carrier personnel to provide a wheelchair to transport you to and from the gate, a lift (if necessary), and assistance transferring from an aisle chair to a seat. If, for example, you are able to walk short distances, but cannot ascend and descend steps, ask carrier personnel to provide a wheelchair for longer distances to and from the aircraft and a lift (if necessary). If, for example, you can ascend and descend stairs and can walk shorter distances but
Carrier personnel are not permitted to physically hand-carry a passenger with a disability on or off a plane, except in the case of an emergency evacuation. Keep in mind that if none of the options for boarding a particular flight is acceptable to you, you may have to wait for another flight or alter your travel plans.
Carrying medicine or other assistive devices like syringes as a carry-on item that you may need in the case of a flight cancellation or a missed flight may be a good idea. At times, passengers get separated unexpectedly from checked baggage. If you do decide to carry medication or other assistive devices with you on board, the items cannot be counted towards your carry-on baggage limit.
You are entitled to keep your assistive device near you on board as long as it does not interfere with safety requirements.
Bringing photocopies of instructions about the assembly and disassembly of wheelchairs and other assistive devices when you access air transportation may be a good idea. You can provide that information to carrier personnel storing or checking your wheelchair or assistive device. Attaching a laminated set of brief instructions to a wheelchair itself may also be a good idea in the event that your wheelchair is disassembled or reassembled in a secure area to which you do not have access.
Bringing photocopies of receipts, warranties, or other product information concerning a wheelchair or assistive device may be useful if the item is lost or damaged in transit. It might help with locating a repair option or processing a claim for liability against the carrier responsible for the loss or damage.
Be aware that a Complaint Resolution Official (CRO) must be made available to you if you ask to speak with a manager or supervisor about a disability-related complaint. A CRO may be made available in person or by telephone. Passengers who are deaf or hard of hearing must be permitted to communicate with a CRO via a TTY on request.
If you make a written complaint, you should state whether a CRO was contacted when the matter arose and, if so, include the name of the CRO and the date of the contact, if available, and any written response received from the CRO.
Knowledge of the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) and its implementing regulations (14 CFR part 382) will permit you to be able to ask the right questions and share the most useful information with carriers. Some passengers with disabilities bring a copy of the regulations with them when they access air transportation in order to have the primary resource close at hand. Carriers must maintain a copy of the regulations at each airport they use. Therefore, if you are at an airport and have a question about the regulations, you may ask to review them and the carrier must provide them.
You may receive an individual safety briefing under certain circumstances. If so, you should be provided an accessible safety briefing and it must be performed in a discreet manner. Keep in mind that you may need to provide information to carrier personnel to ensure that the individual safety briefing is accessible to you.
Carrier personnel are expressly prohibited from performing certain tasks. For example, carrier personnel cannot physically hand-carry you on or off an airplane except in an emergency evacuation. In addition, while on board, carrier personnel are not required to administer medication to you, feed you, or accompany you into the lavatory to assist you.
Although you are not required to pre-board, choosing to take advantage of a pre-boarding opportunity may assist you in securing a seating accommodation when a carrier does not provide advance seat assignments. In this situation, as a passenger with a disability, you may choose to pre-board before all other passengers. You can select a seat that best meets your needs if you have taken advantage of the opportunity to pre-board.
Pre-boarding may also permit you to secure the allotted stowage for your wheelchair or assistive device or it may permit easier access to overhead compartments if you are stowing your assistive device or parts of your wheelchair onboard.
You should keep in mind that carriers are obligated to take the safety of all passengers into consideration when making decisions about accommodations for passengers with disabilities. At times, safety requires placing certain limitations on accommodations,
When requesting a particular seat assignment, it is useful to be as specific as possible about the type of seat that will meet your needs as a passenger with a disability. For example, instead of merely asking for an “accessible” seat, it is more helpful to provide some details about your specific needs,
It is not required under the law to provide advance notice if you are traveling with a service animal. However, in order to guarantee your seat assignment, you should be aware that, depending on whether the carrier provides advance seat assignments and the type of seating method it uses, it may have a policy requiring passengers with a disability (i) to request a particular seat assignment 24 hours in advance of the departure of the flight or (ii) to check in at least an hour before the departure of the flight. Carriers are obligated to make a good faith effort to accommodate you and your service animal regardless of whether you comply with the carrier's advance seat assignment policy and/or advance check-in requirement. Keep in mind that requesting your seat assignment well in advance of the flight may permit you to secure the specific seat assignment you would like with the least amount of waiting, inconvenience, or hassle to you.
DOT posts useful information for all consumers, including air travelers with disabilities, on its Web site at
Air travelers with disabilities can also access recent DOT enforcement orders to review DOT determinations involving the ACAA and Part 382 by going to
The toll free telephone hotline system that provides general information about the rights of air travelers with disabilities, responds to requests for information, and assists air travelers with time-sensitive disability-related issues. Members of the public may call 1-800-778-4838 (voice) or 1-800-455-9880 (TTY) from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. eastern time, seven days a week, to receive assistance regarding air travel by individuals with disabilities.
Always check these resources when seeking information about services and equipment when accessing air transportation.
Appendix II highlights provisions of the ACAA and the accompanying regulations outlining specific responsibilities of management of carriers,
Management of carriers are required to ensure that the carrier (either directly or
More specifically, carriers cannot require a passenger with a disability to accept special services,
Carriers cannot limit the number of passengers with a disability on a given flight. [Sec. 382.31(c)] Carriers must modify policies, practices, and facilities as necessary to ensure nondiscrimination consistent with the standards of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended. Carriers are not required to make modifications that would constitute an undue burden or would fundamentally alter their program. [Sec. 382.7(c)]
Carriers cannot refuse transportation to a qualified individual with a disability solely because the person's disability results in appearance or involuntary behavior that may offend, annoy, or inconvenience others. [Sec. 382.31(b)] Carriers must not refuse to provide transportation to a passenger with a disability on the basis of his or her disability unless it is expressly permitted by the ACAA and part 382. [Sec. 382.31(a)]
The ACAA does not require air carriers to disregard applicable FAA safety regulations. [Sec. 382.3(d)]
Carriers may refuse to provide transportation to any passenger on the basis of safety and if carriage would violate FAA regulations. However, when carriers exercise this authority, they must not discriminate against a passenger with a disability on the basis of disability. [Sec. 382.31(d)]
When a carrier refuses to provide transportation to a passenger on a basis relating to disability, the carrier must specify in writing to the passenger the basis for the determination within 10 days of the refusal of transportation. [Sec. 382.31(e)] In the situation where refusal of transportation is based on safety concerns, the written notice must include the carrier's reasonable and specific basis for its opinion that transporting the passenger would be inimical to the safety of the flight.
Carriers cannot impose charges for providing facilities, equipment, or services that are required by the ACAA and its accompanying regulations for passengers with a disability. [Sec. 382.57]
If an indirect air carrier provides facilities or services for passengers that are covered for other carriers by Sections 382.21 through 382.55, the indirect air carrier must do so in a manner consistent with those regulations. [Sec. 382.7(b)]
Carriers must receive assurances from their contractors who provide services, including travel agents (except non-U.S. citizens providing services outside the U.S.), that they will not discriminate on the basis of disability when providing such services and include a clause with that assurance in their contracts. [Sec. 382.9(a)] Similarly, their contracts must contain a clause stating that contractor employees will comply with directives issued by CRO's. [Sec. 382.9(b)]
All terminal facilities and services owned, leased, or operated by a carrier at a commercial service airport, including parking and ground transportation, must comply with the Standards for Accessible Design under the Americans with Disabilities Act. [Sec. 382.23(e)] See also 49 CFR part 37, Appendix A. Carriers must ensure that these terminal facilities and services are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.
Contracts or leases between carriers and airport operators concerning the use of airport facilities must set forth the respective responsibilities of the parties for the provision of accessible facilities and services to individuals with disabilities as required by law. [Sec. 382.23(f)]
Carriers must not (i) restrict the movements of individuals with disabilities in terminals; (ii) require them to remain in a holding area or other location in order to receive assistance; or (iii) mandate separate treatment for individuals with disabilities except as required or permitted under part 382. [Sec. 382.55(c)]
Carriers' reservation and other administrative systems must ensure that when advance notice is provided by a passenger with a disability as provided by the ACAA and its implementing regulations (see Ch. 3, Section A), the notice is recorded and properly transmitted to operating employees responsible for providing the accommodation about which notice was provided. [Sec. 382.33(d)]
Regardless of your carrier's policies with respect to pets, carriers are required by law to permit passengers with a disability to be accompanied by service animals in the cabin. [Sec. 382.55] See also Ch. 3, Section D and Appendix VI.
When considering ordering, purchasing, or leasing aircraft, management of carriers should keep in mind that the following features are required for aircraft
• 30 or more passenger seats must have movable aisle armrests on at least half of the aisle seats where it is feasible and it does not interfere with safety [Sec. 382.21(a)(i) and (ii)];
• 100 or more passenger seats must have priority storage space within the cabin to stow at least one passenger's folding wheelchair [Sec. 382.21(a)(2)] and DOT has interpreted that to mean a space at least 13 inches wide, 36 inches high, and 42 inches long;
• More than one aisle in which lavatories are provided must include at least one lavatory accessible to passengers with a disability accessing the lavatory with an on-board wheelchair [Sec. 382.21(a)(3)];
• More than 60 passenger seats having an accessible lavatory must be equipped with an on-board wheelchair [Sec. 382.21(a)(4)(i)]; and
• More than 60 passenger seats having an inaccessible lavatory must be equipped with an on-board wheelchair when a passenger with a disability informs the carrier (providing advance notice under Sec. 382.33(b)(8)) that he/she can use an inaccessible lavatory but cannot reach the lavatory from his or her seat without the use of an on-board wheelchair. [Sec. 382.21(a)(4)(ii)]
Requirements relating to retrofitting and replacing features to ensure accessibility as well as providing on-board wheelchairs are covered by other specific provisions. [Secs. 382.21(b) and (c)] However, any replacement or refurbishing of the aircraft cabin must not reduce existing accessibility to a level below that specified under the law. [Sec. 382.21(e)] Carriers must maintain aircraft accessibility features in proper working order. [Sec. 382.21(f)]
Under certain circumstances, if a passenger self-identifies as a passenger with a disability, carriers must provide seating accommodations. [Sec. 382.38(a)] In order to provide these seating accommodations and other seat assignment requests from passengers with a disability, carriers may implement a reservation system to provide for advance seat assignments. If a carrier provides advance seat assignments, it may employ either the seat “blocking” method or
Management of carriers should select an adequate reservation system to meet its needs, ensure proper administration of the reservation system, and provide employee training with respect to the reservation system and the requirements under the law for providing seating accommodations for passengers with disabilities.
If carriers do not employ a system for advance seat assignments, if a passenger with a disability self-identifies, the passenger must be allowed to pre-board the aircraft and select a seat to accommodate a disability. [Sec. 382.38(d)]
Carriers are not required to provide more than one seat per ticket or a seat in a class of service other than the one the passenger has purchased to accommodate a passenger with a disability in need of a seat assignment to accommodate his or her disability. [Sec. 382.38(i)]
Carriers must comply with all FAA safety requirements in responding to requests from individuals for seat assignment accommodations. [Sec. 382.38(j)]
If a passenger with a disability requests assistance getting on an airplane or carrier personnel offer assistance and the passenger consents, a carrier must provide such assistance with boarding. [Sec. 382.39(a)] The type of assistance carriers must offer includes, as needed, services personnel and the use of wheelchairs, ramps, or mechanical lifts. [Sec. 382.39(a)(1)]
Carriers must provide access to the airplane for passengers with a disability by level-entry loading bridges or accessible passenger lounges where these means are available. [Sec. 382.39(a)(2)] Depending on the size of the aircraft, carriers have different obligations to provide boarding assistance to individuals with a disability using mechanical lifts, ramps, or other suitable devices that do not require lifting or carrying passengers up stairs. [Secs. 382.40 and 382.40a] See also Ch. 5, Section C.
Carriers must train to proficiency in the use of the boarding assistance equipment and procedures regarding the safety and dignity of passengers receiving boarding assistance. [Secs. 382.40(d) and 382.40a(d)]
Carriers must allow passengers with a disability using personal ventilators/respirators to bring their equipment, including non-spillable batteries, on board the aircraft as long as FAA safety regulations are met. [Sec. 382.41(b)] Carriers must permit passengers to stow their canes and other assistive devices in the cabin and close to their seats, consistent with FAA safety regulations concerning carry-on items. [Sec. 382.41(c)]
Carriers must not count assistive devices toward the limit on carry-on items when a passenger with a disability brings an assistive device on board the aircraft. [Sec. 382.41(d)] Wheelchairs and other assistive devices that cannot be stowed in the cabin must be stowed in the baggage compartment with priority over other cargo and baggage. [Sec. 382.41(f)(3)] In addition, because carriers cannot charge for facilities, equipment, or services required under the law to be provided to qualified individuals with a disability, no charge would be imposed if a wheelchair or assistive device exceeded the limit on checked baggage. [Sec. 382.57]
Carriers must permit the in-cabin storage of wheelchairs or components of wheelchairs, including folding, collapsible, or breakdown battery-powered wheelchairs. [Sec. 382.41(e)] In addition, aircraft with 100 or more passenger seats (ordered after April 5, 1990, or delivered after April 5, 1992) must have a priority space in the cabin designated for stowage of at least one passenger's folding wheelchair. [Sec. 382.21(a)(2)]
When required, on-board wheelchairs must be equipped with specific features and be designed to be compatible with the maneuvering space, aisle width, and seat height of the aircraft on which they are to be used, and to easily be pushed, pulled, and turned in the cabin environment by carrier personnel. [Sec. 382.21(a)(4)(iii)]
When a folding, collapsible, or break-down wheelchair cannot be stowed in the cabin as carry-on baggage, carriers must ensure the timely checking and return of the passenger's wheelchair or other assistive device as close as possible to the door of the aircraft. [Sec. 382.41(f)]
In order to ensure the timely return of a passenger's wheelchair or other assistive device, carriers must maintain a baggage storage system so that the wheelchair or other assistive device must be among the first items retrieved from the baggage compartment [Sec. 382.41(f)(2)] and it must be stowed in the baggage compartment with priority over other items and baggage. [Sec. 382.41(f)(3)]
Carriers must accept a passenger's battery-powered wheelchair, including the battery, as checked baggage unless baggage compartment size and aircraft airworthiness considerations prohibit it. [Sec. 382.41(g)]
Carriers may require that a passenger with a disability wishing to have a battery-powered wheelchair transported on a flight (including in the cabin) check in for the flight one hour before the scheduled departure time. [Sec. 382.41(g)(1)]
If (i) the battery on the passenger's wheelchair has been labeled by the manufacturer as non-spillable or (ii) the battery-powered wheelchair with a spillable battery can be loaded, stored, secured, and unloaded in an upright position, carriers must not require the battery to be removed and separately packaged. Carrier personnel may remove and package separately any battery that appears to be damaged or leaking. [Sec. 382.41(g)(2)]
When it is necessary to detach a battery from a wheelchair, carriers must provide packaging for the battery and package the battery consistent with appropriate hazardous materials regulations. [Sec. 382.41(g)(3)]
On domestic flights, the baggage liability limits do not apply for liability for loss, damage, or delay concerning wheelchairs or other assistive devices. Instead, the criterion for calculating the compensation for lost, damaged, or destroyed wheelchairs or other assistive devices must be the original price of the device. [Sec. 382.43(b)] Carrier personnel must not require a passenger with a disability to sign a waiver of liability for damage to or loss of a wheelchair or other assistive device. [Sec. 382.43(c)] Carrier personnel may make notes about preexisting damage or conditions of wheelchairs or other assistive devices.
Carriers must ensure that, upon request, passengers with a disability, including those who are blind or visually impaired or deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind, have timely access to information being provided to other passengers, including but not limited to, safety briefings [Secs. 382.45 and 382.47] and information concerning ticketing, flight delays, schedule changes, connections, flight check-in, gate assignments, the checking and claiming of luggage, and aircraft changes that will affect the travel of passengers with a disability. [Sec. 382.45(c)] See also Ch. 5, Section F. If the safety briefing is presented to passengers on video screens, carriers must ensure that the video presentation is accessible to passengers who are deaf or hard of hearing. [Sec. 382.47(b)]
Carriers providing scheduled service must establish and implement a complaint resolution mechanism including designation of one or more complaints resolution officials (CRO's). [Sec. 382.65(a)] The carrier must make the CRO available during all times the carrier is operating at the airport. [Sec. 382.65(a)(1)] See also Ch. 6.
Certificated U.S. carriers and foreign carriers
Management of carriers should be aware that proper training of carrier personnel is
Carriers operating aircraft with more than 19 passenger seats must provide training for all personnel who deal with the traveling public, as appropriate to the duties and responsibilities of each employee. [Sec. 382.61(a)]
Carriers must provide training to proficiency in the requirements of the ACAA and its implementing regulations and other DOT and FAA regulations affecting the provision of air transportation to passengers with a disability, including the proper and safe operation of any equipment used to accommodate passengers with a disability. [Sec. 382.61(a)(1)(i) and (ii)]
Carriers must also train employees who deal with the traveling public regarding awareness and appropriate responses to individuals with a disability, including individuals with physical, sensory, mental, and emotional disabilities, including how to distinguish among the differing abilities of individuals with a disability. [Sec. 382.61(a)(2)]
Carriers must consult with organizations representing persons with disabilities in developing their training programs and policies concerning which carrier personnel receive training. [Sec. 382.61(a)(3)]
Carriers must provide or require their contractors to provide training to contractors' employees who deal with the traveling public regarding providing air transportation to passengers with a disability.
Carriers operating aircraft with more than 19 passenger seats must establish and implement a written program for carrying out the requirements of the law. [Sec. 382.63(a)] The program must include: (i) A training schedule for training carrier personnel on compliance; and (ii) the carrier's policies and procedures for accommodating individuals with a disability consistent with the requirements under the law. [Sec. 382.63(b)] DOT has the authority to request and review such programs as appropriate. [Secs. 382.63(c) and (d)]
Carriers must undertake any security screening of a passenger with a disability in the same manner as any other passenger. See Ch. 4, Section B. In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, however, in most cases, TSA has taken over for carriers in the area of providing security screenings of passengers. Should carriers resume this responsibility or in cases where carriers still retain some involvement in the security screening process, this section would be applicable to carriers and contractors of carriers performing this function.
The following list of orders pertains to administrative enforcement actions conducted by or filed with the Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (AEP) Office of the Department of Transportation (DOT). These administrative determinations by and large pertain to decisions resulting from enforcement actions against air carriers pursuant to the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), 49 U.S.C. 41705, and its implementing regulations, 14 CFR part 382, which prohibit discrimination by U.S. air carriers against qualified individuals with disabilities. These orders may be informative in assisting the reader to understand how the ACAA and its implementing regulation have been interpreted by DOT and applied in enforcement actions against air carriers.
The AEP Office's statutory jurisdiction spans a broad range of regulatory legal issues including civil rights and consumer protection, among others. The AEP issues many and varied types of orders within the scope of its authority. The orders listed in this appendix address only the most recent civil rights enforcement actions under the ACAA, going back to March, 2000 and are not meant to be a complete listing of all ACAA orders issued by the DOT through its AEP Office.
To access these orders, go to
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final amendment to form.
The Commission is adopting amendments to Form 20-F to provide a one-time accommodation relating to financial statements prepared under International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) for foreign private issuers registered with the SEC. This accommodation applies to foreign private issuers that adopt IFRS prior to or for the first financial year starting on or after January 1, 2007.
The accommodation permits eligible foreign private issuers for their first year of reporting under IFRS to file two years rather than three years of statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows prepared in accordance with IFRS, with appropriate related disclosure. The accommodation retains current requirements regarding the reconciliation of financial statement items to generally accepted accounting principles as used in the United States (“U.S. GAAP”).
In addition, the Commission is amending Form 20-F to require certain disclosures of all foreign private issuers that change their basis of accounting to IFRS.
Michael D. Coco, Special Counsel, Office of International Corporate Finance, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 942-2990, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0302, or Susan Koski-Grafer, Office of the Chief Accountant, at (202) 942-4400, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-1103.
The Commission is amending Form 20-F
Under the leadership of the International Accounting Standards Board (“IASB”), over recent years IFRS has become widely recognized by preparers and users of financial statements. As a result, numerous non-U.S. companies, including many that are registered with the SEC, are voluntarily choosing to switch from their home country accounting principles to IFRS. In addition, an increasing number of jurisdictions around the world are adopting or incorporating IFRS as their basis of accounting, as a result of which a large number of issuers registered with the SEC will switch to IFRS from their Previous GAAP.
Foreign private issuers that register securities with the SEC, and that report on a periodic basis thereafter under Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act,
At the beginning of year 2003,
In response to this proposal, the Commission received 33 comment letters from representatives of foreign issuers, accounting firms, professional associations, investor associations and regulators.
• The proposed time frame during which the accommodation would be available to a first-time adopter of IFRS;
• The definition of “first-time adopter” for purposes of determining eligibility to rely on the accommodation;
• The need for an unqualified statement of compliance with IFRS by an issuer seeking to rely on the accommodation, particularly with regard to standards that had not been endorsed by the EU;
• The proposed inclusion of condensed U.S. GAAP information for three years;
• The need for guidance relating to disclosure under Industry Guide 3 or 6 from companies that rely on the proposed accommodation;
• The presentation of financial statements for interim periods during the Transition Year;
• The proposed disclosure about the use of exceptions to IFRS by a first-time adopter.
The Commission is adopting a new General Instruction G to Form 20-F to allow an eligible foreign private issuer to omit from SEC filings for its first year of reporting under IFRS the earliest of the three years of financial statements. In response to many of the commenters' concerns, the amendments as adopted differ in some respects from the amendments as proposed. In this release the Commission is:
• Making the accommodation available to companies that adopt IFRS as their basis of accounting prior to or for the first financial year starting on or after January 1, 2007;
• Clarifying that, except as discussed in the next point, the accommodation is available only to a foreign private issuer that states unreservedly and explicitly that its financial statements comply with IFRS and are not subject to any qualification relating to the application of IFRS as issued by the IASB;
• Permitting the accommodation to be available to a foreign private issuer that prepares its financial statements in accordance with IFRS as adopted by the EU if the issuer provides an audited reconciliation to IFRS as published by the IASB;
• Not requiring condensed U.S. GAAP information from companies that rely on the accommodation;
• Clarifying that companies subject to Industry Guide 3 or 6 should provide Industry Guide Information under IFRS for periods covered by their IFRS financial statements, with U.S. GAAP or Previous GAAP information for earlier years;
• For purposes of complying with Item 8.A.5 of Form 20-F relating to interim period financial statements required to be included in registration statements and prospectuses during the Transition Year, permitting issuers to present IFRS financial statements covering interim periods, subject to certain conditions; and
• Clarifying that first-time adopters of IFRS need not provide quantified numerical information on the financial significance of any exceptions from IFRS on which they rely.
In many areas, the Commission is giving first-time adopters significant flexibility by not prescribing specific formats, disclosures, legends, or language to be used in the presentation of IFRS financial statements. For example, companies are permitted (but not required) to include Previous GAAP financial information or financial statements, and are permitted to determine the appropriate information content and presentation format for the Previous GAAP-IFRS reconciliation required under IFRS 1. The Commission believes a flexible approach is appropriate because of the large number of foreign private issuers from several countries that will be first-time adopters and the wide variety of circumstances these issuers will encounter in making the transition from Previous GAAP to IFRS. Issuers should assess the information needs of their shareholders and the investment community at large and should provide meaningful, reliable and transparent information in connection with their implementation of IFRS.
The Commission reminds issuers of their responsibilities under the federal securities laws to provide investors with information that is not misleading.
The Commission is adopting an amendment to Form 20-F to allow an eligible foreign private issuer for its first year of reporting under IFRS to file two years rather than three years of statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows prepared in accordance with IFRS.
• Annual Reports. A foreign private issuer is eligible to exclude IFRS financial statements for the third financial year from an Annual Report on Form 20-F if (1) the annual report relates to the first financial year starting on or after January 1, 2007 or an earlier financial year, (2) the issuer adopts IFRS for the first time by an explicit and unreserved statement of compliance
• Registration Statements. A foreign private issuer is eligible to exclude IFRS financial statements for the third financial year from a registration statement under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act if (1) the most recent audited financial statements required by Item 8.A.2 of Form 20-F are for the first financial year starting on or after January 1, 2007 or an earlier financial year, (2) the issuer adopts IFRS for the first time by an explicit and unreserved statement of compliance with IFRS, and (3) the audited financial statements for the most recent financial year are prepared in accordance with IFRS.
These adopted eligibility requirements differ from the proposed requirements, which would have permitted a foreign private issuer that is a first-time adopter of IFRS to omit IFRS financial statements for the third-year back from an annual report for a financial year that begins no later than January 1, 2007 or from a registration statement for which the most recent financial statements are for a financial year that begins no later than January 1, 2007.
Many commenters noted that under the amendments as proposed an issuer that was eligible to defer its adoption of IFRS until 2007 under the EU Regulation would not have been eligible to rely on the accommodation unless it had a financial calendar year-end.
The accommodation as adopted has been broadened and is available to a foreign private issuer that adopts IFRS prior to or for its first financial year starting on or after January 1, 2007. This approach matches the extended compliance period under the EU Regulation. Under this approach, an issuer that, for example, has a September 30 financial year-end could switch to IFRS for its financial year from October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008 and would be eligible to apply the accommodation when filing its Form 20-F Annual Report with the SEC by March 2009.
Commenters also pointed out that an issuer that previously claimed compliance with IAS could be considered a first-time adopter under IFRS 1 if it did not include an explicit and unreserved statement of compliance with IFRS in its most recent published annual financial statements. For example, an issuer that had prepared financial statements under IAS in prior years and then in later years switched back to home country GAAP would be considered a first-time adopter under IFRS 1 but would not have been eligible for the accommodation as proposed.
The Commission has clarified that the accommodation as adopted is available to a foreign private issuer that is a “first-time adopter.” The adopted definition of first-time adopter in Form 20-F is consistent with that under IFRS 1. This approach is intended to avoid situations in which an issuer could be a first-time adopter under IFRS 1 but would be ineligible to rely on the accommodation because it had prepared its financial statements in accordance with IAS for an earlier financial year.
Commenters also expressed concern over the ability of issuers to make an unreserved and unqualified statement of compliance with IFRS if the EU had not fully endorsed all of the IFRS standards by the time the issuer produced its financial statements. This concern related both to the EU endorsement of existing standards as well as to the endorsement of any future standards that the IASB may adopt for companies that adopt IFRS in later years. Other commenters pointed out that Australia is adopting IFRS into Australian GAAP which, they asserted, would fully encompass IFRS. As a result, the financial statements of Australian companies would refer to compliance with Australian GAAP and not necessarily to IFRS.
As adopted, except as described in Section II.G for EU issuers, an issuer is eligible to rely on the accommodation only if it can state unreservedly and explicitly that its financial statements comply with IFRS as published by the IASB, and if its audited financial statements are not subject to any qualification, including qualification relating to the application of IFRS. In addition, the issuer's independent auditor would be required to opine without qualification on compliance with IFRS. A foreign private issuer that had not complied with all IFRS in effect as published by the IASB would not be able to make the required unreserved statement of compliance with IFRS and would not be eligible to rely on the accommodation the Commission has adopted.
Some countries may adopt IFRS by incorporating them into their home country standards. Australia, for example, has taken this approach. For purposes of eligibility to rely on the accommodation, an Australian issuer would need to assert its compliance with both IFRS and Australian GAAP.
Some commenters noted that the proposal did not address whether an issuer that has published audited IFRS financial statements for the third financial year should include them in its SEC filings. If an issuer has voluntarily published audited IFRS financial statements for the third financial year, or has been required to do so pursuant to other regulations, then the burdens associated with including those financial statements in SEC filings would appear low. In addition, the Commission believes investors should have access to those financial statements in SEC filings. As a result, the adopted amendments require that an issuer that has published audited IFRS financial statements for three years include all three years of IFRS financial statements in its SEC filings.
Some commenters recommended that, for the same reasons for which it applies to foreign private issuers that file securities documents under the Securities Act and Exchange Act, the accommodation should be extended to the financial statements of entities prepared under Rules 3-05, 3-09, 3-10, and 3-16 of Regulation S-X.
With respect to the consolidated financial statements and other financial information required by Item 8.A of Form 20-F, the Commission is adopting the amendments as proposed to allow eligible foreign private issuers for their first year of reporting under IFRS to present in their SEC filings during that year only two years of audited IFRS financial statements instead of three years. Eligible companies are permitted to omit audited financial statements for the earliest of the three years when providing the financial statements required by Item 8.A.2. All instructions to Item 8, including instructions requiring audits in accordance with U.S. generally accepted auditing standards will continue to apply.
The Commission proposed amending Form 20-F to require companies that present two years of IFRS financial statements in their SEC filings also to present, as part of their U.S. GAAP reconciliation, audited condensed U.S. GAAP information for three years in a level of detail consistent with that required by Article 10 of Regulation S-X for interim financial statements. Under the amendments as adopted, issuers relying on the accommodation will not be required to provide this condensed U.S. GAAP information.
Commenters had diverging views on the proposal. Some commenters supported the proposal to require three years of condensed U.S. GAAP information in order to have three-year trend information that would be beneficial to investors without being unduly burdensome to issuers. Other commenters claimed that the cost and burden to issuers of preparing condensed U.S. GAAP information would outweigh the benefits to investors. One commenter noted that the preparation of condensed U.S. GAAP information would create an unnecessary burden to companies because investors would have available a reconciliation from Previous GAAP to U.S. GAAP and a reconciliation from IFRS to U.S. GAAP, which would allow them to sufficiently assess U.S. GAAP trend information on a three-year basis. After evaluating the benefits in relation to the expected costs, the Commission is not adopting the proposal to require the presentation of condensed U.S. GAAP information. Companies relying on the accommodation will continue to be required to provide an audited reconciliation to U.S. GAAP for the two years of financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS.
The Commission is adopting amendments that will allow but not require any issuer that switches to IFRS to include, incorporate by reference, or refer to Previous GAAP financial information. These amendments are adopted as proposed. Issuers that elect to include or incorporate by reference financial information prepared in accordance with Previous GAAP must include or incorporate narrative disclosure of its operating and financial review and prospects under Item 5 of Form 20-F for the reporting periods covered by Previous GAAP financial information.
The proposing release solicited comment on the presentation of Previous GAAP information. The amendments as adopted do not prescribe the specific placement of any Previous GAAP information, although the adopted amendments prohibit its presentation in a side-by-side columnar format with IFRS information. The Commission believes this will help to avoid potential confusion and inappropriate comparisons between the two.
An issuer that includes, incorporates by reference or refers to Previous GAAP selected financial data or financial information in an SEC disclosure document must also include appropriate cautionary language with respect to that data to avoid inappropriate comparison with information presented under IFRS. Issuers electing to include or incorporate Previous GAAP financial information must disclose, at an appropriate prominent location, that the filing contains financial information based on the issuer's Previous GAAP, which is not comparable to financial information based on IFRS. The amendments as adopted do not specify particular legends or language that should be used by issuers that include or incorporate Previous GAAP information. The Commission believes that appropriate language may vary depending on the use made of Previous GAAP information.
Commenters expressed wide support for the proposal to permit but not require Previous GAAP information, with appropriate labels and legends. There was more divergence on the issue of its format and location. The Commission believes a flexible approach is best suited to allowing an issuer to determine the format and placement of Previous GAAP information based on its use.
The Commission is adopting the amendments as proposed to permit first-time adopters to provide, pursuant to Item 3.A of Form 20-F, selected financial data based on IFRS for the two most recent financial years. First-time adopters that present two years of IFRS selected financial data would continue to be required to provide five years of selected data based on U.S. GAAP, unless the instructions to Item 3.A permit the issuer to provide U.S. GAAP data for a shorter time.
The Commission did not receive extensive comment on the proposal as it relates to selected financial data. One commenter noted that the proposal did not appear to reflect the Commission practice of allowing an issuer to build up to a five-year presentation of selected financial data, and could appear to suggest that a full five years of IFRS selected financial data would be required in the years following an issuer's first time adoption of IFRS. The Commission notes the amendments do not affect the ability of an issuer to rely on the Instruction to Item 3.A. in years subsequent to becoming a first-time adopter of IFRS, thereby allowing that issuer to build up to a five-year history of selected financial data based on IFRS.
The Commission is adopting as proposed an instruction in new General Instruction G to Form 20-F to clarify how issuers should present their disclosure under Item 5 of Form 20-F relating to operating and financial review and prospects. The adopted instruction specifies that in providing that disclosure, management should focus on the IFRS financial statements from the past two financial years, as well as the reconciliation to U.S. GAAP for the same two financial years. The discussion also should explain any differences between IFRS and U.S. GAAP that are not otherwise discussed in the reconciliation and that the issuer believes are necessary for an understanding of the financial statements as a whole.
The Commission is adopting as proposed an instruction in new General Instruction G to Form 20-F to clarify that for companies preparing their financial statements under IFRS, the reference to accounting principles in Item 4, “Information on the Company,” refers to IFRS and not to either Previous GAAP or U.S. GAAP.
Commenters widely concurred with the proposals to include instructions clarifying that both business operations disclosure pursuant to Item 4 and derivatives disclosure pursuant to Item 11 of Form 20-F should refer to the financial information prepared in accordance with IFRS.
The Commission did not propose, nor is it adopting, any specific amendments with respect to information to be disclosed pursuant to Industry Guide 3 (Statistical Disclosure by Bank Holding Companies) or Industry Guide 6 (Disclosures Concerning Unpaid Claims and Claim Adjustment Expenses of Property-Casualty Insurance Underwriters).
The Commission solicited comment on behalf of the staff on whether amendments would be appropriate to address the information required under Industry Guide 3 or Industry Guide 6 in the context of first-time adopters changing their basis of accounting to IFRS. The general view expressed in the comments submitted by issuers subject to Industry Guide 3 or 6 is that they should be permitted to present only two years of Industry Guide information under IFRS, consistent with the presentation of their primary financial statements. Commenters thought it an unreasonable burden to restate the earliest of three years of information under IFRS, and that there would be no significant benefit to investors from such a restatement.
Industry Guide disclosure is intended to provide a “track-record” of trend information such as loan quality information for banks providing disclosure under Industry Guide 3 or property casualty loss reserve development under Industry Guide 6. The Commission recognizes that the switch to IFRS will impact the Industry Guide disclosure of first-time adopters, who may not have available prior years of Industry Guide information prepared under IFRS. Although the staff does not intend to amend the Industry Guides requirements, the staff believes and intends to apply the Industry Guides such that a first-time adopter of IFRS who relies on the adopted amendments to Form 20-F will be in compliance with existing Industry Guide standards if it provides two years of Industry Guide information under IFRS, with information provided under U.S. GAAP or Previous GAAP to cover earlier years as required by the Industry Guides, as applicable.
As noted in the Proposing Release, there are many difficult and unique issues relating to the appropriate presentation of financial information during the Transition Year. Some commenters had useful suggestions in this area, which are reflected in the adopted amendments to Form 20-F. Because these issues affect foreign private issuers that are switching to IFRS and that will use the accommodation to omit financial statements for the third financial year, the Commission believes it is appropriate to provide specific guidance and relief with respect to the financial information included in SEC filings.
Foreign private issuers that are subject to the reporting requirements under Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act are required to furnish Reports on Form 6-K.
The Commission is not imposing any additional requirements under Form 6-K for companies that are switching from Previous GAAP to IFRS. If a foreign private issuer is not filing a registration statement or using a prospectus under the Securities Act or filing an initial registration statement under the Exchange Act, the amendments the Commission is adopting will not affect the interim period financial information that is required to be filed with or furnished to the SEC.
In registration statements and prospectuses under the Securities Act and initial registration statements under the Exchange Act, if the document is dated less than nine months after the end of the last audited financial year, foreign private issuers are not required to include interim period financial information. However, if a foreign private issuer has published interim period financial information, Item 8.A.5 of Form 20-F requires these registration statements and prospectuses to include that information.
Generally, this interim period financial information is not required to be reconciled to U.S. GAAP because (among other reasons) the U.S. GAAP reconciliation relating to the year-end audited financial statements provides investors with a roadmap for evaluating the extent to which U.S. GAAP adjustments might impact interim period financial information. To the extent there are new reconciling items or the issuer has made a change in its accounting principles with respect to the interim period, the issuer must quantify material reconciling items that have not previously been addressed in the audited financial statements, and must provide narrative disclosures about the differences in accounting principles used.
On occasion, a foreign private issuer may publicly disclose interim financial information that is prepared using accounting standards different from those used in its SEC filings.
During the Transition Year, a foreign private issuer that is switching to IFRS may publish interim financial information either fully or partly in accordance with IFRS and will likely not have filed audited year-end IFRS financial statements in its most recent Form 20-F Annual Report. A strict interpretation of Item 8.A.5 would therefore normally require that the issuer provide a U.S. GAAP reconciliation relating to the IFRS interim financial information.
The Commission recognizes the significant burdens associated with the changeover to a new basis of accounting and the benefits to investors of having companies publish financial information in accordance with IFRS during the Transition Year. As a result, the Commission does not believe a U.S. GAAP reconciliation is necessary in this circumstance, and is including within new Instruction G to Form 20-F a provision that would permit a foreign private issuer to include IFRS financial information pursuant to the last three sentences of Item 8.A.5 without either descriptive or quantified U.S. GAAP reconciling information. Because companies may publish interim financial information that does not fully comply with IFRS during the Transition Year, this relief extends to information that makes reference to IFRS but that may not be fully in accordance with IFRS.
CESR, for example, has recommended that companies switching to IFRS in 2005 apply in their 2005 interim financial reports at least the IAS/IFRS recognition and measurement principles that will be applicable at year end.
This relief only applies to documents described above that are used prior to nine months after the end of a foreign private issuer's financial year. Documents that are used subsequent to nine months after financial year end are addressed in the next section.
In registration statements and prospectuses under the Securities Act and initial registration statements under the Exchange Act, if the document is dated more than nine months after the end of the last audited financial year, foreign private issuers must provide consolidated interim period financial statements covering at least the first six months of the financial year and the comparative period for the prior financial year.
In the Proposing Release, the Commission noted the difficulties faced by foreign private issuers in switching to IFRS during the Transition Year and solicited comment on various approaches to the presentation of interim period financial information. Because the Commission believes investors need a basis to compare interim period financial statements with annual financial statements, especially in connection with offerings or initial listings of securities that take place in the late months of the Transition Year or the early part of the year thereafter, the Commission does not believe it is appropriate to apply for situations after nine months the same approach described above for situations prior to nine months.
The Commission received helpful suggestions from various commenters who noted that condensed U.S. GAAP financial information can be used as an information bridge between annual and interim periods to which different accounting standards are applied. The revisions incorporate this approach.
In this area, the Commission is providing first-time adopters with a number of options to comply with its requirements. This is appropriate because the Commission wants to encourage foreign companies to continue to access the U.S. public capital markets during the Transition Year. In addition, this flexible approach balances the information needs of investors with the information resources that various companies may have available. The Commission is amending Form 20-F to provide four options for foreign private issuers that are first-time adopters, that are or will be eligible to use the two-year financial statement accommodation and that are required to provide interim period financial statements in Securities Act or Exchange Act documents used after nine months from financial year end:
• The Previous GAAP Option
• The IFRS Option
• The U.S. GAAP Condensed Information Option, and
• The Case-by-Case Option.
Each of these options is described below. In addition, the Commission reminds issuers that, regardless of the option selected, when interim period financial statements are required to be presented under Item 8.A.5, those financial statements must be accompanied by disclosure based on the accounting principles in the option used that is made pursuant to Item 5 of Form 20-F “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects.”
A foreign private issuer may present three years of audited Previous GAAP financial statements as well as Previous GAAP interim financial statements for the current year and comparable prior year period, all reconciled to U.S. GAAP. For example, a 2005 first time adopter would present audited financial statements for 2002, 2003 and 2004 and unaudited financial statements for the six months (or nine months) of 2004 and 2005, all in accordance with Previous GAAP and reconciled to U.S. GAAP. This option generally reflects the application of the Commission's current rules, without any specific relief.
A foreign private issuer may present two years of audited financial statements as well as interim financial statements for the current year and comparable prior year period, all prepared in accordance with IFRS and reconciled to U.S. GAAP. For example, a 2005 first-time adopter would present audited financial statements for 2003 and 2004 and unaudited financial statements for the six months (or nine months) of 2004 and 2005, all in accordance with IFRS and reconciled to U.S. GAAP. This option generally reflects the application of current rules, with the relief afforded through the amendments being adopted in this release that permit a first-time adopter to omit IFRS financial statements for the third financial year.
A foreign private issuer may present: (i) Audited Previous GAAP financial statements for the prior three years, reconciled to U.S. GAAP (
This option allows foreign companies to use condensed U.S. GAAP information to bridge the gap in interim information between Previous GAAP and IFRS. The condensed U.S. GAAP information should provide a level of detail consistent with that required by Article 10 of Regulation S-X for interim financial statements.
Some first-time adopters may find that they are not able to comply fully with any of the options outlined above and yet have available comparable financial information based on a combination of Previous GAAP, IFRS and U.S. GAAP. The Commission does not believe these foreign private issuers should necessarily be foreclosed from publicly offering or listing their securities in the United States. Foreign companies in this situation are encouraged to contact the Office of International Corporate Finance in the Division in the Division of Corporation Finance, in writing and well in advance of any filing deadlines, for guidance relating to interim period financial statements.
While the EU has adopted, as published by the IASB, almost all international financial reporting standards, it has recently adopted a regulation endorsing IAS 39 “Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement” with the exception of certain provisions on the use of the full fair value option and on hedge accounting.
Some commenters raised the issue of whether the use of EU GAAP would have an impact on the eligibility requirements under the accommodation. An EU issuer that prepares financial statements for its local markets under EU GAAP could use those same financial statements in its SEC filings and still qualify for the accommodation if it also provides a reconciliation to IFRS as published by the IASB. This reconciliation would relate to the two financial years for which the issuer would provide EU GAAP financial statements under the accommodation. The reconciliation of EU GAAP to IFRS as published by the IASB should contain information relating to financial statement line items and footnote disclosure equivalent to that required under IFRS.
An issuer that applies EU GAAP also would continue to be required to provide an audited reconciliation to U.S. GAAP.
The reconciliation to IFRS as published by the IASB would provide the basis for the following other disclosure required under the accommodation:
• Selected financial data provided pursuant to Item 3.A of Form 20-F would include relevant items based on the reconciliation to IFRS as published by the IASB as well as to U.S. GAAP; and
• The discussion under Item 5 of Form 20-F relating to the operating and financial review and prospects should focus on the financial statements prepared in accordance with EU GAAP. In the same manner as required for the U.S. GAAP reconciliation, this discussion should explain any differences between EU GAAP and IFRS as published by the IASB that are not otherwise discussed in the reconciliation and that the issuer believes are necessary for an understanding of the financial statements taken as a whole.
With regard to interim financial statements in a registration statement or prospectus, the provision in new Instruction G to Form 20-F that permits a foreign private issuer to include published IFRS financial information pursuant to the last three sentences of Item 8.A.5 without either descriptive or quantified U.S. GAAP reconciling information also applies to information that is prepared in accordance with EU GAAP. Additionally, EU issuers that provide interim financial information under the IFRS Option should present two years of annual financial statements as well as current and comparable prior year interim financial statements prepared in accordance with EU GAAP, with the reconciliation to IFRS as published by the IASB and the reconciliation to U.S. GAAP as described above.
The Commission is adopting amendments to Form 20-F to require certain disclosures by all first-time adopters of IFRS regardless of the year in which they change their basis of accounting. These requirements relate to the issuer's reliance on any of the exceptions to the general restatement and measurement principles allowed under IFRS 1 and to the reconciliation of Previous GAAP financial statements to IFRS.
The Commission is adopting largely as proposed amendments to Item 5 of Form 20-F requiring an issuer to provide disclosure relating to its application of any of the mandatory or elective exceptions under IFRS 1. Under these amendments, an issuer must identify the items to which an exception was applied, describe which accounting principle it used, and explain how it applied that principle. When relying on an elective exception, an issuer must include, where material, qualitative disclosure of the impact on the issuer's financial condition, changes in financial condition and results of operations. When relying on a mandatory exception, an issuer must describe the exception as provided for in IFRS 1 and state that it complied. This disclosure would be contained in an issuer's disclosure pursuant to Item 5, which provides information on the issuer's financial and operating review and prospects. First-time adopters must provide this type of information under paragraph 38 of IFRS 1, which generally requires an explanation of how the transition to IFRS would affect an issuer's financial position. However, because paragraph 38 does not specifically reference disclosure related to the use of exceptions, the Commission believes more guidance through the amendments to Form 20-F to be appropriate.
Some commenters opposed these amendments, noting that the cost of providing the disclosures in relation to elective exceptions would likely outweigh the benefit to investors. Because issuers would generally apply elective exceptions where the information could not be assembled without undue cost, some commenters thought it unreasonable to require those companies to try to determine the significance of the exception and the impact that the application of the alternative accounting policies would have had on the issuer's reported financial condition. Some commenters indicated that issuers should determine for themselves what information, if any, they should provide in response to Item 5 of Form 20-F with regard to their use of the elective and mandatory exceptions, and that separate disclosure requirements would be duplicative.
Some commenters said information provided under the proposed requirements would be useful to investors and would complement disclosure provided under Item 5. Another commenter favored the proposals because discussion of the IFRS 1 exemptions would already be required under paragraph 38 of IFRS 1. Other commenters supported the proposed qualitative disclosures, but opposed any requirement to provide quantitative disclosures not already required by IFRS 1 as such information would be burdensome for issuers to obtain.
In the proposal, the Commission did not intend to require companies to provide a quantification of the financial statement effects of using a specific exception. As a result, there should not be significant costs associated with providing the required disclosure. In addition, when companies provide information as to the use of an exception, it does not have to appear in the notes to the audited financial
The Commission has revised the amendment to clarify that companies are not required to provide quantified numerical information in their explanation of the financial significance of an exception. Rather, the qualitative disclosure required by these amendments is intended to give investors some information as to the magnitude of the effect of an exception on an issuer's financial statements in qualitative terms. This information will permit investors to better understand the significant items that impact the consistency and comparability between companies for past and future periods.
For example, a substantial portion of the issuer's assets or operations may have been obtained in a prior business combination transaction accounted for as a pooling of interests under both Previous GAAP and in the first IFRS financial statements based on an elective exception in IFRS 1. If that election had not been used, the transaction would have been accounted for as a purchase under IFRS 3. Under the adopted amendments, the issuer would describe that, absent the exception:
• The business combination would have been accounted for as a purchase under IFRS 3;
• The [applicable entity] would have been identified as the acquirer;
• The fair value of the entire purchase consideration of [dollar amount] would have been recognized in the financial statements at that time;
• The purchase consideration would have been allocated to the following major categories of acquired tangible and intangible assets and liabilities based on their fair values: [naming the categories];
• Goodwill would have been recognized, if applicable;
• The fair values of the acquired assets would have been amortized to expense over their respective useful lives; and
• The approximate amount of the acquiree's revenues and assets (or percentage of the issuer's corresponding totals) at the time of the business combination, to illustrate the magnitude of the use of the exemption [stating the amounts or percentages].
If the accounting treatment that would have been applied under IFRS 3 is consistent with the treatment under U.S. GAAP, the issuer may satisfy the adopted disclosure requirement by cross-referencing the applicable portions of the U.S. GAAP reconciliation.
Similar broad disclosure should be provided for the use of other exceptions under IFRS 1.
The Commission is adopting as proposed a new instruction 3 to Item 8 of Form 20-F to require that the mandatory reconciliation from Previous GAAP to IFRS give “sufficient data to enable users to understand the material adjustments to the balance sheet and income statement,” and, if presented under Previous GAAP, the cash flow statement. The Commission did not propose, and is not adopting, specific form or content requirements. It notes, however, that a reconciliation following example 11 under Implementation Guidance 63 (“IG 63”) of IFRS 1 will meet the requirement that it is adopting. Similarly, a reconciliation based on the form and content provisions of Item 17 of Form 20-F would meet the requirement.
Most commenters did not oppose the proposal and did not feel that following the example given in IG 63 would be unduly burdensome. Many commenters shared the view that the Commission should not specify form and content requirements for the reconciliation from Previous GAAP to IFRS, because companies will develop formats based on IFRS 1 in ways suitable to their individual circumstances. Other commenters indicated that IFRS's requirements regarding the presentation of differences between IFRS and Previous GAAP were sufficient. Because each issuer's situation will be different, the Commission does not believe a prescriptive approach to the information to be included in the reconciliation would be practicable or desirable.
The final rule amendment contains “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).
(1) “Form 20-F” (OMB Control No. 3235-0288);
(2) “Form F-1” (OMB Control No. 3235-0258);
(3) “Form F-2” (OMB Control No. 3235-0257);
(4) “Form F-3” (OMB Control No. 3235-0256); and
(5) “Form F-4” (OMB Control No. 3235-0325).
These forms were adopted pursuant to the Securities Act and Exchange Act and set forth the disclosure requirements for annual reports and registration statements filed by foreign private issuers to provide material information to investors. The hours and costs associated with preparing, filing and sending these forms constitute reporting and cost burdens imposed by each collection of 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 disclosure is mandatory. There would be no mandatory retention period for the information disclosed, and responses to the disclosure requirements would not be kept confidential. The Commission published a notice requesting comment on the collection of information requirements in the Proposing Release and submitted these requirements to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review in accordance with the PRA.
The Commission received several comment letters on the proposals, and has revised the final amendments in response to these comments. Some of the revisions have impacted the assumptions and estimates used in the analysis made under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission is revising its previous burden estimates because of these revisions.
The Commission is adopting the new General Instruction G to Form 20-F to allow an eligible foreign private issuer to omit from SEC filings for its first year of reporting under IFRS the earliest of the three years of financial statements. The adopted amendments make the accommodation available to companies that adopt IFRS as their basis of accounting prior to or for the financial year starting on or after January 1, 2007. This is different from the proposal, which would have granted the accommodation to a foreign private issuer that adopted IFRS for the first time for a fiscal year that begins no later than January 1, 2007. This change was made in response to comments indicating that the amendments as proposed may have lead to situations in which an issuer that met the IFRS 1 definition of first-time adopter would be ineligible to rely on the accommodation. Because this change to the period during which the accommodation applies will affect only timing, the Commission assumes that it will have no impact on the burden estimates. Because the provision of the third year of financial statements under a
In response to comments that the proposed amendments regarding condensed U.S. GAAP financial information would be excessively burdensome to issuers, the final amendments do not require an issuer that relies on the accommodation to provide condensed U.S. GAAP information. Although the proposals relating to condensed U.S. GAAP financial information would have increased in the burden estimates, not requiring that information in the final amendments will have a neutral effect on the PRA burden.
The amendments relating to Previous GAAP financial information are adopted as proposed, for which commenters expressed wide support. The Commission estimates that the requirement for appropriate cautionary language from any issuer that includes, incorporates by reference or refers to Previous GAAP financial information in an SEC disclosure document will result in a two hour burden increase.
The Commission is adopting a flexible approach with regard to the presentation of interim financial statements, under which an issuer that provides interim financial statements may elect to provide disclosure under one of four options described in Section II.F.3.
To rely on the accommodation as adopted, issuers that comply with EU GAAP must provide a reconciliation to IFRS as published by the IASB, while all others must provide an explicit and unreserved statement of compliance with IFRS.
In total, the Commission estimates that the amendments related to the accommodation described in Section II will account for a one-time increase of five hours to the PRA burden associated with Forms 20-F, F-1, F-2, F-3 and F-4, respectively. The Commission also estimates that, of the amendments described in Section III that affect all first-time IFRS adopters, the disclosure about IFRS exceptions will cause a one-time increase of 1.5 per cent in the number of burden hours required to prepare each form while the amendments regarding the reconciliation from Previous GAAP would not cause any increase in the burden estimates. Accordingly, an issuer that adopts IFRS prior to or for its 2007 financial year will accrue both the five hour burden and the 1.5 percent burden increase. An issuer that adopts IFRS later than its 2007 financial year will accrue only the 1.5 percent increase.
For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Commission estimates that the one-time incremental increase in the paperwork burden for all first-time adopters of IFRS relying on the accommodation and providing the disclosure related to first-time adoption of IFRS would be approximately 4,273 hours of company time and approximately $3,845,700 for the services of outside professionals. The Commission estimates that the incremental increase in the paperwork burden for all first-time adopters of IFRS after that period would be approximately 3,727 hours of company time and approximately $3,354,300 for the services of outside professionals. It estimated the average number of hours each entity spends completing the forms and the average hourly rate for outside professionals.
Form 20-F is the combined registration statement and annual report for foreign private issuers under the Exchange Act. It also presents the disclosure requirements for registration statements filed by foreign private issuers under the Securities Act. The Commission estimates that currently 1,036 issuers file Form 20-Fs each year. It also estimates that these issuers incur 25% of the burden required to produce the Form 20-Fs, resulting in 677,298 annual burden hours incurred by issuers out of a total of 2,709,192 annual burden hours. Thus, the Commission estimates that 2,615 total burden hours per response are currently required to prepare the Form 20-F. The Commission further estimates that outside professionals account for 75% of the burden at an average cost of $300 per hour for a total cost of $609,568,200.
The Commission estimates that the accommodation will affect approximately 35% of the 1,036 issuers that file on Form 20-F.
Thus, the Commission estimates that the amendments to Form 20-F will increase the annual burden incurred by foreign private issuers in the preparation of Form 20-F to 677,752 burden hours. The Commission further estimates that the amendments will increase the total annual burden associated with Form 20-F preparation to 2,711,008 burden hours, which will increase the average number of burden hours per response to 2,617. It also estimates that the amendments will increase the total annual costs attributed to the preparation of Form 20-F by outside firms to $609,976,800.
The Commission estimates that currently 42 foreign private issuers file registration statements on Form F-1 each year. It also estimates that these issuers bear 25% of the burden required to produce a Form F-1, resulting in 18,895 annual burden hours incurred by issuers out of a total of 75,580 annual burden hours. Thus, the Commission estimates that 1,800 total burden hours per response are currently required to prepare a registration statement on Form F-1. It further estimates that outside professionals account for 75% of the burden to produce a Form F-1 at an average cost of $300 per hour for a total cost of $17,005,500.
The Commission estimates that the accommodation will affect approximately 30% of the 42 issuers that file registration statements on Form F-1.
Thus, the Commission estimates that the amendments to Form 20-F will increase the annual burden incurred by foreign private issuers in the preparation of Form F-1 to 18,911 burden hours. It also estimates that the amendments will increase the total annual burden associated with Form F-1 preparation to 75,644 burden hours, which will increase the average number of burden hours per response to 1,801. It further estimates that the amendments will increase the total annual costs attributed to the preparation of Form F-1 by outside firms to $17,019,900.
The Commission estimates that currently one foreign private issuer files a registration statement on Form F-2 each year. It also estimates that the issuer incurs 25% of the burden required to produce a Form F-2 resulting in 710 annual burden hours incurred by that issuer out of a total of 2,840 annual burden hours. Thus, the Commission estimates that 2,840 total burden hours per response are currently required to prepare a registration statement on Form F-2. It further estimates that outside professionals account for 75% of the burden to produce a Form F-2 at an average cost of $300 per hour for a total cost of $639,000.
Because the Commission does not expect that the accommodation will affect the one issuer that files a registration statement on Form F-2, it is not revising the burden estimates for that form.
The Commission estimates that 102 foreign private issuers file registration statements on Form F-3 each year. It also estimates that issuers incur 25% of the burden required to produce a Form F-3 resulting in 4,159 annual burden hours incurred by issuers out of a total of 16,636 annual burden hours. Thus, it estimates that 163 total burden hours per response are currently required to prepare a registration statement on Form F-3. It further estimates that outside professionals account for 75% of the burden to produce a Form F-3 at an average cost of $300 per hour for a total cost of $3,743,100.
The Commission estimates that the accommodation will affect approximately 45% of the 102 issuers that file registration statements on Form F-3.
Thus, the Commission estimates that the amendments to Form 20-F will increase the annual burden incurred by foreign private issuers in the preparation of Form F-3 to 4,217 burden hours. It further estimates that the amendments will increase the total annual burden associated with Form F-3 preparation to 16,868 burden hours, which will increase the average number of burden hours per response to 165. It also estimates that the amendments will increase the total annual costs attributed to the preparation of Form F-3 by outside firms to $3,795,300.
The Commission estimates that 68 foreign private issuers file registration statements on Form F-4 each year. It also estimates that these issuers incur 25% of the burden required to produce a Form F-4 resulting in 24,503 annual burden hours incurred by foreign private issuers out of a total of 98,012 annual burden hours. Thus, it estimates that 1,441 total burden hours per response are currently required to prepare a registration statement on Form F-4. It further estimates that outside professionals account for 75% of the burden to produce a Form F-4 at an average cost of $300 per hour for a total cost of $22,052,700.
The Commission estimates that the accommodation will affect approximately 20% of the 68 issuers that file registration statements on Form F-4.
Thus, the Commission estimates that the amendments to Form 20-F will increase the annual burden incurred by foreign private issuers in the preparation of Form F-4 to 24,521 burden hours. It further estimates that the amendments will increase the total annual burden associated with Form F-4 preparation to 98,084 burden hours, which will increase the average number of burden hours per response to 1,442. It further estimates that the amendments will increase the total annual costs attributed to the preparation of Form F-4 by outside firms to $22,068,900.
The Commission estimates that currently foreign private issuers file 1,036 Form 20-Fs each year, approximately 35% of which will be impacted by the amendments.
Thus, the Commission estimates that the amendments to Form 20-F will increase the annual burden incurred by foreign private issuers in the preparation of Form 20-F to 680,837 burden hours. The Commission further estimates that the amendments will increase the total annual burden associated with Form 20-F preparation to 2,723,348 burden hours, which will increase the average number of burden hours per response to 2,629. It also estimates that the amendments will increase the total annual costs attributed to the preparation of Form 20-F by outside firms to $612,753,300.
The Commission estimates that 42 foreign private issuers file registration statements on Form F-1 each year, approximately 30% of which will be impacted by the amendments.
Thus, the Commission estimates that the amendments to Form 20-F will increase the annual burden incurred by foreign private issuers in the preparation of Form F-1 to 18,983 burden hours. It also estimates that the amendments will increase the total annual burden associated with Form F-1 preparation to 75,932 burden hours, which will increase the average number of burden hours per response to 1,808. It further estimates that the amendments will increase the total annual costs attributed to the preparation of Form F-1 by outside firms to $17,084,700.
Because the Commission does not expect that the amendments affect the one issuer that files a registration statement on Form F-2, it is not revising the burden estimates for that form.
The Commission estimates that approximately 102 foreign private issuers file registration statements on Form F-3 each year, 45% of which will be impacted by the amendments.
Thus, the Commission estimates that the amendments to Form 20-F will increase the annual burden incurred by issuers in the preparation of Form F-3 to 4,182 burden hours. It further estimates that the amendments will increase the total annual burden associated with Form F-3 preparation to 16,728 burden hours, which will increase the average number of burden hours per response to 164. It also estimates that the amendments will increase the total annual costs attributed to the preparation of Form F-3 by outside firms to $3,763,800.
The Commission estimates 68 foreign private issuers file registration statements on Form F-4 each year, approximately 20% of which will be impacted by the amendments.
Thus, the Commission estimates that the amendments to Form 20-F will
Based on the preceding analysis and assuming that the number of respondents for each of the affected forms remains unchanged, the five hour burden increase due to the proposed accommodation and the further 1.5 per cent increase due to the proposed disclosure requirements for all first-time IFRS adopters will, together, increase the total burden estimates for companies from 677,298 hours to 681,291 for Form 20-F (an increase from 2,615 hours to 2,631 hours per form), from 18,895 hours to 18,999 hours for Form F-1 (an increase from 1,800 hours to 1,809 hours per form), from 4,159 hours to 4,240 for Form F-3 (an increase from 163 hours to 166 hours per form), and from 24,503 hours to 24,598 hours for Form F-4 (an increase from 1,441 hours to 1,447 hours per form). As discussed above, after year 2007 the five hour burden increase from the proposed accommodation will no longer apply and only the 1.5 per cent increase due to the proposed disclosure requirements for all first-time IFRS adopters will remain.
In the Proposing Release, the Commission solicited comments on the expected costs and benefits of the proposed amendments to Form 20-F, as well as on any other costs and benefits that could result from the adoption of those proposed amendments. In response, commenters expressed widespread support for the relief that the proposal would provide to eligible issuers by permitting them to file two rather than three years of financial information for the financial year they switch to IFRS. However, several commenters maintained that the proposals regarding condensed U.S. GAAP financial information and financial statements for interim periods during the Transition Year would impose costs on foreign private issuers that were unnecessary to achieve the rule's purpose and that outweighed the potential benefits to investors. The Commission has modified the final amendments in response to these concerns, thereby eliminating some of the potential costs that issuers may have incurred under the amendments as proposed.
Although none of the commenters provided quantitative data to support their views, the Commission has revised the amendments to Form 20-F in response to the concerns that the commenters expressed. The Commission expects that the adopted amendments to Form 20-F will result in the following benefits and costs.
The amendments to Form 20-F will benefit foreign private issuers that adopt IFRS, either voluntarily or by mandate, by facilitating their compliance with SEC disclosure requirements as those issuers transition from their Previous GAAP to IFRS. By permitting eligible issuers to provide two rather than three years of financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS, the amendments will allow those issuers to avoid the retroactive application of accounting standards that may not have been finalized during the earliest reporting period to which they would have to be applied in order to provide financial statements that were in compliance with SEC filing requirements.
By eliminating the third year of IFRS financial statements, the accommodation also benefits issuers by aligning SEC requirements with the IFRS 1 standard, which requires only one year of comparative information for the year IFRS is adopted. Through the amendments to Form 20-F, the Commission is eliminating the need for financial statements that would have been required by SEC rules but not otherwise. In years after their Transition Year, when the accommodation will no longer apply, issuers will have available IFRS financial statements for the financial year that they were permitted to exclude under the accommodation.
The amendments also will benefit investors in several ways. First, the accommodation will improve the clarity and quality of the financial disclosure that first-time adopters of IFRS provide in their SEC filings, thereby enhancing investor understanding. By clarifying the level of information required in the reconciliation of Previous GAAP information to IFRS, for example, the amendments will provide investors with a comparable level of reconciliation information between companies that will enable them to understand the material impact of the switch to IFRS on each issuer's financial statements.
The accommodation also is expected to benefit investors by encouraging the use of IFRS as a high quality body of accounting principles designed to accurately reflect the issuer's financial position. By reducing the burden of financial reporting in registration statements filed by first-time adopters of IFRS, the accommodation will encourage those issuers either to enter or to continue their participation in the U.S. capital market, which will further benefit investors by increasing their investment possibilities. These benefits will likely lead to a more efficient allocation of capital.
The amendments to Form 20-F could result in some costs to issuers relying on the accommodation, although those costs should be minimal as they relate principally to how information required under rules existing prior to these amendments should be presented when based on primary financial statements based on IFRS.
One area in which issuers relying on the accommodation may face increased cost relates to the provision of interim financial statements. The Commission has adopted a flexible approach that provides an isuer with a number of options as to how to comply with the requirements. Although the costs of providing disclosure under the different options may vary, issuers providing interim financial information may select the approach that they deem most suitable to mitigate these potential burdens.
The elements of the adopted amendments that apply to all first-time adopters of IFRS will also lead to some increased costs to issuers. The amendments that clarify the level of information that the reconciliation from Previous GAAP to IFRS should contain are not expected to result in increased costs to issuers, because they do not require additional disclosure beyond what first-time adopters of IFRS must provide to comply with IFRS 1. The amendments relating to the use of any exceptions to IFRS will require additional disclosure, and consequently are expected to result in some increased costs for companies that are required to provide that disclosure.
Under Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act
In the Proposing Release, the Commission considered the proposed amendment to Form 20-F in light of the standards set forth in the above statutory sections. It requested comment on whether, if adopted, the proposed Form 20-F amendment would result in any anti-competitive effects or promote efficiency, competition and capital formation. The Commission further encouraged commenters to provide empirical data or other facts to support their views on any anti-competitive effects or any burdens on efficiency, competition or capital formation that might result from adoption of the proposed Form 20-F amendments. It received no comments in response to these requests.
The adopted amendments allowing first-time adopters of IFRS to file two rather than three years of IFRS financial statements in their SEC filings are designed to increase efficiency, competition and capital formation by alleviating the burden and cost that eligible companies would face if required to recast under IFRS their results for the third year back for inclusion in annual reports and registration statements filed with the SEC. The amendments are intended to promote market efficiency by eliminating financial disclosure that would be costly to produce and would be of questionable value to investors. As a result of the more reliable disclosure that companies will provide under the amendments, investors will be able to make more informed investment decisions and capital may be allocated on a more efficient basis.
The amendments adopted to require all foreign companies that change their basis of accounting to IFRS to provide information relating to IFRS exceptions on which they relied and to satisfy a required level of information in their reconciliation from Previous GAAP to IFRS should increase efficiency, competition and capital formation by enabling investors to base their investment decisions on a better understanding of the financial information of those companies. This should lead to a more efficient allocation of capital.
The Commission is adopting amendments to Exchange Act Form 20-F pursuant to Sections 6, 7, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 as amended, and Sections 3, 12, 13, 15, 23 and 36 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
15 U.S.C. 78a
The text of Form 20-F does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(A) The issuer's most recent audited financial statements required by Item 8.A.2 are for the 2007 financial year or an earlier financial year;
(B) The issuer adopts IFRS for the first time by an explicit and unreserved statement of compliance with IFRS; and
(C) The audited financial statements for the issuer's most recent financial year for which audited financial statements are required by Item 8.A.2 are prepared in accordance with IFRS.
(2)
(A) The annual report relates to the 2007 financial year or an earlier financial year;
(B) The issuer adopts IFRS for the first time by an explicit and unreserved statement of compliance with IFRS; and
(C) The audited financial statements for the issuer's financial year to which the annual report relates are prepared in accordance with IFRS.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1)
(2)
(A) Instruction 3 of the Instructions to Item 8.A.5 shall not apply to published financial information that is prepared with reference to IFRS. This General Instruction G(f)(2)(A) shall be available for any financial information for any interim or annual financial period that the issuer publishes that is prepared with reference to IFRS.
(B) An issuer that is required to provide interim financial statements under the first sentence of Item 8.A.5 may satisfy the requirements of that item by providing one of the following:
(
(
(
(g)
(h)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(1) An audited reconciliation to IFRS as published by the IASB that contains information relating to financial statement line items and footnote disclosure equivalent to that required under IFRS as published by the IASB.
(2) The audited reconciliation to U.S. GAAP specified by Item 17 or 18, as appropriate, that must begin either with IFRS as published by the IASB or with EU GAAP.
(3) Selected financial data pursuant to Item 3.A shall include information based on the reconciliation to IFRS as published by the IASB.
(4) Information required pursuant to Item 5 that refers to the reconciliation to IFRS as published by the IASB and to the reconciliation to U.S. GAAP and discusses any aspects of the differences between EU GAAP, IFRS as published by the IASB and U.S. GAAP not otherwise discussed in the reconciliation that the issuer believes are necessary for an understanding of the financial statements as a whole.
By the Commission.