Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Farm Service Agency
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service
Industry and Security Bureau
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim final rule changing the assessment collection requirements prescribed under the Vidalia onion marketing order (order). The order regulates the handling of Vidalia onions grown in Georgia and is administered locally by the Vidalia Onion Committee (Committee). This rule continues in effect the action that allows handlers to mail their assessment payments to the Committee office without incurring late payment penalties as long as the payment is postmarked on or before the due date. Prior to this change, assessment payments received in the Committee office later than 4 p.m. on the Tuesday following the week in which shipments were made were subject to late payment penalties.
Effective May 23, 2005.
Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 799 Overlook Drive, Suite A, Winter Haven, FL 33884; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 325-8793; or George Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938.
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 955, both as amended (7 CFR part 955), regulating the handling of Vidalia onions grown in Georgia, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule continues in effect the action that changed the assessment collection requirements prescribed under the order. This action allows handlers to mail their assessment payments to the Committee office without incurring late payment penalties as long as the payment is postmarked on or before the due date. Assessment payments are due not later than 4 p.m. on the Tuesday following the week in which the shipments were made. This change was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a meeting held on August 12, 2004.
Section 955.42 of the order provides the authority for the formulation of an annual budget of expenses and the collection of assessments from handlers to administer the order. Section 955.42(f) provides the authority to impose a late payment charge or an interest charge or both, on any handler who fails to pay assessments in a timely manner and the authority to establish the time and rate of such charges. Section 955.142 of the order's rules and regulations outlines the procedures for applying interest charges to delinquent assessments. Both handler reports and assessment payments are to be submitted for each week during the fiscal period in which onions are shipped. Prior to this change, handler reports and assessment payments were due at the Committee office not later than 4 p.m. on the Tuesday immediately following the week in which shipments were made.
This rule continues in effect the rulemaking action that modified the requirements under § 955.142 to provide that as long as assessment payments received by mail are postmarked on or before the due date, the payments will be considered to be timely regardless of when they arrive at the Committee office. This change allows handlers the opportunity to mail their assessment payments without risking late payment penalties. This rule makes no change to the date and time handler reports and assessments are due.
Many handlers have been submitting their weekly reports to the Committee via fax in order to have their reports in on time. Assessment checks are usually prepared at the same time and are hand carried to the Committee office or mailed. Checks mailed to the Committee office are often received several days after the date due. This has subjected handlers to an interest charge of one percent per week, beginning the day immediately after the date the assessments were due.
The production area covered under the order encompasses all or parts of twenty counties in Georgia. It is not
In its discussions of this issue, the Committee agreed that handlers should have the option to pay their assessments on time by the use of mail. If a check is postmarked by the required date, the Committee believes that handler should be viewed as paying their assessments in a timely manner.
Therefore, the Committee unanimously voted to change the assessment collection requirements so that assessments received that are postmarked on or before the date they are due will be considered as meeting the deadline and will not be subject to late payment charges.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 145 producers of Vidalia onions in the production area and approximately 110 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms, which include handlers, are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,000,000.
Based on information from the Georgia Agricultural Statistical Service and Committee data, around 90 percent of Vidalia onion handlers ship under $6,000,000 worth of onions on an annual basis. In addition, based on acreage, production, grower prices reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the total number of Vidalia onion growers, the average annual grower revenue is approximately $489,000. In view of the foregoing, it can be concluded that the majority of handlers and producers of Vidalia onions may be classified as small entities.
This rule continues in effect the action that changed the assessment collection requirements previously prescribed under the order. This action allows handlers to mail their assessment payments to the Committee office without incurring late payment charges as long as the payment is postmarked on or before the due date. Assessment payments are due in the Committee office or are to be postmarked by the Tuesday following the week in which the shipments were made. This rule continues in effect the action that revised the provisions of § 955.142 of the rules and regulations outlining the procedures for applying interest charges to delinquent assessments. Authority for this action is provided for in § 955.42 of the order. This change was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a meeting held on August 12, 2004.
This rule will not result in any additional costs for the handler or the grower. The purpose of this rule is to make it easier for the handler to submit their assessment payments using the mail without having to risk incurring additional costs and interest charges. For many handlers living a long distance from the Committee office, this will save them the time and costs associated with driving in to the Committee office in order to pay their assessments on a timely basis. Having better access to the mail for their payment method will provide many handlers with a more cost-effective option. Thus, it is expected that this option will result in an overall cost savings. The savings will be available to all handlers, regardless of size. Also, as the vast majority of handlers are also growers, this action will have a like benefit for both large and small growers.
The Committee did consider the option of making no change in the current regulation. However, Committee members believe that handlers also should be able to mail their assessments in a timely manner. Therefore, this option was rejected.
This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Vidalia onion handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, as noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee meeting was widely publicized throughout the Vidalia onion industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the August 12, 2004 meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.
An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the
The commenter stated that the Committee should be disbanded and that the marketing order is an outdated form of agricultural marketing. The commenter also stated that assessments were not equitably collected. USDA disagrees with these assertions. The marketing order was implemented and is being administered consistent with the authority in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, and favored by Vidalia onion growers in a recent continuance referendum. Under the marketing order, all handlers are required to pay their pro rata share of expenses.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that finalizing the interim final rule, without change, as published in the
Onions, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Department of Agriculture is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim final rule establishing final free and restricted percentages for domestic inshell hazelnuts for the 2004-2005 marketing year under the Federal marketing order for hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington. This rule continues in effect the final free and restricted percentages of 6.4921 and 93.5079 percent, respectively. The percentages allocate the quantity of domestically produced hazelnuts which may be marketed in the domestic inshell market (free) and the quantity of domestically produced hazelnuts that must be disposed of in approved outlets (restricted). Volume regulation is intended to stabilize the supply of domestic inshell hazelnuts to meet the limited domestic demand for such hazelnuts with the goal of providing producers with reasonable returns. This rule was recommended unanimously by the Hazelnut Marketing Board (Board), which is the agency responsible for local administration of the marketing order.
Effective May 23, 2005.
Barry Broadbent, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, Suite 385, Portland, Oregon 97204-2807; Telephone: (503) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440; or George J. Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938.
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 115 and Marketing Order No. 982, both as amended (7 CFR Part 982), regulating the handling of hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is intended that this action apply to all merchantable hazelnuts handled during the 2004-2005 marketing year (July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005). This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule continues in effect marketing percentages which allocate the quantity of inshell hazelnuts that may be marketed in domestic markets. The Board is required to meet prior to September 20 of each marketing year to compute its marketing policy for that year, and compute and announce an inshell trade demand if it determines that volume regulations would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. At the same time, the Board computes and announces preliminary free and restricted percentages for that marketing year.
The inshell trade demand is the amount of inshell hazelnuts that handlers may ship to the domestic market throughout the marketing season. The order specifies that the inshell trade demand be computed by averaging the preceding three “normal” years’ trade acquisitions of inshell hazelnuts. The Board may increase the computed inshell trade demand by up to 25 percent, if market conditions warrant an increase. The Board may also modify the inshell trade demand to account for abnormalities due to crop or marketing conditions. The Board's authority to recommend volume regulations and the computations used to determine the percentages are specified in § 982.40 of the order.
Volume regulation under the order utilizes free and restricted percentages to allocate available hazelnuts which may be marketed in domestic inshell markets (free) and hazelnuts which must be exported, shelled, or otherwise disposed of by handlers (restricted). Prior to September 20 of each marketing year, the Board must compute and announce preliminary free and restricted percentages. The preliminary free percentage releases 80 percent of the adjusted inshell trade demand to the domestic market. The purpose of releasing only 80 percent of the inshell trade demand under the preliminary percentage is to guard against an underestimate of crop size. The preliminary free percentage is expressed as a percentage of the total supply subject to regulation (supply) and is based on the preliminary crop estimate.
On August 24, 2004, the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) released an estimate of 2004 hazelnut production for the Oregon and Washington area at 44,000 dry orchard-run tons. On August 26, 2004, the Board met and estimated total available supply for the 2004 crop year at 44,954 tons. The Board arrived at this estimate by using the crop estimate compiled by NASS (44,000 tons) and then adjusting that estimate to account for disappearance and carry-in. The order
Disappearance is the difference between the estimated orchard-run production and the actual supply of merchantable product available for sale by handlers. Disappearance can consist of (1) unharvested hazelnuts, (2) culled product (nuts that are delivered to handlers but later discarded), (3) product used on the farm, sold locally, or otherwise disposed of by producers, and (4) statistical error in the orchard-run production estimate.
The Board computed the adjusted inshell trade demand of 2,064 tons by taking the average of the past three years' sales (2,952 tons) and reducing it by the declared carry-in from last year's crop (888 tons). Declared carry-in is product regulated under the order during a preceding marketing year but held in inventory for future sale. Undeclared carry-in is product that was produced in a previous marketing year but was not subject to regulation at that time. Undeclared carry-in is subject to regulation under the order and is accounted for as such by the Board.
The Board computed and announced preliminary free and restricted percentages of 3.6726 percent and 96.3274 percent, respectively, at its August 26, 2004, meeting. The Board computed the preliminary free percentage by multiplying the adjusted trade demand by 80 percent and dividing the result by the adjusted crop estimate (2,064 tons × 80 percent/44,954 tons = 3.6726 percent). The preliminary free percentage thus initially released 1,651 tons of hazelnuts from the 2004 supply for domestic inshell use, and the preliminary restricted percentage withheld 43,303 tons for the export and shelled (kernel) markets.
Under the order, the Board must meet again on or before November 15 to recommend interim final and final percentages. The Board uses current crop estimates to calculate interim final and final percentages. The interim final percentages are calculated in the same way as the preliminary percentages and release the remaining 20 percent (to total 100 percent of the inshell trade demand) previously computed by the Board. Final free and restricted percentages may release up to an additional 15 percent of the average of the preceding three years' trade acquisitions to provide an adequate carryover into the following season (
The Board met on November 3, 2004, and reviewed and approved an amended marketing policy and recommended the establishment of final free and restricted percentages. The NASS crop production estimate was 44,000 tons. However, based upon industry information, the Board reduced the estimate to 37,425 tons. The Board also decided that market conditions were such that the immediate release of an additional 15 percent for desirable carryout will not adversely affect the 2004-2005 domestic inshell market. No interim final free and restricted percentages were recommended. The Board recommended final free and restricted percentages of 6.4921 and 93.5079 percent, respectively. The final free percentage releases 2,507 tons of inshell hazelnuts from the 2004 supply for domestic use.
The final marketing percentages are based on the Board's final production estimate (which is lower than its initial estimate) and the following supply and demand information for the 2004-2005 marketing year:
In addition to complying with the provisions of the order, the Board also considered USDA's 1982 “Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders” (Guidelines) when making its computations in the marketing policy. This volume control regulation provides a method to collectively limit the supply of inshell hazelnuts available for sale in domestic markets. The Guidelines provide that the domestic inshell market has available a quantity equal to 110 percent of prior years' shipments before allocating supplies for the export inshell, export kernel, and domestic kernel markets. This provides for plentiful supplies for consumers and for market expansion, while retaining the mechanism for dealing with oversupply situations. The established final percentages make available an additional 443 tons for desirable carryout. The total free supply for the 2004-2005 marketing year is 3,395 tons of hazelnuts, which is the sum of the final trade demand of 2,952 tons and the 443 ton desirable carryout. This amount is 115 percent of prior years' sales and exceeds the goal of the Guidelines.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $6,000,000. There are approximately 750 producers of hazelnuts in the production area and approximately 18 handlers subject to regulation under the order. Average annual hazelnut revenue per producer is $39,025. This is computed by dividing NASS figures for the average value of production for 2002 and 2003 ($29,268,500) by the number of producers. The level of sales of other crops by hazelnut producers is not known. In addition, based on Board records, about 89 percent of the handlers ship under $6,000,000 worth of hazelnuts on an annual basis. In view of the foregoing, it can be concluded that the majority of hazelnut producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.
Board meetings are widely publicized in advance of the meetings and are held in a location central to the production area. The meetings are open to all industry members and other interested persons who are encouraged to participate in the deliberations and voice their opinions on topics under discussion. Thus, Board recommendations can be considered to represent the interests of small business entities in the industry.
Currently, U.S. hazelnut production is allocated among three main market outlets: Domestic inshell, export inshell, and kernel markets. Handlers and growers receive the highest return for sales in the domestic inshell market. They receive less for product going to export inshell, and the least for kernels. Based on Board records of average shipments for 1994-2003, the percentage going to each of these markets was 11 percent (domestic inshell), 43 percent (export inshell), and 34 percent (kernels). Other minor market outlets in total make up the remaining 12 percent.
The inshell hazelnut market can be characterized as having limited and inelastic demand with a very short primary marketing period. On average, 78 percent of domestic inshell hazelnut shipments occur between October 1 and November 30, primarily to supply holiday nut demand. The inshell market is, therefore, prone to oversupply and low grower prices in the absence of supply restrictions. Volume regulation provides a method for the U.S. hazelnut industry to limit the supply of domestic inshell hazelnuts available for sale in the continental U.S. and to prevent oversupplied market conditions.
Many years of marketing experience led to the development of the current volume control procedures. These procedures have helped the industry solve its marketing problems by keeping inshell supplies in balance with domestic needs. Volume controls ensure that the domestic inshell market is fully supplied while protecting the market from the negative effects of oversupply.
The relatively high level of production in 2004 and the large carryin from previous year's production were key market factors leading to the relatively low 6.4921 percent final free percentage. Hazelnut production was originally estimated by NASS to be 44,000 tons, which would have made it the third largest crop on record. The Board revised the forecast to 37,425 tons after harvest was completed, a level that is still 21 percent above the prior 10-year average. Even if carryin had been zero, the amount of production that handlers typically ship into the domestic inshell market (
Although the domestic inshell market is a relatively small proportion of total sales (11 percent of total shipments), it remains a profitable market segment. The volume control provisions of the marketing order are designed to avoid oversupplying this particular market segment, because that would likely lead to substantially lower grower prices. The other market segments, export inshell and kernels, are expected to continue to provide good outlets for U.S. hazelnut production.
Recent production and price data reflect the stabilizing effect of the volume control regulations. Data from NASS shows that total hazelnut production has varied widely over the 10-year period between 1994 and 2003, from a low of 15,500 tons in 1998 to a high of 49,500 tons in 2001. Production in the shortest crop year and the biggest crop year were 50 percent and 160 percent, respectively, of the 10-year average tonnage of 31,035. Grower price has not fluctuated to the extent of production. Prices in the lowest price year and the highest price year were 93 percent and 115 percent, respectively, of the 10-year average price of $898 per ton. The considerable lower variability of price versus production provides an illustration of the order's price-stabilizing impacts.
Comparing grower revenue to cost is useful in highlighting the impact on growers of recent product and price levels. A recent hazelnut production cost study from Oregon State University estimated cost-of-production per acre to be approximately $1,340 for a typical 100-acre hazelnut enterprise. Average grower revenue per bearing acre (based on NASS acreage and value of production data) equaled or exceeded that typical cost level only twice from 1994 to 2003. Average grower revenue was below typical costs in the other years. Without the stabilizing impact of the order, growers may have lost more money. While crop size has fluctuated, volume regulations contribute to orderly marketing and market stability and help moderate the variation in returns for all producers and handlers, both large and small.
While the level of benefits of this rulemaking is difficult to quantify, the stabilizing effects of the volume regulations impact both small and large handlers positively by helping them maintain and expand markets even though hazelnut supplies fluctuate widely from season to season. This regulation provides equitable allotment of the most profitable market, the domestic inshell market. That market is available to all handlers, regardless of size.
As an alternative to this regulation, the Board discussed not regulating the 2004-2005 hazelnut crop. However, without any regulations in effect, the Board believes that the industry would tend to oversupply the inshell domestic market. The 2004-2005 hazelnut crop is larger than last season and much larger than expected due to the cyclical nature of hazelnut production. Generally, a large crop one season is followed by a reduced crop the following season, and a small crop is followed by a large crop the following season. The unregulated release of 38,616 tons on the domestic inshell market would oversupply that small market and would cause producer returns to decrease dramatically, thereby disrupting the market.
Section 982.40 of the order establishes a procedure and computations for the Board to follow in recommending to USDA release of preliminary, interim final, and final quantities of hazelnuts to
Hazelnuts produced under the order comprise virtually all of the hazelnuts produced in the U.S. This production represents, on average, less than 4 percent of total U.S. production for other tree nuts, and less than 5 percent of the world's hazelnut production.
Last season, 79 percent of the kernels were marketed in the domestic market and 21 percent were exported. Domestically produced kernels generally command a higher price in the domestic market than imported kernels. The industry is continuing its efforts to develop and expand other markets with emphasis on the domestic kernel market. Small business entities, both producers and handlers, benefit from the expansion efforts resulting from this program.
Inshell hazelnuts produced under the order compete well in export markets because of quality. Based on Board statistics, Europe has historically been the primary export market for U.S. produced inshell hazelnuts, with a 10-year average of 5,255 tons out of total average exports of 14,048 tons. Recent years have seen a significant shift in export destinations. Last season, inshell shipments to Europe totaled 5,526 tons, representing 24 percent of exports, with the largest share going to Germany. Inshell shipments to Southwest Pacific countries, and Hong Kong in particular, have increased dramatically in the past few years, rising to 70 percent of total exports of 23,319 tons in 2003. The industry continues to pursue export opportunities.
There are some reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements under the order. The reporting and recordkeeping burdens are necessary for compliance purposes and for developing statistical data for maintenance of the program. The information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB No. 0581-0178. The forms require information which is readily available from handler records and which can be provided without data processing equipment or trained statistical staff. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. This rule does not change those requirements. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Board's meetings were widely publicized throughout the hazelnut industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and participate in Board deliberations. Like all Board meetings, those held on August 26, and November 3, 2004, were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.
An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the
Two comments were received during the comment period in response to the interim final rule. Both commenters opposed the action as a restriction of free trade that artificially inflates prices.
USDA disagrees with the commenters. As previously stated, the marketing of domestic inshell hazelnuts is regulated by USDA upon the recommendation of the Board to balance the supply of such hazelnuts with the demand. The Board believes that equilibrium in the supply and demand of domestic inshell hazelnuts benefits consumers and improves returns to producers. USDA guidelines stipulate that the domestic inshell hazelnut market has at least 110 percent of the prior years' sales are available to supply consumers' needs and facilitate market expansion. In order to ensure that the supply is not unduly restricted, the Board recommended releasing 115 percent of the estimated trade demand of inshell hazelnuts to the domestic market. Even with regulation, hazelnuts generally trade at price levels below that of walnuts, almonds, and pistachios, all of which compete in the marketplace with hazelnuts.
One of the commenters expressed concern that taxpayer dollars were used to cover Board costs. Taxpayer dollars are not used to fund the Board. Funds generated from assessments on the handlers of hazelnuts are used to pay these costs.
Accordingly, no changes will be made in the finalization of the interim final rule based on the comments received.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Board and other available information, it is hereby found that finalizing the interim final rule, without change, as published in the
Filberts, Hazelnuts, Marketing agreements, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency delivering the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Development Utilities Programs, is amending its regulations regarding RUS Bulletin 50-3, Specifications Drawings for 12.5/7.2 kV Line Construction. This bulletin is currently incorporated by reference in RUS regulations and the revised and renumbered RUS Bulletin 1728F-804 would continue to be incorporated by reference. This rule is necessary to provide the latest RUS specifications, materials, equipment, and construction methods for RUS electric borrowers to construct their rural overhead electric distribution systems. RUS proposes to update, renumber and reformat this bulletin in accordance with the agency's new publications and directives system.
This rule will be effective October 21, 2005.
Incorporation by reference: RUS Bulletin 1728F-804, Specifications and Drawings for 12.47/7.2 kV Line Construction, is approved for the incorporation by reference by the Director, Office of the Federal Register as of October 21, 2005.
Mr. James L. Bohlk, Electric Engineer, Distribution Branch, Electric Staff Division, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 1569, Washington, DC 20250-1569. Telephone: (202) 720-1967. Fax (202) 720-7491. e-mail:
This rule is exempted from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by OMB.
This final rule is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Consultation, which may require consultation with State and local officials. See the final rule-related notice title “Department Programs and Activities Excluded from Executive Order 12372” (50 FR 47034) advising that rural electrification loans and loan guarantees are excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. RUS has determined that this final rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order. In addition, all state and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and, in accordance with section 212(e) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912 (e)), administrative appeals procedures, if any are required, must be exhausted before an action against the Department or its agencies may be initiated.
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on 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. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with states is not required.
It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this rule since the Rural Utilities Service is not required by 5 U.S.C. 551
This rule contains no additional information collection or recordkeeping requirements approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provision of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. Chapter 25)) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The Administrator of RUS has determined that this final rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment as defined by the National Environment Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
The program described by this final rule is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under No. 10.850, Rural Electrification Loans and Loan Guarantees. This catalog is available on a subscription basis from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325, telephone number (202) 512-1800.
Pursuant to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901
RUS Bulletin 50-3 provides standard construction drawings and specification of 12.5/7.2 kV overhead electric distribution lines. RUS is proposing to change the bulletin number room RUS Bulletin 50-3 (Standard D 804) to RUS Bulletin 1728F-804 (D 804). The change in the bulletin number and reformatting is necessary to conform to RUS new publications and directives system. This rule will incorporate the bulletin by reference in 7 CFR 1728.97.
RUS has made the following changes and additions to RUS Bulletin 50-3 (D-804) renumbering it as Bulletin 1728F-804:
(1) The new bulletin contains a total of 382 assemblies. (An assembly is a construction unit which incorporates the description and quantity of material needed to construct the assembly and a dimensioned schematic diagram showing how the material needs to be arranged or assembled to meet RUS specifications.) Bulletin 50-3 currently contains a total of 257 assemblies. In both bulletins, more than one similar assembly is often depicted on one drawing.
(2) Of the 382 total assemblies in the new bulletin, 215 are new assemblies and 95 of these 215 new assemblies are new “narrow profile” assemblies. The drawing numbers and titles of the 215 new assemblies and the 24 new guide drawings of the new bulletin are tabulated in Exhibit 4 at the end of new Bulletin 1728F-804.
(3) Of the 382 total assemblies in the new bulletin, 167 are standard assemblies of present Bulletin 50-3 that are being redrawn, renumbered, and re-used in new Bulletin 1728f-804. Of these 167 re-used assemblies, 94 are previous standard assemblies with no material changes, 37 are previous standard assemblies with only a change in the number or type of washers, and 36 are previous standard assemblies with other slight material changes.
(4) The new bulletin also contains 32 new guide drawings and 8 renumbered, redrawn and thus re-used guide drawings from Bulletin 50-3. Present Bulletin 50-3 contains a total of 32
(5) A listing the 167 re-used assemblies and 8 re-used guide drawings, with both their old numbers and their new assigned numbers, and the required assembly material changes, are tabulated in new Exhibit 3 at the end of new Bulletin 1728F-804. Exhibit 3 also lists the 90 assemblies and 24 guide drawings that are being discontinued from Bulletin 50-3.
(6) Each of the 382 assemblies and 40 guide drawings in new Bulletin 1728F-804 are being given a new number in accordance with the assembly numbering format as updated by RUS in 1998. In the updated numbering format, each letter and number in the assembly or drawing number has a functional meaning.
(7) New Exhibit 5 at the end of the new bulletin summarizes the new RUS assembly numbering format and briefly explains the meanings of each letter or number in the new assembly and drawing numbers.
(8) The assembly drawings, the 19 drawing indexes and Exhibit 3 of new Bulletin 1728F-804 show the new assigned assembly numbers and the old numbers (in parentheses) of the 167 re-used assemblies and 8 re-used guide drawings from present Bulletin 50-3. RUS allows the borrowers to use either the old or the new assigned assembly number, but only for the 167 re-used standard assemblies and 8 re-used guide drawings. The borrower is being required to make the slight material changes to 73 of the re-used assemblies and to construct the assemblies as depicted.
(9) The new bulletin is being reformatted into 19 separate sections or categories. Each section contains an index of drawings and also the construction drawings of assemblies designed to perform a similar function. Several sections contain construction specifications pertaining to the assemblies in that section.
(10) New tables are being added in the new bulletin that define maximum line angles (contained in Exhibit 1), permitted unbalanced conductor tensions on crossarm assemblies (contained in Exhibit 2), and soil classification data (contained in Section F).
(11) Exhibit, 1 being added at the end of the new bulletin, documents the formula and data used to determine the maximum line angles in the tables. Also, Exhibit 2, being added at the end of the new bulletin, documents the formula and data used to determine permitted unbalanced conductor tensions on crossarm assemblies.
(12) Each drawing is being given a new, uniform, shorter, and more descriptive title. Each drawing also has a new, uniform title block that contains, when applicable, the primary voltage and number of phases of the depicted assemblies.
(13) “Design parameters” which define and usually limit maximum line angles or mechanical loading (tension) is being added, when applicable, to the drawings of the new bulletin.
RUS is discontinuing 90 assemblies and 24 guide drawings presently contained in Bulletin 50-3 for one or more of the following reasons:
• They contain material no longer accepted by RUS for use by RUS borrowers,
• Either the spacing or the strength of the assembly no longer meets the minimum requirements of RUS or the rules of the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC),
• They contain technical errors such as a neutral conductor support that is not coordinated with the primary conductor support,
• They are redundant of other assemblies or for other reasons may no longer be needed, or
• They require so many modifications that it is prudent that they be discontinued and subsequently replaced with new assemblies.
RUS also is modifying and adding to the construction specifications in present Bulletin 50-3 incorporate the following significant changes in Bulletin 1728F-804:
(1) Compliance and specific references to the 2002 Edition of the NESC,
(2) Definitions of and provisions for the use of large and extra large conductors,
(3) Permission to lower the neutral conductor under specific circumstances,
(4) Requirement to use a washer under the shoulder of 7.2kV crossarm pins,
(5) Requirement to use a 3-inch (minimum) square, curved, washer abutting the pole for primaries, neutrals and guys that deadend on poles,
(6) Requirement to multiply applied loads by the appropriate NESC overload factors,
(7) Minimum insulated spacing (wood and fiberglass) between primary conductors and guys,
(8) Choice of arrester location on transformer assemblies,
(9) Requirement that all secondary and service wires be covered conductors,
(10) Permission to use stirrups provided certain given criteria are met,
(11) Permission to insulate guy wires provided certain given criteria are met,
(12) Permission to modify assembly drawings without further approval from RUS within certain given parameters, and
(13) New rights-of-ways clearing specifications.
On February 12, 2004, RUS published a proposed rule in the
(1) Adams Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(2) Allgeier, Martin and Associates, Inc.
(3) Cookson Hills & East Central Electric Cooperative.
(4) Harrison Rural Electric Membership Cooperative.
(5) Hi-Line Engineering, LLC.
(6) Minnesota Valley Cooperative Light and Power.
(7) Morgan County Rural Electric Association.
(8) National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
(9) Northern Neck Electric Cooperative.
In response to the comments and suggestions received, RUS has added the following new assemblies and drawings to the bulletin:
Fifty-three assemblies with various combinations of secondary brackets, swinging clevis', extension eyebolts and insulated extension links to the A3, A5, B3, B5, C3 and C5 series of assemblies and also added top views of assemblies to improve clarity, assemblies D1.5N and D1.5NP to utilize offset neutral brackets on double circuit, narrow profile assemblies, equipment assemblies R3.3 S2.3, Y3.1, and Y3.4, guide drawing G1.2 (and consequently deleted some notes and the schematic diagram on guide drawing G1.1), transformed the 9 “tying guides” in Section L into 20 new assemblies, transformed guide drawings E5.1G and
Also in response to the comments and suggestions received, RUS also made the following changes and corrections:
(1) Corrected 85 errors and omissions pertaining to old assembly numbers on the drawings, indexes, and exhibits,
(2) Changes the guy attachment location on 24 drawings to be consistent with all of the other guyed assemblies,
(3) Changed the crossarm attachment location on 9 drawings so that all crossarms are installed 18 inches from the top of the pole on all assemblies to utilize standard pole drilling and to accommodate pole top pins when needed,
(4) Added connectors (item “p”) and jumper wires (item “av”) to the material lists on 18 drawings,
(5) Deleted notes referring to “tying guides” from 22 assemblies because they were deemed not useful nor needed,
(6) Removed the note “(When Req'd)” referring to down guys from 12 drawings and added the same note to 5 drawings for the purpose of accuracy and consistency,
(7) Added the ANSI class and size of spool insulator to the design parameters of the 10 drawings that refer to the maximum line angles in Tables VI and VII,
(8) Added or changed the distance from the face of the pole to the nearest vertical jumper wired to 19 inches on 8 drawings to comply with the rules of the NESC,
(9) Added an additional note in the design parameters utilizing pre-assembled crossarms (item “gj”) to multiply the manufacturer's strength rating by the appropriate NESC strength factor to determine the permitted loading on the assembly.
RUS also made the following changes to specific assembly drawings in response to the comments and suggestions received:
• Changed drawing numbers “A1”, “A2” and “N5” to be the same as the assembly numbers on the drawings to be consistent with all of the other drawing numbers and removed “Miscellaneous” from the drawing title,
• Eliminating drawing “A5” and relocated its assemblies to other drawings,
• Corrected the line angle table reference errors in the design parameters on drawings C1.3N, C2.3N and C2.3N,
• Added a top view to assemblies A3.1, B3.1 and C3.1,
• Increased the permitted line angle on assemblies A4.1, B4.1, and C4.1 to the range of 90 to 175 degrees,
• Deleted the note regarding down guys on the drawings of assemblies A3.2, A3.3 and A4.1 because it was confusing. RUS added information regarding the proper installation and location of guys to the “Specifications for Guying Assemblies,”
• Corrected error in design parameters of drawing of assembly C6.21 to refer to Note 2,
• Changed the design parameters in the drawings of assemblies C6.51 and A2.021 to reference Table B of Exhibit 2,
• Deleted the un-referenced word “ungrounded” from guide drawing G3.2G,
• Added a note referencing NESC Table 232-2 to guide drawing K4.1G,
• Added crossarm mounting hardware to assembly S1.01 and a note indicating that these switches may be installed on double deadend crossarm assemblies,
• Corrected the drafting errors pertaining to the conductors on assembly Q1.1 and darkened the secondary conductors line on drawings Q1.1, Q2.1 and Q3.1 to improve clarity,
• Added a note to assembly drawings Q3.2 and Q3.3 requiring customer-owned or maintained equipment be located a minimum for 5 feet from the assembly,
• Changed the materials on grounding assembly H1.1 to show the installation of steel ground wire connecting to the anchor rod,
• Added a note to drawing Q3.2 recommending PT's for voltages over 240 volts,
• Added a note to drawing S2.32 indicating that RUS accepted pre-assembled switches may be used and to install them according to the manufacturer's specifications,
• Added notes to guide drawings D3.1G and D4.1G to adjust material for only one neutral attachment subassembly and that the minimum clearance between and guy and any primary conductor shall be 5 feet,
• Modified assembly C5.22 so that the distance from the neutral to the center phase conductor is 4 feet, 0 inches,
• Changed the ground clearance to live parts on assembly drawing Y1.1 to meet NESC requirements; the ground clearance to the bottom of the regulator platform (which does not have braces) was found to conform to the NESC and was not changed.
The following are RUS' responses to comments, suggestions and questions that did not result in any additions or changes by RUS to the proposed assemblies or drawings:
(1) RUS did not change any assembly numbers as suggested in some of the comments, but did add the following to help borrowers understand implement the new assembly numbers:
(a) A new paragraph on the title page of the bulletin states that borrowers are required to use the new specification and drawings, however the borrowers can choose to use the old assembly numbers for 167 specified assemblies that have duel numbers, and
(b) New Exhibit 5 at the end of the bulletin that summarizes the new RUS assembly numbering format and the new numbers' designated meanings. This exhibit also tells where additional information can be found.
(2) RUS found it necessary to renumber the 167 re-used assemblies so that all of the overhead distribution assembly numbers would have a consistent meaning and a standard format. RUS believes that by allowing the dual number system for a majority of the new assemblies, it will aid the borrowers in implementing the new specifications.
(3) RUS recommends that borrowers keep copies of old Bulletin 50-3 for reference purposes and also keep all of their present assemblies in their engineering and accounting records until (1) further guidance is issued by RUS regarding the proper procedure to retire discontinued assemblies and (2) updates and publishes Bulletin 1767B-2, “Work Order Procedure (Electric).”
(4) Whereas some borrowers may prefer not to turn any line angles on tangent or small angle pole top assemblies, NESC rules and RUS requirements are not violated if angles no greater than those referenced in the design parameters on the drawings are turned on these types of assemblies.
(5) Since the main purpose of the vertical style of narrow profile pole top assemblies, (
(6) Several drawings state that the depicted assembly is to be used for NESC Grade B construction. The sixth paragraph in the “General Construction Specification” explains some of the needs for Grade B construction. Additional details regarding the rules of the NESC and their applications are beyond the scope of this bulletin.
(7) Page 1 of Exhibit 1 presents the formula, numerical constants and variables used to calculate the permitted line angles on pole top assemblies. In part, the calculated angles are a function of the number of pins installed on the
(8) The line angle on the drawing of assembly A4.1 is purposely drawn at an angle less than 90 degrees to show the general range of angles that can be used on this assembly.
(9) RUS believes that it is more convenient for most borrowers to have A4.1 and A4.2 as separate assemblies instead of merging them into one assembly.
(10) RUS agrees that guide drawing A5.7NG does not depict a “squirrel friendly” assembly. Nor is it raptor friendly. If squirrels or raptors are perceived to be a problem in a borrower's specific service area, then RUS recommends using of other assemblies (such as crossarm assemblies) that are available in the new bulletin.
(11) If needed for raptor protection, borrowers may install offset neutral brackets and may install the neutral on either side of the pole of narrow profile assemblies without further approval from RUS if the modified assemblies have a minimum of 4 feet of vertical clearance between the neutral and the primary conductor directly above it.
(12) These specifications are minimum requirements, as a result, borrowers may modify the anchor assembly drawings to show the diameter of the anchor helixes and may modify the drawings of the pole top assemblies to show the maximum permitted transverse loading without approval from RUS,
(13) Borrowers may make copies, re-group and re-arrange the assembly drawings of this bulletin for their own convenience and do not need from RUS,
(14) An extension bracket (item “fl”) is specified by RUS on assembly R1.1 and other similar equipment assemblies to provide climbing space for line workers. The extension bracket may be omitted if the assembly is accessible for work from bucket trucks designed for such work.
(15) The RUS assembly drawings do not show a pre-manufactured platform for the installation of line regulators because these types of platforms have not been accepted for listing in RUS Informational Publication 202-1 (“List of Materials”).
(16) Assembly drawing Q4.1 shows the use of crossarms because a cluster bracket for installing primary metering equipment has not been accepted for listing in RUS Informational Publication 202-1.
(17) RUS believes that restricting conductors to 2,000 pounds is unnecessarily too restrictive.
(18) RUS no longer permits pin type insulator to be installed in a horizontal position, like in old assembly M5-4 because it has been reported that horizontally installed pin insulators sometimes fill with water and when the water froze the insulator cracked.
(19) A new statement was added in the “Conductor Installation Specifications” stating that small conductors can be installed on large conductor assemblies (number suffix “L”) but that their tensions cannot exceed the permitted loads shown design parameters on the assembly drawings.
(20) Assemblies C5.22 and C5.32, whose crossarm mounting position is different that the other crossarm assemblies and have limited applications, are included in the new bulletin upon request by some RUS borrowers.
(21) New single-phase and two-phase assemblies similar to proposed assembly C5.71L for the application of large conductors or NESC Grade B construction were not added to the bulletin because RUS perceives that these additional assemblies would have very limited use.
(22) The suggestion to add several new large conductor assemblies was not used. However, a statement was added in the “General Construction Specifications” that makes it clear that borrowers may modify standard crossarm assemblies to make them suitable for large conductor construction without approval by RUS.
(23) New double deadend assemblies with conductor spacing the same as proposed assemblies C5.22 and C5.32 was not used because these assemblies are not RUS preferred construction and are reduntant of other available assemblies.
(24) RUS added new alternative construction information and details in the “Specifications for Guying Assemblies” for situations where a down guy might need to be installed very close to the neutral conductor on double deadend assemblies.
(25) RUS did not add a new double deadend crossarm assembly with a manufactured crossarm assembly (item “gj”) in which the neutral deadends on the crossarm because this new assembly would have very limited use.
(26) RUS did not add a new assembly with manufactured crossarm assemblies and spacing the same as proposed assembly D6.91 because this assembly would be redundant of new assembly D6.92, is relatively expensive, and thus would have very limited use.
(27) RUS did not add a new, two-phase, feedthrough guide drawing because it is unnecessary. When needed, jumper conductors and connectors can be added to assembly B6.21 similar to that shown on guide drawing C6.52G.
(28) RUS did not add any new double circuit assemblies with one circuit installed above the other circuit because RUS has standardized on the style of double circuit construction as shown on assembly drawings in the new bulletin. The suggested alternative double circuit design can be constructed using assemblies C1.11 and B1.14 with slight material modifications.
(29) No changes were made regarding the guy attachments, bolts, washers, bolt hole sizes, and the permitted loads of proposed assemblies E1.1 and E1.1L. The comments appear to be the result of misunderstanding. The 6,600 pound permitted load of assembly E1.1 is based on the surface area of a 3-inch washer. The 8,500 pound permitted load of assembly E1.1L is based on 85 percent of the RUS designated load (capacity) of the guy attachment with a 4-inch washer. RUS has (already) multiplied the RUS designated strength of the guy attachments by the 0.85 factor to determine the permitted loads shown in the design parameters on the drawings of these assemblies. Both sized washers have thirteen-sixteenths inch bolt holes and can accommodate either a five-eights inch or three-fourths inch bolt.
(30) The suggestion that an additional flat washer or a three-fourth inch bolt be used with washers with thirteen-sixteenths inch holes was not used because RUS has never received reports that five-eighths inch bolts have slipped through the holes in standard washers.
(31) The reasons why old pole protection assemblies M2-1 and M2-2 were discontinued by RUS was added to the “Specification for Guying Assemblies,”
(32) RUS specifies the installation of anti-split bolts on all non-tangent, primary pole-top assemblies that have double pole-top pins or double post-type insulator brackets. Borrowers may install anti-split bolts on other pole top assemblies at their own discretion; however, the RUS permitted transverse loading on these assemblies must not be increased. Some borrowers have reported to RUS that the installation on anti-split bolts on all pole top assemblies to be advantageous, especially on cedar poles.
(33) Where appropriate, borrowers may replace a cutout (item “af”) and an arrester (item “ae”) with a combination cutout/arrester (item “ax”) without additional review and approval by RUS. The material for the assembly needs to be changed accordingly.
(34) Additional information was added to the “Specifications for Pole Top Assemblies” stating that for NESC Grade B construction, the permitted line angles referenced on the pole top assemblies may need to be reduced based on the design engineer's calculations.
(35) Whereas the drawings for pole top assemblies do not show the permitted transverse load on the assemblies, the subtitles of the tables in Exhibit 1 referenced in the design parameters on the drawings specify the permitted transverse loads.
(36) The alleged errors regarding the “wild leg” and the high side grounding on guide drawing G3.1G were checked and determined to be correct as drawn.
Electronic (pdf) copies of this final rule and the new bulletin are available on the RUS Web site at
Electric power, Incorporation by reference, Loan programs-energy, Rural areas.
7 U.S.C. 901
These revisions are to read as follows:
(a) * * * The bulletins containing construction standards (50-4 and 1728F-803 to 1728F-811), may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. * * *
(b)
Bulletin 1728F-804 (D-804), Specification and Drawings for 12.47/7.2 kV Line Construction October 2005.
Rural Housing Service, Rural Business—Cooperative Service, Rural Utilities Service and Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Final rule.
The Rural Housing Service (RHS) is amending this regulation to remove an incorrect reference. The intended effect of this change is to ensure that Agency regulations continue to provide current information.
Brinder Billups, Chief, Policy and Program Management Branch, Procurement Management Division, Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 0741, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0741, Telephone: (202) 692-0247.
This action is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 since it involves only internal Agency management. This action is not published for prior notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act since it involves only internal Agency management and publication for comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance programs affected by this action are 10.406—Farm Operating Loans and 10.407—Farm Ownership Loans.
Programs with Catalog Federal Domestic Assistance numbers 10.406 and 10.407 are not subject to the provisions of E.O. 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
This final rule has been reviewed under E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform. When published: (1) Unless otherwise specifically provided, all State and local laws that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given this rule except as specifically prescribed in the rule; and (3) administrative proceedings of the National Appeals Division (7 CFR part 11) must be exhausted before litigation against the Department is instituted.
There are no new reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this rule.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law (Pub. L.) 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, Federal agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, or $100 million or more in any 1 year. When such statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires a Federal agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, “Environmental Program.” It is the determination of RHS that the proposed action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on 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. Nor does this rule impose a substantial direct compliance cost on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.
Government acquired property, Government property management.
5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 42 U.S.C. 1480.
(c) * * *
(3)
If a management contract calls for specification writing services, a clause must be inserted in the contract prohibiting the preparer or his/her associates from doing the repair work.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).
Final rule; correction.
This correction amends a footnote reference in the text of 12 CFR part 225, Appendix A.
Effective on April 21, 2005.
John F. Connolly, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst (202-452-3621 or
III. * * *
D. * * *
1. * * *
b. * * * 55 * * *
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Final rule; correction.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation published in the
Effective on July 1, 2005.
Rodney D. Ray, Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 898-3556 or
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation published in the
Under the International Lending Supervision Act of 1983 (Title IX, Pub. L. 98-181, 97 Stat. 1153) (12 U.S.C. 3901
For the purposes of this subpart:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) The borrower is unable to service the existing loan according to its terms and is a resident of a foreign country in which there is a generalized inability of public and private sector obligors to meet their external debt obligations on a timely basis because of a lack of, or restraints on the availability of, needed foreign exchange in the country; and
(2) Either:
(i) The terms of the existing loan are amended to reduce stated interest or extend the schedule of payments; or
(ii) A new loan is made to, or for the benefit of, the borrower, enabling the borrower to service or refinance the existing debt.
(g)
(a)
(b)
(i) Which international assets subject to transfer risk warrant establishment of an ATRR;
(ii) The amount of the ATRR for the specified assets; and
(iii) Whether an ATRR established for specified assets may be reduced.
(2)
(A) Whether the quality of a banking institution's assets has been impaired by a protracted inability of public or private obligors in a foreign country to make payments on their external indebtedness as indicated by such factors, among others, as whether:
(
(
(
(B) Whether no definite prospects exist for the orderly restoration of debt service.
(ii)
(
(
(
(
(B) The initial year's provision for the ATRR shall be ten percent of the principal amount of each specified international asset, or such greater or lesser percentage determined by the federal banking agencies. Additional provision, if any, for the ATRR in subsequent years shall be fifteen percent of the principal amount of each specified international asset, or such greater or lesser percentage determined by the federal banking agencies.
(3)
(i) Of the amount of the ATRR to be established by the institution for specified international assets; and
(ii) That an ATRR established for specified assets may be reduced.
(c)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(2) Pursuant to section 907(b) of ILSA, a banking institution shall submit to the FDIC information regarding concentrations in its holdings of international assets that are material in relation to total assets and to capital of the institution, such information to be made publicly available by the FDIC on request.
(b)
(c)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for Garmin International Inc., 1200 E. 151st St., Olathe, KS 66062, for a Supplemental Type Certificate on the Cessna Model 182T/T182T airplanes. These airplanes, as modified by Garmin, will have a novel or unusual design feature(s) associated with the installation of a Garmin GFC-700 digital autopilot system. These special conditions address the protection of these systems from the effects of high intensity radiated field (HIRF) environments. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is April 8, 2005. Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2005.
Comments on these special conditions may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket CE222, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or delivered in duplicate to the Regional Counsel at the above address. Comments must be marked: CE222. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Mr. Wes Ryan, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-114, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri, 816-329-4127, fax 816-329-4090.
The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.
Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or special condition number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to CE222.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
On October 27, 2004, Garmin International Inc. applied for a Supplemental Type Certificate for the Cessna Model 182T and Model T182T to install a Garmin GFC-700 digital autopilot. The Cessna Model 182T and T182T are single engine, high wing airplanes capable of carrying four passengers. The proposed modification incorporates a novel or unusual design feature, such as a digital electronic autopilot system that may be vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, Sec. 21.101, Garmin International, Inc. must show that the Cessna 182T and T182T aircraft meet the following original certification basis provisions or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change to the Cessna 182T and T182T:
Part 3 of the Civil Air Regulations dated November 1, 1949, as amended by 3-1 through 3-12 and Paragraph 3.112, as amended October 1, 1959, for the Model 182E and on. In addition, effective S/N 18266591 through 18268586, 14 CFR, part 23, § 23.1559, effective March 1, 1978; 14 CFR part 36, dated December 1, 1969, plus Amendments 36-1 through 36-6 for Model 182Q and on. In addition, effective S/N 18268435 through 18268486, 14 CFR, part 23, § 23.1545(a), Amendment 23-23, dated December 1, 1978; exemptions, if any, and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action.
Part 3 of the Civil Air Regulations dated November 1, 1949, as amended by 3-1 through 3-12 and Paragraph 3.112 as amended October 1, 1959; and 14 CFR, part 23, §§ 23.901, 23.909, 23.1041, 23.1043, 23.1143, and 23.1305, dated February 1, 1965, as amended February 14, 1975; 14 CFR, part 23, § 23.1559, effective March 1, 1978; 14 CFR, part 36, dated December 1, 1969; plus Amendments 36-1 through 36-10. In addition, effective S/N 18268435 through 18268541, 14 CFR, part 23, § 23.1545(a); Amendment 23-23, dated December 1, 1978; exemptions, if any, and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action.
The following certification requirements were applied to the GFC-700 digital autopilot, so they also become part of the certification basis of the Cessna 182T and T182T when modified with the GFC-700 autopilot system: § 23.1301, Amendment 20; § 23.1309, Amendment 49; § 23.1311, Amendment 49; § 23.1321, Amendment 49, § 23.1322, Amendment 43; § 23.1327, Amendment 20; § 23.1329, Amendment 49; § 23.1335, Amendment 20; § 23.1351, Amendment 49; Amendment 20; § 23.1353, Amendment 49; Amendment 20; § 23.1357, Amendment 43; Amendment 20; § 23.1359, Amendment 49; Amendment 20; § 23.1365, Amendment 49; and § 23.1431, Amendment 49; exemptions, if any, and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38, and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101(b)(2).
Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model already included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101.
Garmin International, Inc. plans to incorporate certain novel and unusual design features into the Cessna 182T and T182T airplanes for which the airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for protection from the effects of HIRF. These features include a digital autopilot that may be susceptible to the HIRF environment, not envisaged by the existing regulations for this type of airplane.
Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in aircraft designs of advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform functions required for continued safe flight and landing. Due to the use of sensitive solid-state advanced components in analog and digital electronics circuits, these advanced systems are readily responsive to the transient effects of induced electrical current and voltage caused by HIRF. The HIRF can degrade electronic systems performance by damaging components or upsetting system functions.
Furthermore, the HIRF environment has undergone a transformation that was not foreseen when the current requirements were developed. Higher energy levels are radiated from transmitters that are used for radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has increased significantly. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined.
The combined effect of the technological advances in airplane design and the changing environment has resulted in an increased level of vulnerability of electrical and electronic systems required for the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Effective measures against the effects of exposure to HIRF must be provided by the design and installation of these systems. The accepted maximum energy levels in which civilian airplane system installations must be capable of operating safely are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency emitters. These special conditions require that the airplane be evaluated under these energy levels for the protection of the electronic system and its associated wiring harness. These external threat levels, which are lower than previous required values, are believed to represent the worst case to which an airplane would be exposed in the operating environment.
These special conditions require qualification of systems that perform critical functions, as installed in aircraft, to the defined HIRF environment in paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed value using laboratory tests, in paragraph 2, as follows:
(1) The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF environment defined as follows:
A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant, for approval by the FAA, to identify either electrical or electronic systems that
Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests, analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or any combination of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be exposed to the fields concurrently.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Cessna 182T and T182T airplanes with the Garmin GFC-700 digital autopilot. Should Garmin International Inc. apply later for a Supplemental Type Certificate on another model on the same type certification data sheet to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Cessna 182T and T182T airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.
1. Protection of Electrical and Electronic Systems from High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF). Each system that performs critical functions must be designed and installed to ensure that the operations, and operational capabilities of these systems to perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the airplane is exposed to high intensity radiated electromagnetic fields external to the airplane.
2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies: Critical Functions: Functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the airplane.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pilatus Aircraft Limited (Pilatus) Models B4-PC11, B4-PC11A, and B4-PC11AF sailplanes. This AD requires you to repetitively inspect the control-column support for cracks and, if any cracks are found, replace the control-column support with a new support. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Switzerland. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the control-column support, which could result in failure of the support. This failure could lead to loss of the primary flight control system.
This AD becomes effective on June 2, 2005.
As of June 2, 2005, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation.
To get the service information identified in this AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison Manager, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 41 619 6208; facsimile: +41 41 619 7311; email:
To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001 or on the Internet at
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
What events have caused this AD? The Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Switzerland, recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all Pilatus Aircraft Limited (Pilatus) Models B4-PC11, B4-PC11A, and B4-PC11AF sailplanes. The FOCA reports nine occurrences of cracks in the support of the control-column (part number (P/N) 112.35.11.072).
What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? Cracks in the control-column support could result in failure and lead to loss of the primary flight control system.
Has FAA taken any action to this point? We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all Pilatus Aircraft Limited (Pilatus) Models B4-PC11, B4-PC11A, and B4-PC11AF sailplanes. This proposal was published in the
Was the public invited to comment? We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the determination of the cost to the public.
What is FAA's final determination on this issue? We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:
How does the revision to 14 CFR part 39 affect this AD? On July 10, 2002, the FAA published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's AD system. This regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. This material previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions.
How many sailplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 32 sailplanes in the U.S. registry.
What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected sailplanes? We estimate the following costs to do the inspection of the control-column support:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of this inspection. We have no way of determining the number of sailplanes that may need this replacement of the control-column support:
What authority does FAA have for issuing this rulemaking action? Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.
Will this AD impact various entities? We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Will this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective on June 2, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD affects Models B4-PC11, B4-PC11A, and B4-PC11AF sailplanes, all serial numbers, that are certificated in any category.
(d) This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Switzerland. The actions specified in this AD are intended to detect and correct cracks in the control-column support, which could result in failure of the support. This failure could lead to loss of the primary flight control system.
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following:
(f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to the Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
(g) No. Special flight permits are not allowed for this AD.
(h) Swiss AD Number HB 2004-491, dated December 23, 2004, also addresses the subject of this AD.
(i) You must do the actions required by this AD following the instructions in Pilatus B4-PC 11 Aircraft Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 1005, Revision No. 2, dated April 22, 2004. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To get a copy of this service information, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Liaison Manager, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 41 619 6208; facsimile: +41 41 619 7311; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Glaser-Dirks Flugzeugbau GmbH (DG Flugzeugbau) Model DG-800B
This AD becomes effective on June 6, 2005.
As of June 6, 2005, the Director of the
You may get the service information identified in this AD from DG Flugzeugbau, Postbox 41 20, D-76625 Bruchsal, Federal Republic of Germany; telephone: 011-49 7257-890; facsimile: 011-49 7257-8922.
You may view the AD docket at FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-CE-65-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Office hours are 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4130; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
What events have caused this AD? The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on DG Flugzeugbau Model DG-800B sailplanes. The LBA reports both electrical circuits of the fuel pump and the coolant pump (on a SOLO 2625 engine or a Mid-West AE 50T engine) are protected by a non-resettable digital engine indicator (DEI) circuit breaker. The pumps will stop running if the non-resettable circuit breaker activates.
What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? If a non-resettable circuit breaker trips, this could result in power loss with the inability to restart the fuel pump during a critical phase of flight (for example, takeoff under own power).
Has FAA taken any action to this point? We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all Glaser-Dirks Flugzeugbau GmbH (DG Flugzeugbau) Model DG-800B sailplanes equipped with a SOLO 2625 engine or a Mid-West AE 50T engine. This proposal was published in the
As a result of our further analysis of the service information and determining that important actions were omitted in the NPRM and should be incorporated, we issued a supplemental proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all Glaser-Dirks Flugzeugbau GmbH (DG Flugzeugbau) Model DG-800B sailplanes equipped with a SOLO 2625 engine or a Mid-West AE 50T engine sailplanes. This proposal was published in the
Was the public invited to comment? We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the determination of the cost to the public.
What is FAA's final determination on this issue? We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:
How does the revision to 14 CFR part 39 affect this AD? On July 10, 2002, the FAA published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's AD system. This regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. This material previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions.
How many sailplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 25 sailplanes in the U.S. registry.
What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected sailplanes? We estimate the following costs to do the modification:
What authority does FAA have for issuing this rulemaking action? Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.
Will this AD impact various entities? We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Will this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective on June 6, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD affects all Model DG-800B sailplanes, all serial numbers, that are:
(1) Certificated in any category; and
(2) Equipped with a SOLO 2625 engine or a Mid-West AE 50T engine.
(d) This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Germany. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent electrical failure of the fuel and coolant pumps if a non-resettable circuit breaker trips. This could result in power loss with the inability to restart the fuel pump during a critical phase of flight (for example, takeoff under own power).
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following:
(f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to the Manager, Standards Office, FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4130; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
(g) You must do the actions required by this AD following the instructions in DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 873/26, dated November 12, 2001, and DG Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 873/27, dated November 29, 2001. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may get a copy from DG Flugzeugbau, Postbox 41 20, D-76625 Bruchsal, Federal Republic of Germany; telephone: 011-49 7257-890; facsimile: 011-49 7257-8922. You may review copies at FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
(h) German AD Number 2002-083, dated April 4, 2002, also addresses the subject of this AD.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain McDonnell Douglas series airplanes. That AD currently requires repetitive inspections of the electrical connectors of the explosive cartridge wiring of the engine fire extinguisher containers to verify if the identification number labels are installed and legible; repetitive electrical tests of all explosive cartridge wiring of the engine fire extinguisher containers to verify proper installation and function; and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD requires an inspection of the emergency shut off wire assembly; installation of lanyards on the electrical connectors for the engine fire extinguishing agent containers and for the auxiliary power unit fire extinguishing agent containers if applicable; and related investigative/corrective actions, as applicable. This AD is prompted by reports of cross-wired electrical connectors of the engine fire extinguishing agent containers. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cross-wired electrical connectors of the fire extinguishing system, which could release fire extinguishing agent into the incorrect engine nacelle in the event of an engine fire.
This AD becomes effective May 26, 2005.
The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 26, 2005.
On December 20, 2001 (66 FR 63157, December 5, 2001), the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in the AD.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).
Docket: The AD docket contains the proposed AD, comments, and any final disposition. You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at
William S. Bond, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5253; fax (562) 627-5210.
The FAA proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) with an AD to supersede AD 2001-25-01, amendment 39-12553 (66 FR 63157, December 5, 2001). The existing AD applies to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-33 and -43 airplanes; Model DC-8F-54 and DC-8F-55 airplanes; and Model DC-8-50, -60, -60F, -70, and -70F series airplanes. The proposed AD was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been submitted on the proposed AD or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
There are about 233 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, using an average labor rate of $65 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective May 26, 2005.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 2001-25-01, amendment 39-12553 (66 FR 63157, December 5, 2001).
(c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-33, DC-8-43, DC-8-51, DC-8-52, DC-8-53, DC-8F-54, DC-8-55, DC-8F-55, DC-8-61, DC-8-61F, DC-8-62, DC-8-62F, DC-8-63, DC-8-63F, DC-8-71, DC-8-71F, DC-8-72, DC-8-72F, DC-8-73, and DC-8-73F airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin DC8-26-047, Revision 1, dated September 4, 2003.
(d) This AD was prompted by reports of cross-wired electrical connectors of the engine fire extinguishing agent containers. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cross-wired electrical connectors of the fire extinguishing system, which could release fire extinguishing agent into the incorrect engine nacelle in the event of an engine fire.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Within 30 days after December 20, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2001-25-01, amendment 39-12553), do the action(s) specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-26A046, dated November 7, 2001.
(1) Do an inspection of the electrical connectors of the explosive cartridge wiring of the engine fire extinguisher containers to verify if the identification number labels are installed and legible. If any identification number label is missing or is not legible, before further flight, install a label or replace the label with a new label, as applicable. Repeat the inspection after each maintenance action for the Firex Discharge system.
(2) Do an electrical test of all explosive cartridge wiring of the engine fire extinguisher containers to verify proper installation and function, using the cockpit warning lamps. If the lamp fails to illuminate, before further flight, troubleshoot and repair the wiring of the Firex Discharge system. Repeat the test after each maintenance action for the Firex Discharge system.
Inspections, tests, and corrective actions, if necessary, done per Boeing BOECOM M-7200-01-02632, dated November 5, 2001, before December 20, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2001-25-01, amendment 39-12553), are considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD.
(g) Within 18 months of the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection of the emergency shut off wire assembly to determine if the length of wire harness AAG at P1-510 can be connected to R5-74 and to determine if the length of wire harness ABG at P1-511 can be connected to R5-73; and, before further flight, do the corrective action, as applicable; by accomplishing all of the actions specified in paragraph B.1.b. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin DC8-26-047, Revision 1, dated September 4, 2003.
For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is defined as: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
(h) Within 18 months of the effective date of this AD, install lanyards on the electrical connectors for the engine fire extinguishing agent containers in the left and right wing front spar; and, before further flight, do all the related investigative/corrective actions, as applicable; by accomplishing all of the actions specified in paragraph B.1.c. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin DC8-26-047, Revision 1, dated September 4, 2003.
(i) For airplanes equipped with an auxiliary power unit (APU) installation in the forward cargo compartment at station Y=640.000: Within 18 months of the effective date of this AD, install lanyards on the electrical connectors for the APU fire extinguishing agent containers; and, before further flight, do all the related investigative/corrective actions, as applicable; by accomplishing all of the actions specified in paragraph B.2. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin DC8-26-047, Revision 1, dated September 4, 2003.
(j) Accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections and electrical tests required by paragraph (f) of this AD.
(k) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin DC8-26-047, dated April 2, 2003, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements in paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD.
(l) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(m) You must use Boeing Service Bulletin DC8-26-047, Revision 1, dated September 4, 2003; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-26A046, dated November 7, 2001; as applicable; to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The incorporation by reference of Boeing Service Bulletin DC8-26-047, Revision 1, dated September 4, 2003, is approved by the Director of the Federal Register, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) The incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-26A046, dated November 7, 2001, was approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 20, 2001 (66 FR 63157, December 5, 2001).
(3) To get copies of the service information, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC. To review copies of the service information, go to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
This AD becomes effective on June 6, 2005.
As of June 6, 2005, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation.
To get the service information identified in this AD, contact CENTRAIR, Aerodome B.P.N. 44, 36300 Le Blanc, France; telephone: 02.54.37.07.96; facsimile: 02.54.37.48.64.
To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001 or on the Internet at
Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4130; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective on June 6, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD affects Models 101, 101A, 101AP, and 101P gliders, serial numbers 101xx001 through 101xx285 and 101D0501 through 101D0530, certificated in any category.
(d) This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for France. We are issuing this AD to replace the non-strengthened rudder pedals, and prevent failure of the rudder controls. This failure could lead to loss of directional control of the glider.
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following:
(f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to the Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4130; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
(g) French AD 2003-095(A), dated March 5, 2003, also addresses the subject of this AD.
(h) You must do the actions required by this AD following the instructions in Société Nouvelle Centrair Service Bulletin No. 101-24, dated March 5, 2003 (this is the date of French AD 2003-095(a) that transmitted the service bulletin). The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To get a copy of this service information, contact CENTRAIR, Aerodome B.P.N. 44, 36300 Le Blanc, France; telephone: 02.54.37.07.96; facsimile: 02.54.37.48.64. To review copies of this service information, go to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, go to:
Securities and Exchange Commission
Final rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) is amending Regulation S-X to amend the date for compliance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004),
Robert E. Burns, Chief Counsel, 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 historically has recognized pronouncements of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) as authoritative in the absence of any contrary determination by the Commission.
In December 2004, the FASB published a revision to its standard on the accounting for stock-based compensation. The new publication is Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004),
• For public entities that do not file as small business issuers,
• For public entities that file as small business issuers, as of the beginning of the first interim or annual reporting period that begins after December 15, 2005.
Under the FASB's effective dates, calendar year-end registrants that are not small business issuers, for example, would be permitted to file interim financial statements for the first and second quarters of 2005 that comply with the pre-existing accounting standard and would be required to file interim financial statements for the third quarter that comply with the provisions in Statement No. 123R.
Based on feedback from public companies, industry groups, and registered public accounting firms, we are concerned that initial implementation of Statement No. 123R in a period other than the first quarter of a fiscal year may make compliance more complicated for registrants and potentially could make comparisons more difficult for investors. In addition, phasing in Statement No. 123R at the beginning of a registrant's fiscal year would relieve registrants from having to change their accounting systems in the middle of the fiscal year and allow them to implement in a more orderly fashion the software programs that may facilitate compliance with the standard. Implementing the standard at the beginning of the fiscal year also would allow auditors to conduct more consistent audit, review and attest procedures in this area.
For example, under the Commission's amendment, a domestic registrant
We believe that the rule being adopted will lower compliance costs for companies. Any burden that may be imposed on investors by the amendment will be reduced because, among other things: (1) The information required by Statement No. 123R will be provided within months of the effective date established by the FASB; (2) implementing these requirements at the beginning of a fiscal year should allow for easier comparison of quarterly data prepared under consistent standards; and (3) related information currently is disclosed in the footnotes to the financial statements.
Sections 3(f) and 23(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Public companies and their auditors may already be in the process of attempting to comply with Statement 123R. Changing companies' financial and tax systems in the middle of the
The statutory basis for this amendment to Regulation S-X includes sections 3(a) and 108 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Schedule A and sections 7, 8, 10 and 19 of the Securities Act of 1933, sections 3, 10A, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 23 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, sections 5, 10, 14 and 20 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and sections 8, 30, 31, 32 and 38 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
Accountants, Accounting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77aa(25), 77aa(26), 78c, 78j-1, 78
(a) * * *
(3)(i) Notwithstanding the effective dates set forth in Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004),
(A) The first interim or annual reporting period of the registrant's first fiscal year beginning on or after June 15, 2005, provided the registrant does not file as a small business issuer; and
(B) The first interim or annual reporting period of the registrant's first fiscal year beginning on or after December 15, 2005, provided the registrant files as a small business issuer.
(ii) For periods prior to the effective dates set forth in this paragraph, both Statement No. 123R and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123,
15 U.S.C. 77e, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77k, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77aa(25), 77aa(26), 77ddd, 77eee, 77ggg, 77hhh, 77jjj, 77nnn, 77sss, 78
Notes:
6. Rule 4-01(a)(3) of Regulation S-X, 17 CFR 210.4-01(a)(3), shall apply to the preparation of financial statements of small business issuers.
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final Rule: Notice of Deletion of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX announces the deletion of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company Superfund Site in Salinas, Monterey County, California from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA and the State of California, through the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), have determined that the remedial action for the site has been successfully executed.
Patricia Bowlin, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA Region IX (SFD-7-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 972-3177 or 1-800-231-3075.
The site to be deleted from the NPL is the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company Superfund Site, Salinas, Monterey County, California. A Notice of Intent to Delete
EPA identifies the sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment, and it maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. Any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such action. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that Fund-financed actions may be taken at sites deleted from the NPL. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Interim final rule; request for comments.
The Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) contain detailed testing procedures for generating consumer information about the treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance of passenger car tires. To ensure the uniformity of treadwear grades, the grading procedures specify a 400-mile test course located near San Angelo, Texas. Two or four-vehicle convoys equipped with candidate tires travel along this course to evaluate the tire treadwear performance.
Because of flooding now affecting several water crossings along a small portion of the test course, NHTSA is issuing this interim final rule to revise the specified treadwear test course route. This change will not compromise the reliability of the treadwear grades, and will not impose or relax any substantive requirements or burdens on manufacturers.
This interim final rule becomes effective April 21, 2005.
Comments must be received by NHTSA not later than June 20, 2005, and should refer to this docket and the notice number of this document.
You may submit comments (identified by the DOT DMS Docket Number above) by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For non-legal issues, you may call George Gillespie, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. Telephone: (202) 366-5299. Fax: (202) 366-1024.
For legal issues, you may call George Feygin, Office of the Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820.
UTQGS require motor vehicle and tire manufacturers and tire brand name owners to provide information indicating the relative performance of passenger car tires in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. This information aids consumers in making informed choices in the purchase of replacement passenger car tires.
The treadwear grades inform consumers about the amount of expected tread life for passenger car tires. Treadwear grades are expressed, in multiples of 20, as a percentage of a nominal treadwear value of 100.
Appendix A of 49 CFR 575.104 specifies the treadwear test course and driving procedures for convoys evaluating candidate tire treadwear performance. The test course consists of three loops totaling 400 miles in the geographical vicinity of Goodfellow Air Force Base near San Angelo, Texas. The first loop (“Southern Loop”) runs south 143 miles through the cities of Eldorado, Sonora, and Juno, Tex. to the Camp Hudson Historical Marker, and returns by the same route. The second loop (“Eastern Loop”) runs east over Farm and Ranch Roads and returns to its starting point. The third loop (“Northwestern Loop”) runs northwest to Water Valley, northeast toward Robert Lee and returns via Texas 208 to the vicinity of Goodfellow AFB.
As a result of recent overflow of the Devils River, the treadwear testing convoys cannot cross at least one of the several water crossings along Texas 163 and therefore, cannot safely use a small portion of the Southern Loop.
Based on agency data, Texas 163 of the Southern Loop represents the “fastest” tire wear area of the entire course. That is, the affected portion of the road produces the most adverse affects on the candidate tires, compared to other portions of the treadwear test course. Because of this characteristic of the affected area, substituting another road could substantively affect the treadwear grades of candidate tires.
The agency is revising the treadwear test course. Because the affected portion of the treadwear test course produces the most adverse treadwear conditions (compared to other portions of the road), the agency is not substituting a different road for the flooded portion of the test course. Instead, we will specify that as an alternative to following the current route, the test convoys will have the option of driving through the unaffected portions of Texas 163 several times, by making a series of U-turns. This maneuver will make up the distance that is usually traveled on Texas 163.
Specifically, instead of traveling south down to Camp Hudson Historical Marker, each test convoy will reverse course at Frank's Crossing on Texas 163 and proceed north back to Highway 189 junction. At the Highway 189 junction, the test convoy will reverse course and proceed back to Frank's Crossing; reverse course again and proceed to the completion of the loop.
The distance between the Highway 189 junction and Frank's Crossing on Texas 163, is approximately one half of the distance between the Highway 189 junction and Cam Hudson Historical Marker. Thus, traveling between Highway 189 junction and Frank's Crossing twice, produces the approximate distance traveled on Texas 163, if the convoys proceeded all the way to Cam Hudson Historical Marker. This change ensures that the treadwear test course change will not substantively affect wear characteristics of the Southern Loop, and consequently, will not affect treadwear grades.
Because flooding is presently affecting the treadwear test course, NHTSA finds good cause to issue this interim final rule to revise the treadwear test course route. Because there is an immediate need to continue testing, we find good cause that it should take effect immediately. The agency has concluded that this course change will not compromise the reliability of the treadwear grades, and will not impose or relax any substantive requirements or burdens on manufacturers.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This interim final rule will not impose or relax any substantive requirements or burdens on manufacturers. Instead, it revises a small portion of the treadwear test course. The agency believes that this impact is so minimal as to not warrant the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.
We have not conducted an evaluation of the impacts of this interim final rule under the National Environmental Policy Act. This rulemaking does not impose any change that would have any environmental impacts. Accordingly, no environmental assessment is required.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have considered the impacts of this rulemaking action will have on small entities (5 U.S.C. 601
The following is our statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The interim final rule affects manufacturers of motor vehicles and tires. Specifically, the agency is revising a small portion of the treadwear test course. This change will have no economic impact on any entities affected by this rulemaking and will not result in any additional financial expenditures. Accordingly, we have not prepared a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to
This interim final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in E.O. 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. This action will not result in additional expenditures of more than $100 million by state, local or tribal governments or by any members of the private sector. Therefore, the agency has not prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
There are no information collection requirements in this rule.
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
This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state or political subdivision may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard only if the standard is identical to the Federal standard. However, the United States Government, a state, or political subdivision of a state, may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings are not required before parties file suit in court.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and does not concern an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under
(1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (
(2) On that page, click on “Simple Search.”
(3) On the next page (
(4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded comments are not word searchable.
Consumer protection, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
49 U.S.C. 32302, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166, and 30168, and Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
(A) Proceed south to Camp Hudson Historical Marker and onto the paved shoulder (7). Reverse route to junction of Loop Road 306 and FM 388 (2); or
(B) Proceed south to junction with Frank's Crossing. Reverse route at Frank's Crossing and proceed north on Texas 163 to junction with Highway 189; Reverse route at junction with Highway 189; proceed south on Texas 163 to junction with Frank's Crossing; reverse route at Frank's Crossing and proceed north to junction of Loop Road 306 and FM 388 (2).
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of referendum.
This notice announces that a referendum will be conducted by mail during the period May 9-13, 2005, for producers of all kinds of tobacco who sold their tobacco at auction on designated markets in 2004/05. The referendum is being conducted to determine if the designation of all existing tobacco auction markets should be terminated, thus eliminating the requirement for mandatory, federal inspection and grading for the 2005 and succeeding crop years.
The referendum will be held May 9-13, 2005.
William O. Coats, Acting Deputy Administrator, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), Tobacco Programs, Room 502 Cotton Annex Building, Stop 0280, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0280, (202) 205-0567.
The Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act of 2004 eliminated the price support and quota system for U.S. produced tobacco. Although mandatory grading is eliminated on types of tobacco eligible for price support, mandatory federal grading of any tobacco sold at auction on a designated market continues under the Tobacco Inspection Act. Currently, there are 70 designated auction markets that sell flue-cured, burley, dark fire-cured, and dark air-cured types of tobacco. The user fee for the inspection of tobacco at auction markets is $.90 per hundred pounds.
At a February 1, 2005, meeting of the National Advisory Committee for Tobacco Inspection Services, a request was made to the USDA to conduct a referendum to determine if tobacco producers favored the termination of the designation of all current auction markets, thereby eliminating the requirement for mandatory, federal inspection and grading if they sell their crop at auction. The Committee, which is comprised of members from Farm Bureaus and Granges representing all tobacco producing states, strongly advised that mandatory federal grading, without the benefit of price support, would reduce the monetary returns to producers and create a competitive disadvantage for operators of auction warehouses.
Because the recently enacted legislation eliminates all mandatory inspection except for tobacco sold at auction on designated markets, the USDA determined that a referendum would be an appropriate means of deciding whether to discontinue mandatory grading on all designated auction markets. It is hereby determined that the referendum will be held by mail during the period May 9-13, 2005. Only producers who sold tobacco at auction on a designated market in 2004 are eligible to vote. The purpose of the referendum is to determine whether producers of Flue-Cured tobacco, Types 11-14, Burley tobacco, Type 31, Virginia Fire-Cured tobacco, Type 21, Kentucky and Tennessee Fire-Cured tobacco, Types 22-23, and Dark Air-Cured tobacco, Types 35-37, are in favor of or opposed to terminating the designation of all tobacco auction markets and thereby eliminating mandatory, federal grading of their crop for the 2005 and succeeding crop years. Accordingly, if a majority of the tobacco producers who vote in the referendum favor termination of auction market designations, the designation of all 70 auction markets will be terminated.
The referendum will be held in accordance with the provisions for referenda of the Tobacco Inspection Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 511d), and the regulations for such referendum set forth in 7 CFR 29.74.
7 U.S.C. 511
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A320 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require installing insulator and cable ties to the electrical cables of the S routes at the gaps in the raceway in the wing trailing edge and the wing tip and wing root areas. This proposed AD is prompted by the results of fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to prevent injection of high voltage current into the low voltage wiring that passes through the fuel tanks, which could result in a possible fuel tank explosion.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 23, 2005.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
• Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590.
• By fax: (202) 493-2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.
You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at
Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2141; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at
The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in recent fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (67 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (
The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks.
We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A320 series airplanes. The DGAC advises that review of electrical installation on an in-service airplane has shown that insulation was not installed on the S cable routes of the wing trailing edge at all the gaps between raceways. Lack of insulation could lead to the injection of high voltage current from the M cable routes into the low voltage wiring S cable routes that pass through the fuel tanks. This condition, if not corrected, could result in a possible fuel tank explosion.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-24-1062, Revision 05, dated June 27, 2002. The service bulletin describes procedures for installing insulator and cable ties to the electrical cables of the S routes at the gaps in the raceway of the wing trailing edge and the wing tip and wing root areas. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DGAC mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2004-173, dated October 27, 2004, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.
This airplane model is manufactured in France and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed
Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Difference Between the Proposed AD and French Airworthiness Directive.”
The applicability of French airworthiness directive F-2004-173, dated October 27, 2004, excludes airplanes that have accomplished Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-1062, Revision 05, dated June 27, 2002, in service. However, we have not excluded those airplanes in the applicability of this proposed AD; rather, this proposed AD includes a requirement to accomplish the actions specified in that service bulletin. This requirement would ensure that the actions specified in the service bulletin and required by this proposed AD are accomplished on all affected airplanes. Operators must continue to operate the airplane in the configuration required by this proposed AD unless an alternative method of compliance is approved. This difference has been coordinated with the DGAC.
This proposed AD would affect about 54 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 35 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $122,850, or $2,275 per airplane.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration must receive comments on this AD action by May 23, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A320 series airplanes, certificated in any category, except those modified in production by Airbus Modification 22626.
(d) This AD was prompted by the results of fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent injection of high voltage current into the low voltage wiring that passes through the fuel tanks, which could result in a possible fuel tank explosion.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, install insulator and cable ties to the electrical cables of the S routes at the gaps in the raceway in the wing trailing edge and the wing tip and wing root areas, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-24-1062, Revision 05, dated June 27, 2002.
(g) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(h) French airworthiness directive F-2004-173, dated October 27, 2004, also addresses the subject of this AD.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule with request for comments.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to add policy pertaining to package marking with passive radio frequency identification (RFID) tags. The proposed changes require contractors to affix passive RFID tags at the case and palletized unit load levels when shipping packaged operational rations, clothing, individual equipment, tools,
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before June 20, 2005, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2004-D011, using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Defense Acquisition Regulations Web site:
• E-mail:
• Fax: (703) 602-0350.
• Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Michele Peterson, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402.
All comments received will be posted to
Ms. Michele Peterson, (703) 602-0311.
This proposed rule contains requirements for contractors to affix passive RFID tags at the case and palletized unit load levels. The proposed rule requires that specified commodities delivered to specified DoD locations be tagged with a readable passive RFID tag in accordance with the applicable implementation plan at
DoD is particularly interested in receiving comments on the following aspects of the rule:
1. The definitions of the terms “case” and “palletized unit load” and their use throughout the rule.
2. The impact of providing electronic advance shipment notice information.
3. Whether small business considerations have been fully addressed in the regulatory flexibility analysis.
4. Scientific, industry, or manufacturing based evidence from changes or additions to packaging or package systems in order to assess the possible impact, if any, on the environment and materials recycling, including corrugated, metal, and plastic shipping containers and pallets.
5. What are the options for minimizing and mitigating the impacts on the materials recycling process from the use of RFID tags on shipping containers and pallets?
This rule was subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
This proposed rule may have an impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
This proposed rule adds requirements for DoD contractors supplying materiel to the Department to affix passive RFID tags at the case and palletized unit load levels for specified commodities delivered to specified DoD locations. To create an automated and sophisticated end-to-end supply chain, DoD is dependent upon initiating the technology at the point of origin, the DoD commercial suppliers. Without the assistance of the DoD supplier base to begin populating the DoD supply chain with passive RFID tags, a fully integrated, highly visible, automated end-to-end supply chain is untenable. DoD contractors are presently required to print and affix military shipping labels to every package delivered to DoD. Options to comply with the requirements of the proposed rule can be as simple as replacing existing military shipping label printers with RFID-enabled printers. This will allow DoD contractors to print military shipping labels with embedded RFID tags. The regulatory flexibility analysis also details other options and approximate costs to comply. The proposed rule will also require contractors to provide an electronic advance shipment notice in accordance with the procedures at
This proposed rule contains a new information collection requirement. DoD has submitted the following proposal to OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DoD, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Mr. Oleinick at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, with a copy to the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Michele Peterson, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Comments can be received from 30 to 60 days after the date of this notice, but comments to OMB will be most useful if received by OMB within 30 days after the date of this notice.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Michele Peterson, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062.
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 211, 212, and 252 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 211, 212, and 252 continues to read as follows:
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
2. Sections 211.275 through 211.275-3 are added to read as follows:
Radio frequency identification (RFID), in the form of a passive RFID tag, is required for individual cases and palletized unit loads that—
(a) Contain items in any of the following classes of supply, as defined in DoD 4140.1-R, DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Regulation, AP1.1.11, except that bulk commodities are excluded from this requirement:
(1) Subclass of Class I—Packaged operational rations.
(2) Class II—Clothing, individual equipment, tentage, organizational tool kits, hand tools, and administrative and housekeeping supplies and equipment.
(3) Class VI—Personal demand items (non-military sales items).
(4) Class IX—Repair parts and components including kits, assemblies and subassemblies, reparable and consumable items required for maintenance support of all equipment, excluding medical-peculiar repair parts; and
(b) Will be delivered to one of the following locations:
(1) Defense Distribution Depot, Susquehanna, PA.
(2) Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, CA.
Use the clause at 252.211-7XXX, Radio Frequency Identification, in solicitations for contracts that will require delivery of items meeting the criteria at 211.275-2.
3. Section 212.301 is amended by adding paragraph (f)(vii) to read as follows:
(f) * * *
(vii) Use the clause at 252.211-7XXX, Radio Frequency Identification, as prescribed in 211.275-3.
4. Section 252.211-7XXX is added to read as follows:
As prescribed in 211.275-3, use the following clause:
(a)
(1) Sand.
(2) Gravel.
(3) Bulk liquids (water, chemicals, or petroleum products).
(4) Ready-mix concrete or similar construction materials.
(5) Coal or combustibles such as firewood.
(6) Agricultural products such as seeds, grains, or animal feed.
(1) EPC Class 0 passive RFID tags that meet the EPCglobal Class 0 specification;
(2) EPC Class 1 passive RFID tags that meet the EPCglobal Class 1 specification; and
(3) EPC UHF Generation 2 passive RFID tags that meet the EPCglobal UHF Generation 2 specification.
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this clause, the Contractor shall affix passive RFID tags, at the case and palletized unit load packaging levels, for shipments of items that—
(i) Are in any of the following classes of supply, as defined in DoD 4140.1-R, DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Regulation, AP1.1.11:
(A) Subclass of Class I—Packaged operational rations.
(B) Class II—Clothing, individual equipment, tentage, organizational tool kits, hand tools, and administrative and housekeeping supplies and equipment.
(C) Class VI—Personal demand items (non-military sales items).
(D) Class IX—Repair parts and components including kits, assemblies and subassemblies, reparable and consumable items required for maintenance support of all equipment, excluding medical-peculiar repair parts; and
(ii) Are being shipped to—
(A) Defense Distribution Depot, Susquehanna, PA; or
(B) Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin, CA.
(2) Bulk commodities are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this clause.
(c) The Contractor shall ensure that—
(1) The data encoded on each passive RFID tag are unique (
(2) Each passive tag is readable at the time of shipment in accordance with MIL-STD-129P (Section 4.9.1.1) readability performance requirements; and
(3) The passive tag is affixed at the appropriate location on the specific level of packaging, in accordance with MIL-STD-129P (Section 4.9.2) tag placement specifications.
(d)
(1) Class 0, 64 Bit Tag—EPCglobal Serialized Global Trade Item Number (SGTIN), Global Returnable Asset Identifier (GRAI), Global Individual Asset Identifier (GIAI), or Serialized Shipment Container Code (SSCC).
(2) Class 0, 64 Bit Tag—DoD Tag Construct.
(3) Class 1, 64 Bit Tag—EPCglobal SGTIN, GRAI, GIAI, or SSCC.
(4) Class 1, 64 Bit Tag—DoD Tag Construct.
(5) Class 0, 96 Bit Tag—EPCglobal SGTIN, GRAI, GIAI, or SSCC.
(6) Class 0, 96 Bit Tag—DoD Tag Construct.
(7) Class 1, 96 Bit Tag—EPCglobal SGTIN, GRAI, GIAI, or SSCC.
(8) Class 1, 96 Bit Tag—DoD Tag Construct.
(9) UHF Generation 2 Tag—EPCglobal SGTIN, GRAI, GIAI, SSCC.
(10) UHF Generation 2 Tag—DoD Tag Construct.
(e)
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), prior to undertaking research and other work associated with revising official grade standards, is soliciting comments on the possible revisions to the United States Standards for Grades of Bunched Italian Sprouting Broccoli. At a 2003 meeting with the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, AMS was asked to review all the fresh fruit and vegetable grade standards for usefulness in serving the industry. As a result, AMS has identified broccoli crowns and florets for possible inclusion into the standards. Additionally, AMS is seeking comments regarding any other revisions of the broccoli grade standards that may be necessary to better serve the industry.
Comments must be received by June 20, 2005.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to the Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 1661 South Building, Stop 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240; Fax (202) 720-8871, E-mail
David L. Priester, at the above address or call (202) 720-2185; E-mail
Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices * * *.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements, no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by the USDA/AMS/Fruit and Vegetable Programs.
AMS is proposing to revise the U.S. Standards for Grades of Bunched Italian Sprouting Broccoli using the procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR Part 36). These standards were last revised in 1943.
At a 2003 meeting with the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, AMS was asked to review all the fresh fruit and vegetable grade standards for usefulness in serving the industry. AMS has identified the United States Standards for Grades of Bunched Italian Sprouting Broccoli for a possible revision. As a result, AMS has identified the currently marketed forms of Italian Sprouting Broccoli crowns and florets for possible inclusion into the standards. These terms are used by the industry in the marketing of broccoli in which the main stem is cut back considerably or in the case of florets where only a single smaller secondary stem remains with the large main stem removed. The new terms will be defined and sizes for the terms standardized and included in the U.S. standards. The title of the standard would be modified by deleting “Bunched,” to make the standards generic to cover crowns and florets. Additionally, references to the word “bunched” would be removed from the current sections of U.S. grades to the section pertaining to size specifications. The section entitled “Unclassified” would also be removed from the standards to help eliminate confusion concerned with this designation. However, prior to undertaking detailed work to develop proposed revisions to the standards, AMS is soliciting comments on the possible revision to the standards and the probable impact on distributors, processors, and growers. Additionally, AMS is seeking comments regarding any other revisions that may be necessary to better serve the industry.
This notice provides for a 60-day comment period for interested parties to comment on changes to the standards. Should AMS conclude that there is a need for the revisions of the standards, the proposed revisions will be published in the
7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
This document proposes to amend the recommended manufacturing milk requirements (Recommended Requirements) by providing provisions for sheep milk, adding follow-up procedures used when plant-commingled milk in storage tanks exceeds the maximum allowable bacterial estimate, and providing a definition for heat-treated cream. The
Submit written or electronic comments on or before June 20, 2005.
You may use any of the following methods to file comments on this action:
Comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the
The current Recommended Requirements are available either from the above mailing address or by accessing the following internet address:
Reginald Pasteur, Marketing Specialist, Standardization Branch, Dairy Programs, AMS, USDA, telephone (202) 720-7473 or e-mail
Under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), the U. S. Department of Agriculture maintains a set of model regulations relating to quality and sanitation requirements for the production and processing of manufacturing grade milk. These Recommended Requirements are developed by AMS and recommended for adoption and enforcement by the various States that regulate manufacturing grade milk. The purpose of the model requirements is to promote uniformity in State dairy laws and regulations relating to manufacturing grade milk.
In consultation with representatives from NASDA, State regulatory agencies, FDA, and dairy industry trade associations, the Department prepared the Recommended Requirements to promote uniformity in State dairy laws and regulations for manufacturing grade milk. To accommodate changes that have occurred in the dairy industry, NASDA and various State officials have from time to time requested USDA to update the Recommended Requirements.
During its July 2003 annual meeting, the Dairy Division of NASDA passed resolutions requesting USDA to provide provisions for sheep milk, add follow-up procedures used when plant-commingled milk in storage tanks exceeds the maximum allowable bacterial estimate, and provide a definition for heat-treated cream. AMS reviewed these resolutions and developed a draft that identified the changes associated with this request. This draft was provided to State regulatory officials and dairy trade association representatives for informal discussion prior to publication in the
The requirements of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, were considered in developing this notice, and it has been determined that this action does not have federalism implications as defined under the executive order. This action does not have substantial effects on the States (the relationship between the national government and the States or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government). The adoption of the Recommended Requirements by State regulatory agencies is voluntary. States maintain the responsibility to establish dairy regulations and continue to have the option to establish regulations that are different from the Recommended Requirements. A State may choose to have requirements less restrictive or more stringent than the Recommended Requirements. Their decision to have different requirements would not affect the ability of milk producers to market milk or of processing plants to produce dairy products in their state. AMS is publishing this notice with a 60-day comment period to provide a sufficient time for interested persons to comment on the changes.
Based on the Recommended Requirements which were published in the
The definition of sheep milk will include:
The definition of water buffalo milk will include:
The definition of lactating animals will include:
The term “milk” will include:
The requirements for sheep milk somatic cell count will include:
The requirements for abnormal sheep milk will include:
The requirements for a sheep milking facility will include:
Ramps and platforms used to elevate the sheep for milking must be constructed of an impervious material such as steel (wooden platforms and ramps are not allowed.) Rubber cow mats may be used as long as they are not placed over a wooden platform. Sheep are generally housed in a loose housing building near the milking parlor. This area should be kept reasonably clean. No excessive accumulation of manure is allowed. Complete separation between the sheep housing area and the sheep milking parlor is required if sheep milker units are stored in the parlor. Hogs and fowl shall not be housed with sheep.
The requirements for sheep milking procedures will include: Section D3(d) Milking equipment used for handling abnormal milk must be washed and sanitized after such use.
The requirements for cooling sheep milk will include:
A. Milk in plastic bags shall be cooled to 40° F or lower within two hours of milking. Sheep milk shall be cooled to 45 degrees Fahrenheit or less within two (2) hours of milking. Cooling water used in bulk tanks in which bags of sheep milk are cooled shall be chlorinated. If milk is cooled by pouring into plastic bags and then floating the bags of milk in cooling water, the process must preclude contamination of the milk by the water. All water must be safe and of sanitary quality in accordance to Section D7.
B. Bags used to store frozen sheep milk shall be constructed of plastic that is listed under the NCIMS Certified Manufacturers of Single-Service Containers and Related Products.
C. Bags may be up to 5 gallons in size.
Each bag shall be numbered, dated, and identified with a patron name or number.
D. Frozen sheep milk should remain frozen at 0° F or less for a period not to exceed 12 months.
The requirements will include:
Natural and/or artificial light shall be provided in all working areas for conducting milkhouse operations. At least 20 foot-candles of artificial light are required in a milking parlor. Parlors must be properly ventilated in order to prevent excessive condensation and odors. Light fixtures shall not be installed directly above bulk milk tanks, areas where milk may be strained, or areas where equipment is stored.
Requirements will include:
All containers and utensils must be free from breaks and corrosion, and points must be free from pits or cracks. Bulk tank and freezer thermometers should be accurate within +/−2 degrees Fahrenheit.
All milk containers and equipment, including milking machine vacuum hoses, must be stored in the milkhouse. Milking equipment must be stored to assure complete drainage. Filters and single-service plastic bags shall be stored in the original container inside a protective box. Bags for milk storage must be stored in a manner which protects them from contamination. It is recommended they be stored in an enclosed cabinet.
Requirements will include:
A. All milk shall be held and processed under conditions and at temperatures that will avoid contamination and rapid deterioration. Drip milk from can washers or any other source shall not be used for the manufacture of dairy products. Bulk milk in storage tanks within the dairy plant shall be handled in such a manner as to minimize bacterial increase and shall be maintained at 45 degrees Fahrenheit or lower until processing begins. This does not preclude holding milk at higher temperatures for a period of time where applicable to particular manufacturing or processing practices.
B. The bacterial estimate of commingled milk in plant storage tanks shall be 1 million per ml or lower.
C. During any consecutive 6 months, at least four samples of commingled raw milk for processing shall be taken by the regulatory agency from each plant.
D. A laboratory test of these samples to determine the bacterial estimate shall be performed at a laboratory approved by the regulatory agency.
E. Whenever a bacterial estimate of commingled milk in a plant indicates the presence of more than 1 million per ml, the following procedures shall be applied:
1. The regulatory agency shall notify plant management with a warning of excessive bacterial estimate and recommend that appropriate action be taken to eliminate the bacterial problem.
2. Whenever two of the last four consecutive commingled milk bacterial estimates exceed 1 million per ml, the regulatory agency shall notify plant management with a written warning notice. The notice shall be in effect so long as two of the last four consecutive samples exceed 1 million per ml. Plant management should continue to work to eliminate the bacterial problem.
3. An additional sample shall be taken by the regulatory agency after a lapse of 3 days but within 21 days of the notice required in paragraph (e)(1) of this section. If this sample also exceeds 1
The definition of heat-treated cream will be added to include:
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability and request for comments.
We are advising the public that a draft document has been prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service that identifies the smallest administrative jurisdictions within 11 Member States of the European Union that we would consider “regions” in the event of future animal disease outbreaks. The draft document refers to these jurisdictions as “administrative units” and also reevaluates the administrative units already identified for Italy. We are making this draft document available to the public for review and comment.
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. 04-081-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 04-081-1.
You may request a copy of the draft document by calling or writing to the person listed under
Dr. Chip Wells, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation Services Staff, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-4356.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates the importation of animals and animal products into the United States to guard against the introduction of animal diseases not currently present or prevalent in this country. The regulations pertaining to the importation of animals and animal products are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title 9, chapter I, subchapter D (9 CFR parts 91 through 99).
On June 25, 1999, we published in the
On April 7, 2003, we published in the
Following the elimination of CSF in domestic swine in France and Spain (April 26, 2002, and April 30, 2002, respectively), on November 24, 2003, we published in the
On April 20, 2004, we published in the
We are giving notice that a draft document entitled “APHIS Considerations on the Identification of Administrative Units for Certain Member States of the European Union” is available for public review and are requesting comments on the draft document for 60 days. In the draft document we identify the smallest administrative jurisdictions in 11 Member States that we would use to regionalize those Member States in the event of future animal disease outbreaks. As discussed in the draft document, we believe that each of those jurisdictions is the smallest that can be demonstrated to have effective oversight of normal animal movements into, out of, and within that Member State, and that, in association with national authorities, if necessary, has effective control over animal movements and animal diseases locally. For the sake of convenience, the draft document and any future rulemakings will refer to these jurisdictions as “administrative units” (AUs).
The draft document designates AUs for 11 Member States within the EU region. These Member States are: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Because APHIS considers the entire territory of Luxembourg to be the smallest possible administrative jurisdiction with effective control over animal movement and control of animal disease locally, the entire country of Luxembourg will be considered one AU. The draft document also reidentifies the AU for Italy as the Aziende Sanitarie Locali (Local Health Unit). In the event of an animal disease outbreak, APHIS could regionalize a Member State to the AU level specified in our draft document. Although addressed in the document in the context of the specific disease, CSF, the concept of regionalization to the AU level is not disease specific.
The draft document may be viewed on the may be viewed on the EDOCKET Web site (see
Antitrust Modernization Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
The Antitrust Modernization Commission will hold a public meeting on May 9, 2005. The purpose of the meeting is for the Antitrust Modernization Commission to approve plans (including proposed requests for public comment and public hearings) for studying issues selected by the Commission in its January 13 and March 24, 2005, meetings.
May 9, 2005, 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Interested members of the public may attend. Registration is not required.
Federal Trade Commission, Conference Center Rooms A & B, 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director & General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization Commission: telephone: (202) 233-0701; e-mail:
The purpose of this meeting is for the Antitrust Modernization Commission to approve plans prepared by its study groups for studying issues selected by the Commission in its January 13 and March 24, 2005, meetings, including proposed requests for public comment and public hearings. Materials relating to the meeting will be made available on the Commission's Web site (
The AMC has called this meeting pursuant to its authorizing statute and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-273, section 11058(f), 116 Stat. 1758, 1857; Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., section 10(a)(2); 41 CFR § 102-3.150 (2004).
By direction of Deborah A. Garza, Chair of the Antitrust Modernization Commission.
Approved by Designated Federal Officer.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Interior, and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of 5-year status review of sea turtles.
We, the FWS and NMFS (collectively the Services), announce a 5-year review of the green turtle (
Written comments and information related to this 5-year review must be received by July 20, 2005.
Written comments and information should be addressed to Barbara Schroeder, National Sea Turtle Coordinator, Marine Mammal and Marine Turtle Conservation Division, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 20910; or by fax (301) 427-2522, or by e-mail at:
At NMFS, Barbara Schroeder (ph. 301-713-1401, fax 301-713-0376, e-mail
Six species of sea turtles are listed under the ESA. In 1970, the hawksbill was listed as endangered (35 FR 8495); the Kemp's ridley as endangered (35 FR 18320); and the leatherback as endangered (35 FR 8495). In 1978 (43 FR 32808), the green turtle was listed as endangered for breeding colonies in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico and threatened elsewhere; the loggerhead as threatened; and the olive ridley as endangered for the breeding colony population on the Pacific coast of Mexico and threatened elsewhere.
Under the ESA, section 4(c)(2)(A) requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. Then, on the basis of such reviews, we determine under section 4(c)(2)(B) whether or not any species should be removed from the threatened or endangered species list (List), or reclassified from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered. Removing a species from the List must be supported by the best scientific and commercial data available and under 50 CFR 424.11(d), only considered if data substantiate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is considered extinct; (2) the species is considered to be recovered; and/or (3) the original data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error. Any change in Federal classification would require a separate rulemaking process. The regulations in 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the
The 5-year review provides an opportunity to review whether the listed entity is appropriately identified and delineated, determine appropriate classification, and recommend changes, as appropriate. In accordance with the February 7, 1996, Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments (DPS) (61 FR 4722), the DPS policy will be considered and applied as appropriate during the 5-year review. The DPS policy states that “Any Distinct Population Segment of a vertebrate taxon that was listed prior to implementation of the DPS policy will be reevaluated on a case-by-case basis as recommendations are made to change the listing status for that distinct population segment.” For a population to be listed under the ESA as a DPS, three elements are considered: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; (2) the significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs; and (3) the population segment's conservation status in relation to the ESA's standards for listing (i.e., is the population segment endangered or threatened?). Distinct population segments of vertebrate species, as well as subspecies of all listed species, may be proposed for separate reclassification or for removal from the List. The DPS policy will be applied during the 5-year review.
Previous 5-year reviews were conducted in 1985 and in 1995. However, in the 1995 review, the green turtle review was not completed. This notice announces our active review of the green, hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, loggerhead, and olive ridley turtles.
To ensure that the 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting new information from the public, concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, and any other interested parties concerning the status of green turtles, hawksbill turtles, Kemp's ridley turtles, leatherback turtles, loggerhead turtles, and olive ridley turtles.
The 5-year review considers the best scientific and commercial data and all new information that has become available since the listing determination or most recent status review. Categories of requested information include: (1) Species biology, including but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics; (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.
See
This document is published under the authority of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public workshop.
NMFS will present a public workshop on the new Crab Rationalization Program (Program) for participants in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) king and Tanner crab fisheries. At this workshop, NMFS will provide an overview of the Program, discuss the key Program elements, provide information on the application process, and answer questions. This workshop is specifically intended to address issues related to the Arbitration System portion of the Program. NMFS is conducting this public workshop to provide assistance to fishery participants in complying with the requirements of this new Program.
Workshop will be held May 9, 2005. See
Workshop will be held in Seattle, WA.
Sheela McLean, 907-586-7032 or
On March 2, 2005, NMFS published a final rule implementing the Crab Rationalization Program (Program) as Amendments 18 and 19 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/ Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs. In January 2004, the U.S. Congress amended section 313(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No. 108-199, section 801). As amended, section 313(j)(1) requires the Secretary to approve and implement by regulation the Program, as it was approved by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) between June 2002 and April 2003, and all trailing amendments, including those reported to Congress on May 6, 2003. In June 2004, the Council consolidated its actions on the Program into the Council motion, which is contained in its entirety in Amendment 18. Additionally, in June 2004, the Council developed Amendment 19, which represents minor changes necessary to implement the Program. The Notice of Availability for these amendments was published in the
NMFS conducted four public workshops in March and April in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington to provide assistance to fishery participants in complying with the requirements of this new Program (70 FR 10992). At these workshops, NMFS provided an overview of the Program, discussed the key Program elements, and provide information on the application process.
The May 9, 2005 workshop is intended to specifically focus on the Arbitration System. Elements related to economic data collection, monitoring and enforcement, electronic reporting, quota share and individual fishing quota application and transfer provisions, the appeals process, fee collection, and the loan program may be addressed secondarily. Additionally, NMFS will answer questions from workshop participants. For further information on the Crab Rationalization Program, please visit the NMFS Alaska Region Internet site at
NMFS will hold the public workshop as follows:
Monday, May 9, 2005, 10 a.m.-4 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST)-Leif Erickson Hall, 2245 Northwest 57th Street, Seattle, WA.
This workshop is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations should be directed to Sheela McLean (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene public meetings. See
The meetings will be held May 9 - 12, 2005.
These meetings will be held at the Palace Casino Resort, 158 Howard Avenue, Biloxi, MS.
Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: 813.228.2815.
Committee
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the Council and Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (M-SFCMA), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the Council and Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the
M-SFCMA, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. The established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the agenda items. In order to further allow for such adjustments and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Dawn Aring at the Council (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator) has made a preliminary determination that the subject application to modify an existing Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) contains all the required information and warrants further consideration. The Assistant Regional Administrator has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue the EFP. Therefore, NMFS announces that the Assistant Regional Administrator proposes to recommend that an EFP be issued to modify a recently approved EFP by allowing additional exemptions from the regulations governing the fisheries of the Northeastern United States. The EFP would add an exemption from the FMP as follows: The Gulf of Maine (GOM) Rolling Closure Area III; Western GOM Closure
Written comments on this document must be received on or before May 6, 2005.
Written comments should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Revised GOM Gillnet Study.” Comments may also be sent via fax to (978) 281-9135 or submitted via e-mail to
Karen Tasker, Fishery Management Specialist, phone (978) 281-9273.
The Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, and Angelica Fisheries, Inc., submitted an application for an EFP on August 13, 2004. The primary goal of the research is to establish gillnet selectivity curves for haddock in the GOM, and to test whether it is possible to catch legal-size haddock with gillnet gear with mesh size that is less than 6.5 inches (16.5 cm) while avoiding catching cod or other species of concern in an area east of Cape Ann, Massachusetts, from January through April 2005. An EFP was granted on January 6, 2005, which allowed for exemptions from the regulations implementing the FMP as follows during 14 days in January through March 2005: The Western GOM Closure Area specified at 50 CFR 648.81(e) and the minimum gillnet mesh size specified at 50 CFR 648.80(a)(3)(iv)(B)(
Five gillnets of mesh sizes ranging from 4.5 to 6.5 inches (11.4 to 16.5 cm), in 0.5-inch (1.3-cm) increments, would be fished by one vessel in six groups (each group containing one net of each mesh size), for a total of 30 nets. The nets would be of standard commercial length, 300 ft (91.4 m), and approximately two-thirds the standard commercial height, resulting in a height of 7.5 ft (2.3 m). This net size was selected based on the applicants' belief that cod typically are captured in the upper meshes of standard nets when standard nets are fished in this area.
In order to conduct this project, researchers requested, and were granted, an exemption to the minimum mesh size regulation of 6.5 inches(16.5 cm) in the GOM. Additionally, in the initial EFP application, researchers requested, and were granted, access to fish in an area off of Cape Ann, Massachusetts, between 42°35′ and 42°50′ N. lat. and 69°50′ to 70°15′ W. long. (30 minute squares 131 and 132), including the Western GOM Closure Area. Researchers requested access to a portion of the Western GOM Closure Area during January through April 2005 because historical commercial fishing experience indicates that haddock are present in high densities in this area during the study period. However, because the month of April is a peak spawning period for cod in the GOM, and the Western GOM Closure Area is closed in part to protect spawning cod, this EFP was prevented from occurring in the Western GOM Closure Area and thus was restricted to January through March 2005.
On March 14, 2005, and April 11, 2005, researchers submitted requests to modify their EFP in order to allow them the opportunity to collect data in the month of May 2005. The additional time is needed because research could not begin until March due to the experimental gear not being ready until that time. The EFP would continue an exemption from the minimum mesh size requirements for the GOM RMA. In addition, researchers requested to change the study area for the month of May 2005 to an area between 42°35′ and 43°00′ N. latitude and 69°50′ to 70°15′ W. longitude, including access to the Western GOM Closure Area. They also requested an exemption from the regulations pertaining to GOM Rolling Closure Area III. Finally, the number of sea days during which this research would take place is anticipated to increase from 14 days proposed in the initial EFP request to 17 days.
The data collection activities aboard the participating vessels would be conducted by observers from the Gulf of Maine Research Institute and Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries to ensure compliance with the experimental fishery objectives.
If the proposed EFP modification is approved, the applicant may place requests for minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and result in only a minimal change in the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of permits.
Notice is hereby given that Michael Salmon (Permit No. 1509) and Kenneth Lohmann (Permit No. 1522) have been issued permits 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 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701 (tel: 727/824-5312, fax 727/824-5517).
Patrick Opay or Ruth Johnson, (301)713-2289.
On March 9, 2005, notice was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 11619) that a request for a scientific research permit to take threatened sea turtles had been submitted by Jeanette Wyneken (Permit No. 1509). Ms. Wyneken subsequently requested that the permit be issued to Michael Salmon. On February 23, 2005, notice was published in the
Michael Salmon, Ph.D., Florida Atlantic University, Dept. of Biological Sciences, 777 Glades Rd., Boca Raton, FL 33431: Permit No. 1509 authorizes Dr. Salmon to take ESA-listed turtles in the waters of Florida. Researchers may capture a total of 80 loggerhead (
Kenneth Lohmann, Ph.D., Department of Biology, Wilson Hall, CB#3280, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599: Permit No. 1522 authorizes Dr. Lohmann to annually capture up to 120 loggerhead and 40 green (
Dr. Lohmann will also take up to 6 adult loggerhead sea turtles annually over five years. Animals will be tracked and have their float tether removed while at sea in waters off the coast of Florida as part of sea turtle navigation studies.
Issuance of these permits, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permits (1) were applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Notice.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is publishing its annual update to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Fee Schedule pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the Board's regulations.
Kenneth M. Pusateri, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (202) 694-7060.
The FOIA requires each Federal agency covered by the Act to specify a schedule of fees applicable to processing of requests for agency records. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(i). On March 15, 1991, the Board published for comment in the
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6) of the Board's regulations, the Board's General Manager will update the FOIA Fee Schedule once every 12 months. Previous Fee Schedule updates were published in the
Accordingly, the Board issues the following schedule of updated fees for services performed in response to FOIA requests:
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Department of Education.
Notice of proposed eligibility and application requirements, priorities, and selection criteria.
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools proposes eligibility and application requirements, priorities, and selection criteria under Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Programs for the School-Based Student Drug-Testing Programs. The Assistant Deputy Secretary may use these requirements, priorities, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year 2005 and later years. We take this action to focus Federal financial assistance on an identified national need. We intend for these priorities to increase the use of drug testing as a means to deter student drug use.
We must receive your comments on or before May 23, 2005.
Address all comments about these requirements, priorities, and selection criteria to Robyn L. Disselkoen or Sigrid Melus, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-6450. If you prefer to send your comments through the Internet, use the following address:
You must include the term “Comments on FY 2005 Student Drug-
Robyn Disselkoen or Sigrid Melus at (202) 260-3954.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria in room 3E253, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact one of the persons listed under
Although drug use among America's youth has declined in recent years, far too many young people continue to use these harmful substances. Results of the 2004 Monitoring the Future survey, for example, show that the proportions of 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students indicating any use of an illicit drug in the 12 months prior to the survey were 15 percent, 31 percent and 39 percent, respectively.
The consequences of drug use by this vulnerable population are clear. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Department of Health and Human Services, students using illegal drugs are more likely to have negative attitudes about school and to have engaged in the following delinquent behaviors during the past year: Gotten into a serious fight at school or work, attacked someone with the intent to inflict serious injury, carried a handgun, sold illegal drugs, or had stolen or tried to steal something worth $50 or more. (2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health) In addition, an analysis of data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse over a three year period from 1994-96 found that frequent marijuana users were more likely than less frequent users to report delinquent behaviors such as running away from home, stealing, and cutting classes or skipping school. Clearly, drug abuse both interferes with a student's ability to learn and disrupts the orderly environment necessary for academic achievement.
Steroid abuse is also a problem for young people. The 2004 Monitoring the Future Study shows that 1.9 percent of eighth graders, 2.4 percent of tenth graders, and 3.4 percent of twelfth graders reported using steroids at least once in their lifetime. The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 6.1% of all high school students surveyed by CDC in 2003 reported lifetime use of steroid pills/shots without a doctor's prescription. This figure includes 7.1 percent of ninth graders, 6.1 percent of tenth graders, 5.6 percent of eleventh graders, and 4.9 percent of twelfth graders. According to research carried out by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the consequences for teens of both sexes who use steroids can include severe acne; hormone imbalances; stunted growth; heart attacks; liver cancer (National Institute on Drug Abuse.
President Bush, in his January 20, 2004, State of the Union Address, noted: “One of the worst decisions our children can make is to gamble their lives and futures on drugs.” He proposed to “continue our aggressive, community-based strategy to reduce demand for illegal drugs” and stated: “Drug testing in our schools has proven to be an effective part of this effort.”
Further, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), in its 2004 National Drug Control Strategy Update, states that student drug testing programs “advance the Strategy's goal of intervening early in the young person's drug career, using research-based prevention approaches to guide users into counseling or drug treatment, and deterring others from starting in the first place.” ONDCP describes student drug testing as a “remarkable grassroots tool that the Federal Government is moving aggressively to support with research funding as well as support for program design and implementation.”
The Department of Education, through these proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria, is encouraging schools and communities to consider the use of mandatory random and voluntary student drug-testing programs as a tool to support other drug-prevention efforts.
We will announce the final requirements, priorities, and selection criteria in a notice in the
This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use one or more of these proposed priorities, we invite applications through a notice in the
We propose to limit eligibility for grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) and public and private entities.
Under this proposed priority, we would provide Federal financial assistance to eligible applicants to develop and implement, or expand, school-based mandatory random or voluntary drug-testing programs for students in one or more grades 6 through 12. We propose that any drug-testing program conducted with funds awarded under this priority be limited to one or more of the following:
(1) Students who participate in the school's athletic program;
(2) students who are engaged in competitive, extracurricular, school-sponsored activities; and
(3) a voluntary drug-testing program for students who, along with their parent or guardian, have provided written consent to participate in a random drug-testing program.
Applicants who propose voluntary drug testing for students who, along with their parent or guardian, provide written consent, must not prohibit students who do not consent from participating in school or extracurricular activities.
Under this proposed priority, we would provide Federal financial assistance to eligible applicants to develop and implement school-based mandatory random drug-testing programs for students in one or more grades 6 through 12. We propose that any drug-testing program conducted with funds awarded under this priority be limited to one or more of the following:
(1) All students who participate in the school's athletic program; and
(2) All students who are engaged in competitive, extracurricular, school-sponsored activities.
Applicants for Priority #2 must propose drug testing in two or more schools that do not have an existing drug-testing program in operation. Each school must include, at a minimum, three or more grades from 9 through 12.
In addition, applicants for Priority #2 must:
(1) Not have a voluntary testing component proposed as part of their program;
(2) provide an assurance that the non-drug-testing schools will not implement any drug-testing program for the duration of the national evaluation; and
(3) agree to participate in all data collection activities that the national evaluation will conduct in all the schools.
At the time of the grant award, the Department of Education's evaluator will randomly assign the schools either to receive the intervention (mandatory random drug testing) or not receive the intervention (no mandatory random drug testing). The evaluator will collect outcome data for both drug testing and non-drug testing schools.
We propose the following requirements for applications submitted under this program:
(1) Applicants may not submit more than one application for a competition conducted under this program.
(2) Applicants may not have been the recipient or beneficiary of a prior grant in 2003 under the Department of Education Demonstration Grants for Student Drug-Testing competition.
(3) Non-LEA applicants must submit a letter of agreement to participate from an LEA. The letter must be signed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the LEA. Letters of support are not acceptable as evidence of the required agreement.
(4) Funds may not be used for the following purposes:
(a) Student drug tests administered under suspicion of drug use;
(b) incentives for students to participate in programs;
(c) drug treatment; or
(d) drug prevention curricula or other prevention programs.
(5) Applicants must:
(a) Identify a target population and demonstrate a significant need for drug testing within the target population;
(b) explain how the proposed drug-testing program will be part of an existing, comprehensive drug prevention program in the schools to be served;
(c) provide a comprehensive plan for referring students who are identified as drug users through the testing program to a student assistance program, counseling, or drug treatment if necessary;
(d) provide a plan to ensure the confidentiality of drug testing results, including a provision that prohibits the party conducting drug tests from disclosing to school officials any information about a student's use of legal medications;
(e) limit the cost of site-based evaluations to no more than 10 percent of total funds requested;
(f) provide written assurances of the following:
(i) That results of student drug tests will not be disclosed to law enforcement officials;
(ii) that results of student drug tests will be destroyed when the student graduates or otherwise leaves the LEA or private school involved;
(iii) that all positive drug tests will be reviewed by a certified medical review officer; and
(iv) that legal counsel has reviewed the proposed program and advised that the program activities do not appear to violate established constitutional principles or State and Federal requirements related to implementing a student drug-testing program.
The maximum score for all of these criteria will be 100 points. We will inform applicants of the points or weights assigned to each criterion for any future competition in a notice published in the
(1)
(a) The documented magnitude of student drug use in schools to be served by the drug-testing program, including the nature, type, and frequency, if known, of drugs being used by students in the target population; and,
(b) Other evidence of student drug use, such as reports from parents, students, school staff, or law enforcement officials.
(2)
(a) The extent to which the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of Federal and State laws and relevant Supreme Court decisions related to the proposed student drug-testing program;
(b) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates school and community support for the student drug-testing program and has included a diversity of perspectives such as those of parents, counselors, teachers, and school board
(c) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the student drug-testing program.
(3)
(a) The extent to which the project will be based on up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice, including the methodology for the random selection of students to be tested and procedures outlining the collection, screening, confirmation, and review of student drug tests by a certified medical review officer;
(b) The extent to which the applicant identifies the drugs for which it plans to test and includes a rationale for the type of testing device it plans to use for each drug test;
(c) The quality of the applicant's plan to develop and implement a drug-testing program that includes—
(i) Detailed procedures for responding to a positive drug test, including parental notification and referral to student assistance programs, drug education, or formal drug treatment, if necessary; and
(ii) Clear consequences for a positive drug test.
(4)
(a) The extent to which the applicant describes appropriate chain-of-custody procedures for test samples and demonstrates a commitment to use labs certified by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to process student drug tests.
(b) The quality of the applicant's plan to ensure confidentiality of drug test results, including limiting the number of school officials who will have access to student drug-testing records.
(5)
(a) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project.
(b) The quality of the applicant's plan to collect data on the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance measure established by the Department for this program and to report these data to the Department.
The Department has established the following GPRA performance measure for the School-Based Student Drug Testing program: the reduction of the incidence of drug use in the past month and past year. The Secretary has set an overall performance target that calls for the prevalence of drug use by students in the target population to decline by five percent annually.
This notice of proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the notice of proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria are those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this notice of proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria justify the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
The primary benefit of these proposed requirements, priorities, and selection criteria is that grantees may reduce student drug use by supporting school-based student drug-testing programs.
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the
To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
20 U.S.C. 7131.
Notice inviting application for new awards for fiscal year 2005; correction.
On April 14, 2005, we published in the
On page 19743, second column, the Deadline for Transmittal of Applications is corrected to read “May 24, 2005.”
Laura Messenger, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 11028, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-7241. Telephone: (202) 245-7840 or by e-mail:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
To use PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) toll free at 1-888-293-6498, or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of subsequent arrangement.
This notice is being issued under the authority of Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The Department is providing notice of a proposed “subsequent arrangement” under Article 5 Paragraph 2 of the Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America and the People's Republic of Bangladesh Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy and the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of Atomic Energy.
This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of U.S.-origin reactor parts to the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission's TRIGA Mark II research reactor from the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Korea. The items to be transferred are: Eight control rod drive motors; one servo motor; eight magnets; twenty-one limit switches; eight mounting barriers; three electro-mechanical choppers; six instruments and indicators for period, fuel and water temperature, and percent power; six rod position indicators; two mode switch assemblies; three potentiometers; five relays; ten magnetic-craft relays; five mercury wetted contact relays; three AC relays; twenty-one control panel circuit boards; 150 pilot lamps; and two fuel handling tools. The Government of Bangladesh has provided formal assurances that the replacement parts will be subject to the U.S.-Bangladesh Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy upon entry in Bangladesh and will not be re-transferred to a third party without prior approval of the United States.
In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not be inimical to the common defense and security.
This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen days after the date of publication of this notice.
For the Department of Energy.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and reinstatement of this information collection requirement. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission received no comments in response to an earlier
Comments on the collection of information are due by May 19, 2005.
Address comments on the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o
Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in, MS Word, Portable Document Format, Word Perfect or ASCII format. To file the document, access the Commission's Web site at
All comments are available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Michael Miller may be reached by telephone at (202) 502-8415, by fax at (202) 273-0873, and by e-mail at
The information collection submitted for OMB review contains the following:
1.
2.
3.
The Commission is now requesting that OMB approve with a three-year
4.
The scope of the Commission's jurisdiction over oil pipelines includes the authority to regulate their rates and charges for transportation of oil in interstate commerce, and the authority to establish valuations. Oil pipeline companies are required to submit depreciation information pursuant to 1-8(b)(2) and 1-8(b)(3) of the General Instructions found at 18 CFR Part 352 of the Commission's regulations. These instructions require oil pipeline carriers to compute percentage rate studies for their depreciable property accounts, and to maintain records as to the service life and net salvage value of their property and property retirements.
The Commission uses the information submitted on FERC Form 73 to conduct depreciation rate investigations of oil pipelines. The Commission also uses the information to determine appropriate oil pipeline service lives and book depreciation rates. Oil pipeline companies use book depreciation rates to compute the depreciation portion of their operating expenses when determining their cost of service. The Commission implements these requirements in 18 CFR 357.3 of its regulations.
5.
6.
7.
Sections 306 and 402 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91, 42 sections 7155 and 7172, Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 6501
Take notice that on April 11, 2005, CenterPoint Energy—Mississippi River Transmission Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing and approval a negotiated rate agreement between MRT and CenterPoint Energy Gas Services, Inc. for parking service under Rate Schedule PALS. MRT requests that the Commission accept and approve the transaction to be effective May 1, 2005.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on April 8, 2005, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing SST Service Agreement No. 82610 between Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation and Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. dated March 30, 2005 for consideration and approval
In addition, Columbia tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff Second Revised Volume No. 1, Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 500B, with a proposed effective date of April 1, 2005.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on April 11, 2005, Dauphin Island Gathering Partners (Dauphin Island) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Twenty-First Revised Sheet No. 9, to become effective May 11, 2005.
Dauphin Island states that this tariff sheet reflects changes to its negotiated rates.
Dauphin Island states that copies of the filing are being served on its customers and other interested parties.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on April 8, 2005, Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP (Cove Point) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective May 1, 2005:
Cove Point states that these sheets are being filed in compliance with the Commission's “Order Issuing Certificate” issued November 18, 2003 in Docket No. CP03-74-000, 105 FERC ¶ 61,234 (2003). Cove Point indicates the tariff sheets set forth the initial incremental rates and electric power cost tracker provision. Cove Point also states that the annual revenue generated by the incremental, jurisdictional service will be $10.5 million.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on April 11, 2005, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas), submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's order issued March 31, 2005 in Docket No. RP00-426-021, 110 FERC ¶ 61,407 (2005). In particular, Texas Gas notes that it is submitting a copy of a revised negotiated rate agreement between Texas Gas and Atmos Energy Marketing, which includes a revised capacity release provision, and revised tariff sheets to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, as listed below:
Texas Gas states that copies of this filing are being mailed to all parties on the official service list in this docket, to Texas Gas's official service list, to Texas Gas's jurisdictional customers, and to interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on April 8, 2005, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's order issued March 31, 2005 in
Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to affected customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-12569-000) on any comments, protests, or motions filed.
k.
The project would have an annual generation of 29,500 million kilowatt-hours.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p.
q.
r.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper;
s.
t.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers (p-2246-047). All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
p. Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before June 20, 2005.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number RCRA-2005-0007, to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to
Shiva Garg, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Mail Code 5302W; telephone number: (703) 308-8459, fax number: (703) 308-8433, e-mail
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number RCRA-2005-0007, which is available for public
Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public 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 EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's
The emission standards of the September 30, 1999 rule created maximum achievable control technology (MACT) based standards for hazardous air pollutant emissions under CAA, assuring that combustion of hazardous waste in these devices is properly controlled, while the RCRA provisions satisfied EPA's mandate to ensure that hazardous waste combustion is conducted in a manner protective of human health and the environment. Thus, we have consolidated regulatory control of hazardous waste combustion into a single set of regulations, thereby minimizing the potential for conflicting or duplicate federal requirements and burden on the regulated community.
The information collection required under this ICR is mandatory for the regulated sources, as it is essential to properly enforce the emission limitation requirements of the rule and will be used to further the proper performance of the functions of EPA. EPA believes that if the minimum requirements specified under the regulations are not met, EPA will not fulfill its Congressional mandate to protect public health and the environment. EPA, however, has made extensive efforts to integrate the monitoring, compliance testing and recordkeeping requirements of the CAA and RCRA, so that the facilities are able to avoid the burden of duplicate and unnecessary submissions. We also ensure, to the fullest extent by law, the confidentiality of the submitted information. EPA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
The EPA would like to solicit comments to:
(i) 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;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burdens for reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the proposed collections of information;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and,
(iv) 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.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
The next meeting of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, a Federal advisory committee that reports to the President and Congress on environmental and infrastructure projects along the U.S. border with Mexico, will take place in Washington, DC, on May 10, 2005. It is open to the public.
On May 10th, the meeting will begin at 9 a.m. (registration at 8:30 a.m.) and end at 5:30 p.m.
The meeting site is the Radisson Hotel, Phillips Ballroom Conference Room, 2121 P Street, Washington, DC (two blocks from Dupont Circle metro). Telephone: (202) 293-3100.
Elaine M. Koerner, Designated Federal Officer for the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Tel: (202) 233-0069. E-mail:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed reissuance of two general permits.
On October 3, 2005, two general permits regulating the activities of mechanical placer mining and suction dredge mining for gold placer mining operations in the State of Alaska expire. EPA proposes to reissue these two general permits with minor changes. EPA is proposing to make these permits effective as the previous general permits expire. This is also notice of EPA's issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) for NPDES permit AKG-37-0000.
Interested persons may submit comments on the proposed reissuance of the general permits to EPA, Region 10 at the address below. Comments must be received by June 6, 2005.
Comments on the proposed General Permits and the Finding of No Significant Impact should be sent to Director, Office of Water and Watersheds; USEPA Region 10; 1200 Sixth Avenue, OWW-130; Seattle, Washington 98101.
Copies of the Draft General Permits and Fact Sheets are available upon request. The General Permits and Fact Sheets may be found on the Region 10 Web site at
Requests may be made to Audrey Washington at (206) 553-0523 or to Cindi Godsey at (907) 271-6561 or electronically mailed to:
Finally, during the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) stage of the rulemaking, the Commission proposed some revisions to FCC rules that were not adopted in the final Report and Order. As a result, the OMB submission reflects a program change of −802 burden hours and −$12,000 in annual costs.
The purposes of this information collection are as follows: (1) Establish licensing and service rules for ESVs in the Ku-band and C-band; (2) prevent harmful interference to Fixed Service (FS), Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) and other satellite services; (3) further the Commission's goals to manage spectrum efficiently; and (4) advance the provision of broadband telecommunications services that will benefit U.S. citizens on passenger, government (military and civilian), cargo and large recreational vessels.
Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). Oppositions to this petition must be filed by May 6, 2005. See 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired.
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, April 28, 2005, at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, effective on the corresponding date shown below:
Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515.
Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR part 515).
Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation
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 Web site 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.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Andre Anderson, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
1.
This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of the Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period extending through January 19, 2007.
The Director, Management and Analysis and Services office has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2)of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announce the following meeting:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register Notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both CDC and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announce the following meeting:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting:
The Subcommittee will convene on April 25, 2005, from 8 a.m.-11:30 a.m. and will focus on review of draft minutes; Report on the Review of the First 20 Dose Reconstructions; the process to accomplish review of SC&A Task III Report; Status Report of On-Going Activities and Future Schedule; as well as Comments by Members of Congress.
The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
In the event an individual cannot attend, written comments may be submitted. Any written comments received will be provided at the meeting and should be submitted to the contact person below well in advance of the meeting.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the unexpected urgency of the topics that will be discussed.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following Federal advisory committee meeting.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management and Analysis and Services office has been delegated the authority to sign
In addition, under an MOU signed in December 1990 with DOE and replaced by an MOU signed in 2000, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been given the responsibility and resources for conducting analytic epidemiologic investigations of residents of communities in the vicinity of DOE facilities, workers at DOE facilities, and other persons potentially exposed to radiation or to potential hazards from non-nuclear energy production and use. HHS has delegated program responsibility to CDC. Community involvement is a critical part of ATSDR's and CDC's energy-related research and activities, and input from members of the ORRHES is part of these efforts.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau, ACF, DHHS.
Notice of corrections.
This notice is to inform interested parties of corrections to the Head Start Tribally Controlled Land Grant College and University Partnerships Program Announcement that was published on Wednesday, April 13, 2005. The following corrections should be noted:
(1) Under Priority Areas I, Section VII. Agency Contacts, Program Office Contact, please delete the following name, address, phone number, and e-mail address: Katherine Gray, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, ACYF—Head Start Bureau, 330 C Street, SW., Switzer Room 2211, Washington, DC 20447. Phone: 312-353-2260. E-mail:
Please replace the deleted name, address, phone number, and e-mail address with the following: Rosalind Dailey, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, ACYF—Head Start Bureau, 330 C Street, SW., Switzer Room 2211, Washington, DC 20447. Phone: 202-205-8653. E-mail:
All information in this notice of correction is accurate and replaces information specified in the April 13 notice. Applications are still due by the deadline date that was published in the April 13 notice (May 13 for Letters of Intent or Preapplications and June 13 for Applications).
For further information please contact the Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau at (202) 205-8653 or
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
Background information for the topics, including the agenda and questions for the committee, will be available to the public 1 business day before the meeting on the Internet at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Shirley Meeks, Conference Management Staff, at 240-276-0450, ext. 105, at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled “Application User Fees for Combination Products.” This document provides guidance to industry and FDA staff on marketing application user fees for combination products. The guidance also describes how the “barrier to innovation” waiver provision under the prescription drug user fee provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) may be applied to innovative combination products in the infrequent situation where FDA requires the submission of two marketing applications.
Submit written or electronic comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Submit written requests for copies of this guidance to the Office of Combination Products (HFG-3), 15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Rockville, MD 20855, or FAX: 301-427-1935. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Submit written comments concerning this 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
Mark D. Kramer, Office of Combination Products (HFG-3), Food and Drug Administration, 15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Rockville, MD 20855, 301-427-1934.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled “Application User Fees for Combination Products.” In the
As defined under 21 CFR 3.2(e), a combination product is a product comprised of any combination of a drug and a device; a biological product and a device; a drug and a biological product; or a drug, device, and a biological product. Depending upon the type of combination product, approval, clearance, or licensure may be obtained through submission of a single marketing application, or through separate marketing applications for the individual constituent parts of the combination product. For most combination products, a single marketing application is sufficient for the product's approval, clearance, or licensure. In some cases, two marketing applications may be submitted for a combination product when one application would suffice. For example, a sponsor may choose to submit two applications when one would suffice in order to receive some benefit from having two applications. In other cases, FDA may determine that two marketing applications are necessary.
In 1992, Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). PDUFA authorized FDA to collect fees from companies that produce certain human drug and biological products. The Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 amended the act to provide for user fees for the review of device applications. When a company requests approval of a new drug, device, or biological product prior to marketing, it must submit an application along with a fee to support the review process.
This document provides guidance to industry and FDA staff on marketing application user fees for combination products. The guidance document explains that combination products for which a single marketing application is submitted, should be assessed the user fee associated with that particular type of marketing application. The document explains that if a sponsor chooses to submit two marketing applications when one would suffice, a user fee for each application would ordinarily be assessed. The document also explains that in the infrequent situation where FDA requires two marketing applications for a combination product, two application fees would ordinarily be assessed. However, the guidance also describes how the PDUFA “barrier to innovation” waiver provision may be applied to innovative combination products for which FDA requires the submission of two marketing applications. Such a waiver would provide a reduction in application user
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on application user fees for combination products. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Content of Labeling.” This guidance is one in a series of guidance documents on providing regulatory submissions to FDA in electronic format. FDA's regulations require that the content of labeling for marketing applications be submitted in electronic format in a form that FDA can process, review, and archive. The guidance provides information on submitting the content of labeling in electronic format for review with new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), and biological license applications (BLAs) for biological products that meet the definition of drug in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at any time. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857 or to the Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Submit telephone requests to 800-835-4709 or 301-827-1800.
Submit written comments on the 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
In the
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format—Content of Labeling.” The guidance provides information on how to submit the content of labeling in electronic format.
In the preambles of the proposed and final rules on electronic labeling, FDA identified portable document format (PDF) as the only type of electronic file format that the agency has the ability to accept for processing, reviewing, and archiving. Recent recommendations from the Institute of Medicine and the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics and mandates in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173) have created a new role for electronic labeling information. Electronically formatted content of labeling will be used to support Federal health information management initiatives such as electronic prescribing; the electronic health record (EHR), which will provide health care providers, patients, and other authorized users access to patient information in electronic format; and
Because FDA's current procedures using PDF are not adequate to support these initiatives, the agency is changing the way it processes, reviews, and archives the content of labeling. We are adopting a new technology for exchanging information between computer systems developed by Health Level Seven (HL7), a standards development organization accredited by the American National Standards Institute. The new technology, based on Clinical Document Architecture (CDA), allows information to be exchanged in extensible markup language (XML) and is the standard being investigated for the EHR. FDA, working with other parties in HL7 (experts from HL7, industry, and technology solution providers), has adapted CDA for labeling in an HL7 standard called Structured Product Labeling (SPL).
FDA is developing an automated system using SPL for processing and managing labeling and labeling changes. FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research has identified SPL in public docket number 1992S-0251 as a format that FDA can use to process, review, and archive the content of labeling. During our transition to the automated system, the agency is able to accept the content of labeling in either PDF or SPL file format. After the automated system is implemented, PDF will no longer be a format that we can use to process, review, and archive the content of labeling. At this time, it is our goal to complete the transition to SPL format for content of labeling submissions by fall 2005.
In the
• Lengthened the timeframe for the agency's implementation of the automated system using SPL;
• Developed a Web site (on the Internet at
• Revised the guidance to clarify the procedures for submitting content of labeling in electronic format.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on providing the content of labeling in electronic format as required in 21 CFR parts 314 and 601. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
This 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 collections of information in this guidance have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0530, expiring November 30, 2006.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
The AIDS Research Loan Repayment Program (AIDS-LRP) is authorized by Section 487A of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 288-1); the Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds (CR-LRP) is authorized by Section 487E (42 U.S.C.
The Loan Repayment Programs can repay up to $35,000 per year toward a participant's extant eligible educational loans, directly to lenders, in addition to salary and benefits. The information proposed for collection will be used by the Office of Loan Repayment to determine an applicant's eligibility for participation in the program.
The annualized cost to respondents is estimated at $996,420.66. There are no Capital Costs, Operating Costs, and/or Maintenance Costs to report.
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.
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.
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.
Coast Guard, DHS; Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice of availability; notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The U.S. Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration (MARAD) announce the availability of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) on the Pearl Crossing LLC Deepwater Port License Application and Pearl Crossing Pipeline LLC Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and
The DEIS will be available on April 22, 2005. Three public meetings will be held from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. and each will be preceded by an informational open house from 4 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The first meeting will be held in Sulphur, Louisiana on Tuesday, May 3, 2005. The second meeting will be held in Johnsons Bayou, Louisiana on Wednesday, May 4, 2005. The third meeting will be held in Portland, Texas on Thursday, May 5, 2005. The public meetings may end later than the stated time, depending on the number of persons wishing to speak. Material submitted in response to the request for comments must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before June 7, 2005.
The public meeting and informational open house in Sulphur, Louisiana, will be held at the Holiday Inn Express, 102 Mallard Street, phone: 337-625-2500.
The public meeting and informational open house in Johnsons Bayou, Louisiana, will be held at the Johnsons Bayou Community Center, 5556 Gulf Beach Highway, phone: 337-569-2815.
The public meeting and informational open house in Portland, Texas, will be held at the City of Portland Recreation Department, 2000 Billy G. Webb Drive, phone: 361-777-3301.
Address docket submissions for USCG-2004-18474 to: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
The Docket Management Facility accepts hand-delivered submissions, and makes docket contents available for public inspection and copying, at this address, in room PL-401, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Facility's telephone is 202-366-9329, its fax is 202-493-2251, and its Web site for electronic submissions or for electronic access to docket contents is
If you have questions on this notice, call Lieutenant Ken Kusano, U.S. Coast Guard at 202-267-1184, or e-mail at
We invite you to learn about the proposed deepwater port at the informational open house, and to comment at the public meeting on the proposed action and the evaluation contained in the DEIS.
Please notify the Coast Guard (
You may submit written material at the public meeting, either in place of or in addition to speaking. Written material must include your name and address, and will be included in the public docket.
Public docket materials will be made available to the public on the Docket Management Facility's Docket Management System (DMS). See “Request for Comments” for information about DMS and your rights under the Privacy Act.
If you plan to attend either the open house or the public meeting, and need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation, please notify the Coast Guard (
We request public comments or other relevant information on the DEIS. The public meeting is not the only opportunity you have to comment on the DEIS. In addition to or in place of attending the meeting, you can submit material to the Docket Management Facility during the public comment period (
Submissions should include:
• Docket number USCG-2004-18474.
• Your name and address.
• Your reasons for making each comment or for bringing information to our attention.
Submit comments or material using only one of the following methods:
• Electronic submission to DMS,
• Fax, mail, or hand delivery to the Docket Management Facility (
Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the DMS Web site (
You may view docket submissions at the Docket Management Facility (
We published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the proposed Pearl Crossing LNG Terminal LLC deepwater port in the
The alternatives to licensing are: (1) Licensing with conditions (including conditions designed to mitigate environmental impact), and (2) denying the application, which for purposes of environmental review is the “no-action” alternative. These alternatives are more fully discussed in the DEIS.
The application calls for the proposed deepwater port to be located outside State waters in the Gulf of Mexico on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, approximately 41 miles (66 kilometers) south of the Louisiana coast in West Cameron Block 220. It would be located in a water depth of approximately 62 feet (19 meters). The proposed Pearl
The deepwater port terminal would include two concrete gravity-based LNG storage tanks, LNG carrier berthing provisions, LNG unloading arms, low and high pressure pumps, vaporizers, metering, utility systems, general facilities, and accommodations for up to 60 persons. The total net working capacity of the two integral LNG storage tanks would be 250,000 cubic meters. Pearl Crossing proposes to regasify the LNG using an open rack vaporization system. The terminal would have the ability to accommodate two LNG carriers having capacities ranging from 125,000 to 250,000 cubic meters per vessel. The terminal would be designed to have an average delivery of approximately 2.0 billion cubic feet per day of pipeline quality gas.
The applicant proposes to install two 42-inch-diameter (1.1-meter) offshore pipelines that would originate at the terminal and traverse the Gulf of Mexico in a northwesterly direction to the high water mark near Johnsons Bayou in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Each offshore pipeline would have a throughput capacity of 1.4 billion standard cubic feet per day (Bscfd) for a total peak capacity of 2.8 Bscfd. Thereafter, the pipelines would continue onshore to multiple gas delivery points in Louisiana and come under FERC jurisdiction as Pearl Crossing Pipeline LLC. Pearl Crossing Pipeline LLC would transport natural gas from the terminal/s two offshore pipelines to a metering and distribution station in Johnsons Bayou for delivery to several interstate and intrastate pipelines near the station. Once onshore, an additional 63.75 miles (102.6 kilometers) of 42-inch-diameter (1.1-meter) pipeline and five additional meter stations would be constructed. The pipeline would terminate near Starks, Louisiana.
The project application includes a fabrication site where the applicant proposes to construct the concrete GBS and its integral components prior to towing the GBS out to the offshore LNG Terminal site. The DEIS evaluates three potential fabrication sites located within San Patricio and Nueces Counties, Texas, near Corpus Christi, Texas.
The onshore portion of this project shoreward of the mean high water line falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and must receive a separate authorization from the FERC. As required by their regulations, FERC will also maintain a docket. The FERC docket numbers for this project are CP04-374-000, CP04-375-000 and CP04-376-000. To submit comments to the FERC docket, send an original and two copies of your comments to Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888, First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Label one copy of the comments to the Attention of Gas Branch 2. The FERC strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the FERC's Web site at
In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to
New Orleans District, Army Corps of Engineers is issuing a public notice advising all interested parties of the proposed activity for which a Department of the Army permit is being sought and soliciting comments and information necessary to evaluate the probable impact on the public interest. Comments should be furnished to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, OD-SW, PO Box 60267, New Orleans, LA 70160-0267.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requests the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend an existing approval to collect information to determine whether a bidder is qualified to hold a lease and to conduct geothermal resource operations under the terms of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and the Geothermal Steam Act of 1969. BLM uses Forms 3000-2 and 3200-9 to collect this information.
You must submit your comments to BLM at the address below on or before June 20, 2005. BLM will not necessarily consider any comments received after the above date.
You may mail comments to: Regulatory Affairs Group (WO-630), Eastern States Office, 7450 Boston Blvd., Springfield, Virginia 22153.
You may send comments via Internet to:
You may deliver comments to the Bureau of Land Management, Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Comments will be available for public review at the L Street address during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.) Monday through Friday.
You may contact Barbara Gamble, Fluids Minerals Group, on (202) 452-0338 (Commercial or FTS). Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) on 1-800-877-
5 CFR 1320.12(a) requires that we provide a 60-day notice in the
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of our estimates of the information collection burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions we use;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181
The regulations (43 CFR 3100) outline procedures for obtaining a lease to explore for, develop, and produce oil and gas resources located on public lands. The regulations (43 CFR part 3200) outline procedures to issue geothermal leases and the exploration, development and utilization of Federally-owned geothermal resources. BLM needs the information requested on the two forms of process lease bids for oil and gas and geothermal resources and to complete environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
You must submit the forms to the proper BLM office. Form 3000-2 requires the name and address to identify the bidder. This allows BLM to ensure that the bidder meets the eligibility requirements in the regulations. The regulations require the bidder to submit one-fifth of the amount of the bid for a geothermal bid or the minimum acceptable bid for an oil and gas lease is the first year's rental and administrative fee. Form 3200-9 requires the name and address of the entity who will conduct operations on the land. You must also submit the legal land description of the lands you plan to enter or disturb for your exploration/operations and the starting and ending dates of operations. We use the starting and ending dates to determine how long the applicant/operator/contractor intends to conduct operations on the land.
Based on BLM's experience administering this program, we estimate the public reporting burden is 10 minutes for completing Form 3000-2 and 2 hours for completing Form 3200-9. These estimates include the time spent on research, gathering, and assembling information, reviewing instructions, and completing the respective forms. BLM estimates 1,000 competitive bids for oil and gas and geothermal resources and 30 Notice of Intent to Conduct Geothermal Resource Exploration Operations are filed annually, with a total annual burden of 227 hours. Respondents vary from individuals and small businesses to large corporations.
Any member of the public may request and obtain, without charge, a copy of BLM Forms 3000-2 or 3200-9 by contacting the person identified under
BLM will summarize all responses to this notice and include them in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of a public record.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requests the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend an existing approval to collect information from those persons who submit a Color-of-Title Application to apply for public lands under a color-of-title claim. BLM uses forms 2540-1, 2540-2, and 2540-3 for color-of-title transactions on public lands.
You must submit your comments to BLM at the address below on or before June 20, 2005. BLM will not necessarily consider any comments received after the above date.
You may mail comments to: Regulatory Affairs Group (WO-360), Eastern States Office, 7450 Boston Blvd., Springfield, Virginia 22153.
You may send comments via Internet to:
You may deliver comments to the Bureau of Land Management, Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Comments will be available for public review at the L Street address during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.) Monday through Friday.
You may contact Alzata L. Ransom, Lands and Realty Group, on (202) 452-7772 (Commercial or FTS). Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) on 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to contact Ms. Ransom.
5 CFR 1320.12(a) requires that we provide a 60-day notice in the
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of our estimates of the information collection burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions we use;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Congress passed the Color-of-Title Act of December 22, 1928 (45 Stat. 1069), as amended by the Act of July 28, 1953 (67 Stat. 227; 43 U.S.C. 1068-1068b), to provide for the transfer of legal title to public lands from the United States to eligible individuals, groups, or corporations who have a valid color-of-title claim. The regulations at 43 CFR Part 2540 provide guidelines to file a color-of-title claim.
Any individual, group, or corporation that possesses valid evidence of a title to public lands administered by BLM may file a Color-of-Title Application (Form 2540-1). The Act refers to Class I and Class II claims. A Class I claim is a claim:
(1) Held in good faith and peaceful, adverse possession by a claimant, his ancestors or grantors, under claim or color-of-title for a minimum of 20 years; and
(2) Where claimant or predecessors placed valuable improvements and cultivated part of the land.
A Class II claim is a claim held in good faith and peaceful, adverse possession by a claimant, his ancestors or grantors, under claim or color-of-title for the period commencing not later than January 1, 1901, to date of application, during which time they paid taxes levied on the land by State and local governmental units.
A claim is not held in good faith when held with knowledge that the land is owned by the United States. A claim is not held in peaceful, adverse possession if it was initiated while the land was withdrawn or reserved for Federal purposes.
When BLM receives the application, we will analyze the information, conduct an on-site field examination of the lands, and prepare reports. The BLM will approve your application if you meet the requirements of a Class I or Class II claim. We will reject your application if you do not meet the requirements of a Class I or Class II claim. Class II claims are discretionary and we may reject the application if the public interest in retention of the lands clearly outweighs the interest of the applicant.
Based on past experience processing these applications, BLM estimates the public reporting burden for completing the Form 2540-1 is 1 hour, Form 2540-2 (Conveyances Affecting Color or Claim of Title) is 1 hour, and Form 2540-3 (Color-of-Title Tax Levy and Payment Record) is 1 hour. BLM estimates that we receive approximately 33 applications (11 for each form) annually, with a total annual burden of 33 hours.
Any member of the public may request and obtain, without charge a copy of BLM Forms 2540-1, 2540-2 and 2540-3 by contacting the person identified under
BLM will summarize all responses to this notice and include them in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of a public record.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requests the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend an existing approval to collect information from individuals submitting nominations for significant caves under the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 and to request confidential cave information. BLM needs the information to determine which caves we will list as significant and decide whether to grant access to confidential cave information.
You must submit your comments to BLM at the address below on or before June 20, 2004. BLM will not necessarily consider any comments received after the above date.
You may mail comments to: Regulatory Affairs Group (WO-630), Eastern States Office, 7450 Boston Blvd., Springfield, Virginia 22153.
You may send comments via Internet to:
You may deliver comments to the Bureau of Land Management, Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Comments will be available for public review at the L Street address during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.) Monday through Friday.
You may contact James Goodbar, BLM Field Office, Carlsbad, New Mexico, on (505) 234-5929 (Commercial or FTS). Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) on 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to contact Mr. Goodbar.
5 CFR 1320.12(a) requires that we provide a 60-day notice in the
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of our estimates of the information collection burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions we use;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988, 102 Stat. 4546, 16 U.S.C. 4301, requires the identification, protection, and maintenance of significant caves on public lands the Department of the Interior, BLM manages. The implementing regulations are found at 43 CFR 37—Cave Management. Federal agencies must consult with “cavers” and other interested parties and develop a list of significant caves. The regulations establish criteria for identifying significant caves and integrate cave management into existing planning and management processes to protect cave resource information. We protection this information to prevent vandalism and disturbance of significant caves. Other Federal or state agencies, bona fide education or research institutes, or individuals or organizations who assist land management agencies with cave management activities may request access to confidential cave information. BLM uses the Significant Cave Nomination Worksheet to collect some of the requested information on cave management activities.
Based on BLM's experience administering this program, we estimate the public reporting burden is 3 hours for each nomination and 30 minutes for each request for confidential cave information. BLM estimates that 50 cave nominations and 10 requests for
BLM will summarize all responses to this notice and include them in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of a public record.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requests the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend an existing approval to collect information from applicants to lease and develop solid minerals other than coal and oil shade. BLM uses the information to determine whether an applicant, permittee, or lessee is qualified to hold an interest under the terms of the implementing regulations at 43 CFR part 3500.
You must submit your comments to BLM at the address below on or before June 20, 2005.
You may mail comments to: Regulatory Affairs Group (WO-630), Eastern States Office, 7450 Boston Blvd., Springfield, Virginia 22153.
You may send comments via Internet to:
You may deliver comments to the Bureau of Land Management, Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Comments will be available for public review at the L Street address during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.) Monday through Friday.
You may contact Nick Rieger, Solid Minerals Group, on (202) 452-5149 (Commercial or FTS). Persons who use the telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) on 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to contact Mr. Rieger.
5 CFR 1320.12(a) requires that we provide a 60-day notice in the
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of our estimates of the information collection burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions we use;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The regulations at 43 CFR part 3500 implement numerous statutes including:
(1) The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181
(2) The Mineral Leasing Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 351-359);
(3) Section 402 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5 U.S.C. Appendix);
(4) The Multiple Mineral Development Act of 1954 (30 U.S.C. 521-531);
(5) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Based on BLM's experience administering the leasing program, we estimate the public reporting burden as indicated in the above chart to complete the applications, petitions, offers, and statements as required. BLM estimates that we receive 264 filings annually, with a total annual burden of 3,652 hours. The respondents vary from
Any member of the public may request and obtain, without a charge, a copy of BLM Forms 3510-1, 3520-7, 3501-2, 3504-1, 3504-3, and 3504-4 by contacting the person identified under
BLM will summarize all responses to this notice and include them in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of a public record.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend an existing approval to collect information from owners of unpatented claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites. BLM uses Forms 3830-2 and 3830-3 to collect this information to record such claims and sites; determine the land status at the time of location; collect annual maintenance and location fees; process waivers of annual fees; process annual affidavits of labor or notices of intent to hold a mining claim or site; process requests for deferments from assessment work; process transfers of interest; and adjudicate such claims and sites. The regulations under 43 CFR 3830-3833, 3840-3843, and 3850-3852 authorize BLM to collect the above information to manage the general mining law activities on public lands.
You must submit your comments to BLM at the address below on or before June 20, 2005. BLM will not necessarily consider any comments received after the above date.
You may mail comments to: Bureau of Land Management, (WO-630), Eastern States Office, 7450 Boston Blvd., Springfield, Virginia 22153.
You may send comments via Internet to:
You may deliver comments to the Bureau of Land Management, Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
All comments will be available for public review at the L Street address during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.) Monday through Friday.
You may contact Roger A. Haskins on (202) 452-0372 (Commercial or FTS). Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) on 1-800-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to contact Mr. Haskins.
5 CFR 1320.12(a) requires that we provide a 60-day notice in the
(A) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of our estimates of the information collection burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions we use;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 30 U.S.C. 28f (Pub. L. 105-277), and the regulations under 43 CFR 3830-3833, 3840-3843, and 3850-3852 authorize BLM to collect information from owners of unpatented claims, mill sites and tunnel sites to manage the general mining law activities on public lands.
BLM uses Form 3830-2 (Maintenance Fee Waiver) to collect the information to waive the $100 annual maintenance fee that owners of unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites must pay. The owners of unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites must submit the following information to BLM:
(1) The mining claim names and BLM serial numbers;
(2) A declaration that the owners own or have interest in 10 or fewer claims or sites;
(3) A declaration of compliance with the assessment work requirements;
(4) The names and addresses of all owners of the claims and sites; and
(5) The owners'/agents' signatures.
BLM uses Form 3830-3 (Notice of Intent to Locate A Lode or Placer Mining Claim(s) and/or A Tunnel Site(s) on Lands Patented Under the Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916, as amended) to collect information on an applicant who files a notice of intent to locate or explore for a mining claim or tunnel site. The applicant must submit the following information to BLM:
(1) The name and mailing address of the applicant filing the notice of intent to locate or explore for a mining claim or tunnel site;
(2) A legal land description of the lands which the notice of intent will apply;
(3) A brief description of the proposed mineral activities;
(4) A map and legal land description of lands subject top mineral exploration;
(5) The name, address, and phone number of the person managing the activities; and
(6) The dates the activities will take place.
BLM uses the information on recording claims, annual assessment work, notice of intent to hold, and transfer of interest to:
(1) Determine the number and location of unpatented mining claims, mill sites and tunnel sites located on Federal lands to assist in the surface management of these lands and any minerals found there;
(2) Remove any cloud on the title to those lands due to abandoned mining claims;
(3) Provide information as to the location of active claims; and
(4) Keep informed on transfers of interest and ownership.
Without this information, BLM could not protect the rights of surface and mineral owners. Also, the Government's ability to locate, control, and manage surface disturbance would be compromised.
Based upon BLM experience, the public reporting information collection burden takes eight minutes per response. The respondents are owners of unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites located on public lands and individuals or organizations who seek to explore for or locate a mining claim. The estimated number of responses per year is 236,852 and the total annual burden is 31,585 hours.
BLM will summarize all responses to this notice and include them in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Bureau of Land Management; Interior.
Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas lease.
Pursuant to the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease COC60770 for lands in Garfield County, Colorado, was timely filed and was accompanied by all the required rentals accruing from the date of termination.
Bureau of Land Management, Beverly A. Derringer, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (303) 239-3765.
The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $20.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 18
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Per 30 U.S.C. 188(d), the lessee timely filed a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease MTM 93052, Pondera County, Montana. The lessee paid the required rental accruing from the date of termination.
No leases were issued that affect these lands. The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per acre and 16
The lessee met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We are proposing to reinstate the lease, effective January 1, 2005 subject to:
• The original terms and conditions of the lease;
• The increased rental of $10 per acre;
• The increased royalty of 16
• The $155 cost of publishing this Notice
Karen L. Johnson, Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section, BLM Montana State Office, PO Box 36800, Billings, Montana 59107, 406-896-5098.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of reinstatement of terminated oil and gas lease.
Under the provisions of section 31(d) of the Mineral Leasing Act, (30 U.S.C. 188(d)), a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease NMNM 106897 for lands in Quay County, New Mexico, was timely filed and was accompanied by all required rentals and royalties accruing from September 1, 2004, the date of termination.
Lourdes B. Ortiz, BLM, New Mexico State Office, (505) 438-7586.
No valid lease has been affecting the lands. The lessee has agreed to new lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof and 16
The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lease Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate the lease effective September 1, 2004, subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas lease.
Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease WYW153617 for lands in Park County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.
Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J.
The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas lease.
Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease WYW159119 for lands in Weston County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.
Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. Lewis, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.
The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public land order.
This order withdraws approximately 90 acres of public land from location and entry under the United States mining laws for a period of 5 years to protect the Tyro Mill Site Reclamation Project while the Bureau of Land Management completes land use planning for the area.
April 21, 2005.
Paul Misiaszek, BLM Kingman Field Office, 2755 Mission Boulevard Avenue, Kingman, Arizona 86401, 928-718-3728.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows:
1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described public land is hereby withdrawn from location and entry under the United States mining laws, 30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (2000), to protect the Bureau of Land Management's Tyro Mill Site Reclamation Project:
The area described contains approximately 90 acres in Mohave County.
2. This withdrawal will expire 5 years from the effective date of this order unless, as a result of a review conducted before the expiration date pursuant to section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (2000), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior.
Notice of realty action.
This action informs the public that BLM has examined and found suitable approximately 15 acres of public land in Dona Ana County, New Mexico for lease or conveyance to Las Cruces Public Schools under the provision of the R&PP Act, as amended (44 Stat. 741, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 869
Comments regarding the proposed lease/conveyance or classification must be submitted on or before June 6, 2005.
Comments should be sent to the BLM, Las Cruces Field Office, 1800 Marquess, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005.
Angel Mayes, Realty Specialist at the address above or by telephone at (505) 525-4376.
The following public land in Dona Ana County, New Mexico has been examined and found suitable for classification for lease or conveyance to Las Cruces Public Schools under the provision of the R&PP Act, as amended (44 Stat. 741, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 869
Containing 15.136 acres, more or less.
Lease or conveyance will be subject to the following terms, conditions, and reservations:
1. Provisions of the R&PP Act and to all applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior.
2. All valid existing rights documented on the official public land records at the time of lease/patent issuance.
3. All minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove the minerals.
4. Any other reservations that the authorized officer determines appropriate to ensure public access and proper management of Federal land and interests therein.
Upon publication of this notice in the
On or before June 6, 2005, interested persons may submit comments regarding the proposed lease/conveyance or classification of the land to the BLM Las Cruces Field Manager.
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the State Director. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification will become effective on June 20, 2005.
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 March 4, 2005, a petition was filed by Eramet Marietta Inc., Marietta, OH, and the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union, Local 5-0639, Belpre, OH, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of superalloy degassed chromium from Japan. Accordingly, effective March 4, 2005, the Commission instituted antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1090 (Preliminary).
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 April 18, 2005. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3768 (April 2005), entitled
By order of the Commission.
60-day notice of information collection under review: Claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Division, has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until June 20, 2005. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
The Department of Labor has submitted the following (see below) information collection request (ICR), utilizing emergency review procedures, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). OMB approval has been requested by May 13, 2005. A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor Departmental Clearance Officer, Ira L. Mills (202) 693-4122.
Comments and questions about the ICR listed below should be forwarded to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Employment and Training Administration, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. The Office of Management and Budget 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,
Employment and Training Administration.
This is a request to revise the current MSFW program reporting requirements to include data elements necessary for assessing grantee progress against common measures of performance beginning July 1, 2005. In 2002, under the President's Management Agenda, OMB and other Federal agencies developed a set of common performance measures to be applied to certain Federally-funded employment and training programs with similar strategic goals. Although the common measures are an integral part of ETA's performance accountability system, these measures provide only part of the information necessary to effectively oversee the workforce investment system. ETA will continue to collect from grantees data on program activities, participants, and outcomes that are necessary for program management and to convey full and accurate information on the performance of workforce programs to policymakers and stakeholders.
The value of implementing common measures is the ability to describe in a similar manner the core purposes of the workforce system—how many people found jobs; did people stay employed; and did earnings increase. Multiple sets of performance measures have burdened states and grantees as they are required to report performance outcomes based on varying definitions and methodologies. By minimizing the different reporting and performance requirements, common performance measures can facilitate the integration of service delivery, reduce barriers to cooperation among programs, and enhance the ability to assess the effectiveness and impact of the workforce investment system, including the performance of the system in serving individuals facing significant barriers to employment.
This revision to the MSFW program reporting requirements identifies a minimum level of information collection that is necessary to comply with Equal Opportunity requirements, holds grantees appropriately accountable for the Federal funds they receive, including common performance measures, and allows the Department to fulfill its oversight and management responsibilities.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor.
Notice of an application for a permanent variance and interim order; grant of interim order; and request for comments.
International Chimney Corporation, Karrena International, LLC, and Matrix Service Industrial Contractors, Inc. (“the employers”) have applied for a permanent variance from the provisions of the OSHA standards that regulate boatswains' chairs and hoist towers, specifically paragraph (o)(3) of § 1926.452 and paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of § 1926.552. In addition, the employers have requested an interim order based on the alternative conditions specified by the variance application. Since these conditions are the same as the conditions specified in the most recent permanent variance granted by the Agency for these boatswains'-chair and hoist-tower provisions, OSHA is granting the applicants' request for interim orders.
Submit comments and requests for a hearing by May 23, 2005.
For information about this notice contact MaryAnn S. Garrahan, Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Room N-3655, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2110; fax: (202)
Additional information about this variance application also is available from the following OSHA Regional Offices:
• U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, JFK Federal Building, Room E340, Boston, MA 02203; telephone: (617) 565-9860; fax: (617) 565-9827.
• U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, 201Varick St., Room 670, New York, NY 10014; telephone: (212) 337-2378; fax: (212) 337-2371.
• U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Curtis Building, Suite 740 West, 170 South Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106; telephone: (215) 861-4900; fax: (215) 861-4904.
• U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St., SW., Room 6T50, Atlanta, GA 30303; telephone: (404) 562-2300; fax: (404) 562-2295.
• U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, 230 South Dearborn St., Room 3244, Chicago, IL 60604; telephone: (312) 353-2220; fax: (312) 353-7774.
• U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, 525 Griffin St., Room 602, Dallas, TX 75202; telephone: (214) 767-4736; fax: (214) 767-4693.
• U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, City Center Square, 1100 Main St., Suite 800, Kansas City, MO 64105; telephone: (816) 426-5861; fax: (816) 426-2750.
• U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, 1999 Broadway, Suite 1690, Denver, CO 80202-5716 (overnight), P.O. Box 46550, Denver, CO 80201-6550 (mail); telephone: (303) 844-1600; fax: (303) 844-1616.
• U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, 71 Stevenson St., Room 420, San Francisco, CA 94105; telephone: (415) 975-4310; fax: (415) 975-4319.
• U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, 1111 Third Ave., Suite 715, Seattle, WA 98101-3212; telephone: (206) 553-5930; fax: (206) 553-6499.
The following companies (“the employers”) have submitted requests for a permanent variance under Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR 1905.11: (1) International Chimney Corporation, 55 South Long Street, Williamsville, New York 14221 (P.O. Box 260, Buffalo, NY 14231) (Ex. 1); (2) Karrena International, LLC, 57 South Long Street, Williamsville, New York 14221 (P.O. Box 200, Buffalo, NY 14231) (Ex. 2); and Matrix Service Industrial Contractors, Inc., 6945 Crabb Road, Temperance, Michigan 48182 (Ex. 3). The employers seek a permanent variance from § 1926.452(o)(3), which provides the tackle requirements for boatswains' chairs. The employers also request a variance from paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of § 1926.552 that regulate hoist towers. These latter paragraphs specify the following requirements:
• (c)(1)—Construction requirements for hoist towers outside a structure;
• (c)(2)—Construction requirements for hoist towers inside a structure;
• (c)(3)—Anchoring a hoist tower to a structure;
• (c)(4)—Hoistway doors or gates;
• (c)(8)—Electrically interlocking entrance doors or gates to the hoistway and cars;
• (c)(13)—Emergency stop switch located in the car;
• (c)(14)(i)—Using a minimum of two wire ropes for drum hoisting; and
• (c)(16)—Material and component requirements for construction of personnel hoists. The employers contend that the permanent variance would provide their employees with a place of employment that is at least as safe and healthful as they would obtain under the existing provisions.
The places of employment affected by this variance application are the present and future projects where the employers construct chimneys, located in states under federal jurisdiction, as well as State-plan states that have safety and health plans approved by OSHA under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act (29 U.S.C. 667) and 29 CFR part 1952 (“Approved State Plans for Enforcement of State Standards”). The employers certify that they have provided employee representatives of current employees who would be affected by the permanent variance with a copy of their variance requests. They also certify that they notified their employees of the variance requests by posting a summary of the application and specifying where they can examine a copy of the application at a prominent location or locations where they normally post notices to their employees (or instead of a summary, posting the application itself); and by other appropriate means. In addition, the employers have informed employees and their representatives of their right to petition the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health for a hearing on this variance application.
The employers perform chimney work in a number of geographic locations in the United States; these locations are likely to include one or more locations in State-plan states. Consequently, any permanent variance granted as a result of this variance application would be subject to the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1952.9 (“Variances affecting multi-state employers”) and 29 CFR 1905.14(b)(3) (“Action on applications”). Under these regulations, a permanent variance granted by the Agency would become effective in State-plan states to the extent that the relevant state standards are the same as the federal OSHA standards from which the employers are seeking the permanent variance, and the state has jurisdiction over both private- and public-sector employers and employees.
The employers construct, remodel, repair, maintain, inspect, and demolish tall chimneys made of reinforced concrete, brick, and steel. This work, which occurs throughout the United States, requires the employers to transport employees and construction material to and from elevated work platforms and scaffolds located, respectively, inside and outside tapered chimneys. While tapering contributes to the stability of a chimney, it requires frequent relocation of, and adjustments to, the work platforms and scaffolds so that they will fit the decreasing circumference of the chimney as construction progresses upwards.
To transport employees to various heights inside and outside a chimney, the employers propose to use a hoist system that would lift and lower personnel-transport devices that include personnel cages, personnel platforms, or
The employers would use a hoist engine located and controlled outside the chimney, to power the hoist system. The system also would consist of a wire rope that: spools off the hoist drum into the interior of the chimney; passes to a footblock that redirects the rope from the horizontal to the vertical planes; goes from the footblock through the overhead sheaves above the elevated platform; and finally drops to the bottom landing of the chimney where it connects to the personnel or material transport. The cathead, which is a superstructure at the top of a derrick, supports the overhead sheaves. The overhead sheaves (and the vertical span of the hoist system) move upward with the derrick as chimney construction progresses. Two guide cables, suspended from the cathead, eliminate swaying and rotation of the load. If the hoist rope breaks, safety clamps activate and grip the guide cables to prevent the load from falling. The employers would use a headache ball, located on the hoist rope directly above the load, to counterbalance the rope's weight between the cathead sheaves and the footblock.
The employers would implement additional conditions to improve employee safety, including:
• Attaching the wire rope to the personnel cage using a keyed-screwpin shackle or positive-locking link;
• Adding limit switches to the hoist system to prevent overtravel by the personnel- or material-transport devices;
• Providing the safety factors and other precautions required for personnel hoists specified by the pertinent provisions of § 1926.552(c), including canopies and shields to protect employees located in a personnel cage from material that may fall during hoisting and other overhead activities;
• Providing falling-object protection for scaffold platforms as specified by § 1926.451(h)(1);
• Conducting tests and inspections of the hoist system as required by §§ 1926.20(b)(2) and 1926.552(c)(15);
• Establishing an accident-prevention program that conforms to § 1926.20(b)(3);
• Ensuring that employees who use a personnel platform or boatswain's chair wear full body harnesses and lanyards, and that the lanyards are attached to lifelines during the entire period of vertical transit; and
• Securing the lifelines (used with a personnel platform or boatswain's chair) to the rigging at the top of the chimney and to a weight at the bottom of the chimney to provide maximum stability to the lifelines.
Since 1973, ten chimney-construction companies demonstrated to OSHA that several of the hoist-tower requirements of § 1926.552(c) present access problems that pose a serious danger to their employees. These companies received permanent variances from these personnel-hoist and boatswains'-chair requirements, and they used essentially the same alternate apparatus and procedures that the employers are now proposing to use in this variance application. The Agency published the permanent variances for these companies at 38 FR 8545 (April 3, 1973), 44 FR 51352 (August 31, 1979), 50 FR 40627 (October 4, 1985), 52 FR 22552 (June 12, 1987), and 68 FR 52961 (September 8, 2003) (
In 1980, the Agency evaluated the alternative conditions specified in the permanent variances that it had granted to chimney-construction companies as of that date. In doing so, OSHA observed hoisting operations conducted by these companies at various construction sites. These evaluations found that, while the alternative conditions generally were safe, compliance with the conditions among the companies was uneven (
The permanent variance granted most recently by OSHA to American Boiler and Chimney Co. and Oak Park Chimney Corp. (
The employers state that it is necessary, on occasion, to use a boatswains' chair to transport employees to and from a bracket scaffold on the outside of an existing chimney during flue installation or repair work, or to and from an elevated scaffold located inside a chimney that has a small or tapering diameter. Paragraph (o)(3) of § 1926.452, which regulates the tackle used to rig a boatswains' chair, states that this tackle must “consist of correct size ball bearings or bushed blocks containing safety hooks and properly ‘eye-spliced’ minimum five-eighth (5/8″) inch diameter first-grade manila rope [or equivalent rope].”
The primary purpose of this paragraph is to allow an employee to safely control the ascent, descent, and stopping locations of the boatswains' chair. However, the employers note that the required tackle is difficult or impossible to operate on some chimneys that are over 200 feet tall because of space limitations. Therefore, as an alternative to complying with the tackle requirements specified by § 1926.452(o)(3), the employers propose to use the hoisting system described in section III.A (“Overview”) of this notice, both inside and outside a chimney, to raise or lower employees in a personnel cage to work locations. The employers would use a personnel cage for this purpose to the extent that adequate space is available; they would use a personnel platform whenever a personnel cage is infeasible because of limited space. However, when limited space also makes a personnel platform infeasible, the employers then would use a boatswains' chair to lift employees to work locations. The employers would limit use of the boatswains' chair to elevations above the highest work location that the personnel cage and
Paragraph (c) of § 1926.552 specifies the requirements for enclosed hoisting systems used to transport personnel from one elevation to another. This paragraph ensures that employers transport employees safely to and from elevated work platforms by mechanical means during the construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, or demolition of structures such as chimneys. However, this standard does not provide specific safety requirements for hoisting personnel to and from elevated work platforms and scaffolds in tapered chimneys; the tapered design requires frequent relocation of, and adjustment to, the work platforms and scaffolds. The space in a small-diameter or tapered chimney is not large enough or configured so that it can accommodate an enclosed hoist tower. Moreover, using an enclosed hoist tower for outside operations exposes employees to additional fall hazards because they need to install extra bridging and bracing to support a walkway between the hoist tower and the tapered chimney.
Paragraph (c)(1) of § 1926.552 requires the employers to enclose hoist towers located outside a chimney on the side or sides used for entrance to, and exit from, the chimney; these enclosures must extend the full height of the hoist tower. The employers assert that it is impractical and hazardous to locate a hoist tower outside tapered chimneys because it becomes increasingly difficult, as a chimney rises, to erect, guy, and brace a hoist tower; under these conditions, access from the hoist tower to the chimney or to the movable scaffolds used in constructing the chimney exposes employees to a serious fall hazard. Additionally, the employers note that the requirement to extend the enclosures 10 feet above the outside scaffolds often exposes the employees involved in building these extensions to dangerous wind conditions.
Paragraph (c)(2) of § 1926.552 requires that employers enclose all four sides of a hoist tower even when the tower is located inside a chimney; the enclosure must extend the full height of the tower. The employers contend that it is hazardous for employees to erect and brace a hoist tower inside a chimney, especially small-diameter or tapered chimneys, or chimneys with sublevels, because these structures have limited space and cannot accommodate hoist towers; space limitations result from chimney design (
As an alternative to complying with the hoist-tower requirements of § 1926.552(c)(1) and (c)(2), the employers propose to use the rope-guided hoist system proposed above in section III.A (“Overview”) of this application to transport employees to and from work locations inside and outside chimneys. Use of the proposed hoist system would eliminate the need for the employers to comply with other provisions of § 1926.552(c) that specify requirements for hoist towers. Therefore, they are requesting a permanent variance from several other closely-related provisions, as follows:
• (c)(3)—Anchoring the hoist tower to a structure;
• (c)(4)—Hoistway doors or gates;
• (c)(8)—Electrically interlocking entrance doors or gates that prevent hoist movement when the doors or gates are open;
• (c)(13)—Emergency stop switch located in the car;
• (c)(14)(i)—Using a minimum of two wire ropes for drum-type hoisting; and
• (c)(16)—Construction specifications for personnel hoists, including materials, assembly, structural integrity, and safety devices.
The employers assert that the proposed hoisting system would protect their employees at least as effectively as the hoist-tower requirements of § 1926.552(c).
In addition to requesting a permanent variance, the employers also requested an interim order that would remain in effect until the Agency makes a decision on their application for a permanent variance. During this period, the employers must comply fully with the conditions of the interim order as an alternative to complying with the tackle requirements provided for boatswains' chairs by § 1926.452(o)(3) and the requirements for hoist towers specified by paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i) and (c)(16) of § 1926.552.
Based on its previous experience with permanent variances from these provisions granted to other companies, OSHA believes that an interim order is justified in this case. As noted above in section III.B (“Previous Variances * * *”), the Agency has granted five permanent variances from these provisions to 10 companies since 1973. Over this period, the affected companies have used effectively the alternative conditions specified in the variances. Moreover, the conditions of the interim order requested by the employers duplicate exactly the conditions approved in the permanent variance granted recently to American Boiler and Chimney Co. and Oak Park Chimney Corp. (
Having determined previously that the alternative conditions proposed by the employers will protect employees at least as effectively as the requirements of paragraph (o)(3) of § 1926.452 and paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of § 1926.552, OSHA has decided to grant an interim order to the employers pursuant to the provisions of § 1905.11(c). Accordingly, in lieu of complying with paragraph (o)(3) of § 1926.452 and paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of § 1926.552, the employers will: (1) Provide notice of this grant of interim order to the employees affected by the conditions of the interim order using the same means they used to inform these employees of their application for a permanent variance; and (2) comply with the conditions listed below in section V (“Specific Conditions of the Interim Order * * *”) of this application for the period between the date of this
With regard to chimney-construction operations conducted in State-plan states, the employers are invited to submit a request to the appropriate occupational safety and health authorities in those states where such operations are planned or are ongoing to determine whether they will honor this interim order. (For a list of State-plan states,
The following conditions apply to the interim order being granted by OSHA to International Chimney Corporation, Karrena International, LLC, and Matrix Service Industrial Contractors, Inc. as part of their application for a permanent variance described in this
(a) The interim order/permanent variance applies/would apply only when the employers use a rope-guided hoist system during inside or outside chimney construction to raise or lower their employees between the bottom landing of a chimney and an elevated work location on the inside or outside surface of the chimney.
(b) Except for the requirements specified by § 1926.452 (o)(3)) and § 1926.552(c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16), the employers must/would comply fully with all other applicable provisions of 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926.
(a)
(b)
(i) Replace the personnel platform with a boatswains' chair when they limit use of the boatswains' chair to elevations that are above the highest work location that the personnel platform can reach; and
(ii) When doing so, they must/would attach the boatswains' chair directly to the hoisting cable only when the structural arrangement precludes the safe use of the block and tackle required by § 1926.452(o)(3).
(a) The employers must/would:
(i) Provide a qualified competent person, as specified in paragraphs (f) and (m) of § 1926.32, who is responsible for ensuring that the design, maintenance, and inspection of the hoist system comply with the conditions of this grant and with the appropriate requirements of 29 CFR part 1926 (“Safety and Health Regulations for Construction”); and
(ii) Ensure that the qualified competent person is present at ground level to assist in an emergency whenever the hoist system is raising or lowering employees.
(b) The employers must/would use a qualified competent person to design and maintain the cathead described under Condition 8 (“Cathead and Sheave”) below.
(a)
(b)
(i) The hoist machine includes a base-mounted drum hoist designed to control line speed; and
(ii) Whenever they raise or lower a personnel or material hoist (
(A) The drive components are engaged continuously when an empty or occupied transport is being lowered (
(B) The drive system is interconnected, on a continuous basis, through a torque converter, mechanical coupling, or an equivalent coupling (
(C) The braking mechanism is applied automatically when the transmission is in the neutral position and a forward-reverse coupling or shifting transmission is being used; and
(D) No belts are used between the power source and the winding drum.
(c)
(d)
(i) Equip the hoist machine with a hand- or foot-operated constant-pressure control switch (
(ii) Protect the control switch to prevent it from activating if the hoist machine is struck by a falling or moving object.
(e)
(i) Equip the hoist machine with an operating line-speed indicator maintained in good working order; and
(ii) Ensure that the line-speed indicator is in clear view of the hoist operator during hoisting operations.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(i) Locate the hoist machine far enough from the footblock to obtain the correct fleet angle for proper spooling of the cable on the drum; and
(ii) Ensure that the fleet angle remains between one-half (
(k)
(i) Provide a winding drum for the hoist that is at least 30 times the diameter of the rope used for hoisting; and
(ii) Ensure that the winding drum has a flange diameter that is at least one and one-half (1
(l)
(m)
(n)
(a)
(i) Ensure that only trained and experienced employees, who are knowledgeable of hoist-system operations, control the hoist machine; and
(ii) Provide instruction, periodically and as necessary, on how to operate the hoist system to each employee who uses a personnel cage for transportation.
(b)
(i) Two hundred and fifty (250) feet (76.9 m) per minute when a personnel cage is being used to transport employees;
(ii) One hundred (100) feet (30.5 m) per minute when a personnel platform or boatswains' chair is being used to transport employees; or
(iii) A line speed that is consistent with the design limitations of the system when only material is being hoisted.
(c)
(i) Use a voice-mediated intercommunication system to maintain communication between the hoist operator and the employees located in or on a moving personnel cage, personnel platform, or boatswains' chair;
(ii) Stop hoisting if, for any reason, the communication system fails to operate effectively; and
(iii) Resume hoisting only when the site superintendent determines that it is safe to do so.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(i) Thoroughly inspect the hoist rope before the start of each job and on completing a new setup;
(ii) Maintain the proper diameter-to-diameter ratios between the hoist rope and the footblock and the sheave by inspecting the wire rope regularly (
(iii) Remove and replace the wire rope with new wire rope when any of the conditions specified by § 1926.552(a)(3) occurs.
(e)
(f)
(i) Use Table H-20 of § 1926.251 to determine the number and spacing of clips;
(ii) Use at least three (3) drop-forged clips at each fastening;
(iii) Install the clips with the “U” of the clips on the dead end of the rope; and
(iv) Space the clips so that the distance between them is six (6) times the diameter of the rope.
(a)
(i) Consisting of construction-type blocks of solid single-piece bail with a safety factor that is at least four (4) times the maximum rated load capacity, or an equivalent block with roller bearings;
(ii) Designed for the applied loading, size, and type of wire rope used for hoisting;
(iii) Designed with a guard that contains the wire rope within the sheave groove;
(iv) Bolted rigidly to the base; and
(v) Designed and installed so that it turns the moving wire rope to and from the horizontal or vertical as required by the direction of rope travel.
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(i) All sheaves revolve on shafts that rotate on bearings; and
(ii) The bearings are mounted securely to maintain the proper bearing position at all times.
(c)
(d)
(a)
(i) Consist of steel safety cables not less than one-half (1/2) inch (1.3 cm) in diameter; and
(ii) Be free of damage or defect at all times.
(b)
(c)
(a)
(i) A top and sides that are permanently enclosed (except for the entrance and exit);
(ii) A floor securely fastened in place;
(iii) Walls that consist of 14-gauge, one-half (
(iv) Walls that cover the full height of the personnel cage between the floor and the overhead covering;
(v) A sloped roof constructed of one-eighth (
(vi) Safe handholds (
(b)
(i) Ensure that the overhead weight is capable of preventing line run; and
(ii) Use a means to restrain the movement of the overhead weight so that the weight does
(c)
(i) Guards the full height of the entrance opening; and
(ii) Has a functioning mechanical lock that prevents accidental opening.
(d)
(e)
(i) Hoist no more than four (4) occupants in the cage at any one time; and
(ii) Ensure that the rated load capacity of the cage is at least 250 pounds (113.4 kg) for each occupant so hoisted.
(f)
(i) The standard rated load, as determined by the initial static drop test specified by Condition 10(g) (“Static drop tests”) below; and
(ii) The reduced rated load for the specific job.
(g)
(i) Conduct static drop tests of each personnel cage, and these tests must/would comply with the definition of “static drop test” specified by section 3 (“Definitions”) and the static drop-test procedures provided in section 13 (“Inspections and Tests”) of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard A10.22-1990 (R1998) (“American National Standard for Rope-Guided and Nonguided Worker's Hoists—Safety Requirements”);
(ii) Perform the initial static drop test at 125 percent of the maximum rated load of the personnel cage, and subsequent drop tests at no less than 100 percent of its maximum rated load; and
(iii) Use a personnel cage for raising or lowering employees only when no damage occurred to the components of the cage as a result of the static drop tests.
(a)
(i) Fit appropriately designed and constructed safety clamps to the guide ropes; and
(ii) Ensure that the safety clamps do not damage the guide ropes when in use.
(b)
(c)
(i) Operate on the “broken rope principle” defined in section 3 (“Definitions”) of ANSI standard A10.22-1990 (R1998);
(ii) Are capable of stopping and holding a personnel cage that is carrying 100 percent of its maximum rated load and traveling at its maximum allowable speed if the hoist rope breaks at the footblock; and
(iii) Use a pre-determined and pre-set clamping force (
(d)
(a) The employers must/would install a canopy or shield over the top of the personnel cage that is made of steel plate at least three-sixteenth (
(b) The employers must/would ensure that the canopy or shield slopes to the outside of the personnel cage.
(a)
(i) In the personnel cage, provided that the device is long enough to reach the bottom landing from the highest possible escape point; or
(ii) At the bottom landing, provided that a means is available in the personnel cage for the occupants to raise the device to the highest possible escape point.
(b)
(c)
(i) Before the employee uses a personnel cage for transportation; and
(ii) Periodically, and as necessary, thereafter.
(a)
(i) Ensure that an enclosure surrounds the platform, and that this enclosure is at least 42 inches (106.7 cm) above the platform's floor;
(ii) Provide overhead protection when an overhead hazard is, or could be, present; and
(iii) Comply with the applicable scaffolding strength requirements specified by § 1926.451(a)(1).
(b)
(a) The employers must/would:
(i) Conduct inspections of the hoist system as required by § 1926.20(b)(2);
(ii) Ensure that a competent person conducts daily visual inspections of the hoist system; and
(iii) Inspect and test the hoist system as specified by § 1926.552(c)(15).
(b) The employers must/would comply with the accident-prevention requirements of § 1926.20(b)(3).
(a) The employers must/would use only qualified welders to weld components of the hoisting system.
(b) The employers must/would ensure that the qualified welders:
(i) Are familiar with the weld grades, types, and materials specified in the design of the system; and
(ii) Perform the welding tasks in accordance with 29 CFR part 1926, subpart J (“Welding and Cutting”).
Jonathan L. Snare, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC directed the preparation of this notice. This notice is issued under the authority specified by Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), and 29 CFR part 1905.
April 12, 2005.
Closed.
70 FR 17270, April 5, 2005.
The Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to add an additional day to the agenda of its closed meeting and that no earlier announcement was possible.
April 11, 2005-4:30 p.m. (Closed).
Agenda of previously announced April 12 closed meeting.
William T. Johnstone, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
CBOE proposes to amend its rules regarding calculation of the National Best Bid/Offer (“NBBO”) when another participant in the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage (“Linkage Plan”) is disconnected from the Linkage.
In its filing with the Commission, the CBOE included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it had received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Exchange Rule 6.13(e) provides circumstances where two Floor Officials may determine that the quotes from one or more particular markets, in one or more classes of options, are not reliable. Currently, two circumstances are listed: (1) When another participant in the Linkage Plan (“Participant”)
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act
The CBOE believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change; or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-21. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to establish a firm deadline by which members of FICC's Government Securities Division (“GSD”) must satisfy clearing fund deficiencies.
In its filing with the Commission, FICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish a firm deadline by which members of GSD must meet clearing fund deficiencies. Currently, GSD's rules provide a deadline for a member's satisfaction of a clearing fund deficiency of two hours after GSD has issued a notice of deficiency to that
Notwithstanding GSD's issuance of clearing fund calls, each member has the ability to access a report each day detailing its clearing fund balances and any deficiency thereof generally by 12:30 a.m. eastern time.
To further ensure the timely satisfaction of clearing fund deficiency calls and taking into account members' ready access to clearing fund deficiency information, the proposed rule change would establish a firm deadline of 10:30 a.m. eastern time for such satisfaction and eliminate current provisions which correlate the timing of the deadline to the issuance of the notice by FICC.
FICC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of section 17A of the Act
FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or impose any burden on competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by FICC.
Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2005-07. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The MSRB has filed with the Commission a proposed rule change deleting existing Rule G-38, on consultants, and replacing it with new Rule G-38, on solicitation of municipal securities business. In addition, the proposed rule change would make related amendments to Rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business, Rule G-8, on recordkeeping, Form G-37/G-38 and Form G-37x, as well as add new
In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB 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 MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The MSRB began its current rulemaking initiative on the solicitation on behalf of brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (“dealers”) of municipal securities business
Thus, the MSRB has determined to file the proposed rule change with the Commission.
The MSRB expects that dealers will terminate their contractual obligations with and remit final payments to consultants promptly following approval of the amendments by the Commission. The MSRB will ask the applicable enforcement agencies to review Forms G-38t and the circumstances of continuing payments to consultants in order to ensure that such payments are not being made in an attempt to circumvent the intent of the new rule provisions.
Rule G-37 is amended to (i) delete references and provisions relating to consultant information provided under Rule G-38, (ii) reflect that those associated persons who solicit municipal securities business and thereby are municipal finance professionals include affiliated persons under Rule G-38, (iii) add a reference to the definition of solicitation under new Rule G-38, (iv) reflect the renaming of Form G-37/G-38 as Form G-37, and (v) make section headings consistent throughout the rule. Form G-37/G-38 is renamed as Form G-37, and Section IV and the consultant attachment to the form are deleted.
Rule G-8, on recordkeeping, is amended to require dealers to retain copies of any submitted Forms G-38t and records of their submission to the MSRB, as well as to reflect the historical nature of the records that dealers must retain with respect to the deleted consultant provisions of existing Rule G-38.
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act because it will further investor protection and the public interest by ensuring that solicitations of municipal securities business are undertaken in a manner consistent with standards of fair practice and professionalism, thereby helping to maintain public trust and confidence in the integrity of the municipal securities market.
The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act since it would apply equally to all dealers.
The MSRB published notices for comment on draft amendments to Rule G-38 on April 5, 2004 (the “April 2004 Notice”)
The September 2004 notice sought comments on revised draft amendments to Rule G-38 (the “revised draft amendments”) prohibiting a dealer from making payments for the solicitation of municipal securities business on its behalf to any person who is not an associated person of the dealer. The revised draft amendments would have imposed additional obligations on dealers with respect to any solicitor who is not a partner, director, officer or employee. These obligations would have included the entering into of a contractual agreement, the subjecting of such solicitors to MSRB rules (including but not limited to Rule G-37) with respect to their solicitation activities, and the disclosure of arrangements relating to such solicitors. The MSRB received comments from 19 commentators.
The comments received on the April and September 2004 Notices are discussed below.
Other commentators believe that there is a significant problem with the use of consultants that is appropriately addressed by requiring that solicitation activity be undertaken only by persons subject to MSRB rules.
The BMA contends that the amendments are not warranted, stating that the MSRB relies on possible abusive practices and speculative risks that have not been shown to exist. It questions whether there has been a significant increase in contributions by consultants and further states that, “regardless of the level of the contributions being made, there is no indication whatsoever that Consultant contributions are being used to influence decisions regarding municipal securities business.” The BMA states that coupling Rule G-37(d), on indirect violations, with the existing disclosure requirements of Rule G-38 provides an effective means for addressing the MSRB's concerns.
With regard to compensation, the BMA argues that the increase in payments to consultants “does not in any way indicate or imply that Consultants are engaging in pay-to-play or that there is added pressure on Consultants to engage in aggressive or abusive practices. Rather, the recent increase in compensation appears to be attributable to the significant increase in the volume and size of municipal securities deals.” On the other hand, AG Edwards, Citigroup, Goldman, Merrill and William Blair state that they would support a prohibition on contingent compensation arrangements or “success” fees paid to consultants. However, S&Y opposes the imposition of restrictions on the type and amount of compensation paid to consultants.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve such proposed rule change; or
B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2005-04. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Nasdaq proposes to make clear in the generic listing standards for Portfolio Depository Receipts and Index Fund Shares that the underlying index value must be disseminated widely by an appropriate service. The text of the proposed rule change, as amended, is set forth below. Proposed new language
(a) through (h) No change.
(1) and (2) No change.
(3) Nasdaq may approve a series of Portfolio Depositary Receipts for listing and trading pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, provided each of the following criteria is satisfied:
(A) No change.
(B) Index Methodology and Calculation.
(i) and (ii) No change.
(iii) The current index value will be
(C) through (E) No change.
(4) through (7) No change.
(1) and (2) No change.
(3) Nasdaq may approve a series of Index Fund Shares for listing and trading pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, provided each of the following criteria is satisfied:
(A) No change.
(B) Index Methodology and Calculation
(i) and (ii) No change.
(iii) The current index value will be
(C) through (E) No change.
(4) through (7) No change.
(k) and (l) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it had received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change to the generic listing standards for Portfolio Depository Receipts and Index Fund Shares makes clear that the value of the underlying index must be disseminated widely by Nasdaq itself, by the Consolidated Tape Association (which generally disseminates trade data for exchange-listed securities), or by another reputable organization, such as Reuters or Bloomberg. However, a key requirement is that the index value be updated at least every 15 seconds. Of course, if the official index value does not change during some or all of the period when trading is occurring (for example, this is typically the case with pre-market-open and after-hours trading, and also with foreign indexes because of time zone differences or holidays in the countries where such indexes' components trade), then the last official calculated index value must remain available throughout the Nasdaq trading hours.
Nasdaq believes that the specific identity of the index dissemination service is not relevant, so long as such service is reputable, accepted in the investment community, and achieves appropriately wide dissemination of the particular index. As such, Nasdaq seeks to remove the reference to a specific Nasdaq service as the preferred means of index dissemination and replace it with the requirement of wide dissemination.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act,
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change; or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, 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.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-024. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to request approval on a new and/or currently approved information collection.
Submit comments on or before June 20, 2005.
Send all comments regarding whether this information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the collection, to Carol Fendler, Systems Accountant, Office of Investment, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6300, Wash., DC 20416.
Carol Fendler, Systems Accountant, 202-205-7559
Send all comments regarding whether this information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the collection, to Veronica Johnson, Program Analyst, Office of Business Development, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 8800, Wash., DC 20416.
Veronica Johnson, Program Analyst, 202-619-0472
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Richard Lahne, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8058). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Richard Lahne, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8058). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
The Office of Citizen Exchanges of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State, announces an open competition for one grant to support an international exchange project under the rubric “Islam: Scholarship and Practice in the United States.” Public and private non-profit organizations or consortia of such organizations meeting the provisions described in Internal Revenue Code section 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) may submit proposals to develop and implement a multi-phased exchange involving the travel of scholars and clerics from Egypt, Jordan, and one or more additional countries of the Middle East to the United States and of reciprocal visits to the Middle East by American scholars of religion, scholars of Islamic studies, and clerics.
The initiative “Islam: Scholarship and Practice in the United States” will support an international exchange of scholars and clerics—influential and recognized for their ability to communicate, either in scholarly writing or through sermons—from Egypt, Jordan, and one or more additional countries of the Middle East selected at the discretion of the applicant and included with strong and persuasive programmatic justification. Libya and Iran are not eligible for participation in this exchange. The objectives of the exchange are (1) to enhance the non-American participants' understanding of the place of religion, particularly Islam, in American life; (2) to broaden participants' awareness of and appreciation for the serious religious study conducted in the United States, particularly the study of Islam; (3) to provide a forum for examination and discussion of the compatibility of religious practice and democratic social and political structures; the social benefits produced by mutually respectful coexistence among diverse religious communities; ways in which Islamic practice in the United States, in particular, functions in a multi-cultural, multi-religious context; and (4) to broaden the understanding of American scholars, clerics, and laypersons of the place of Islam in the societies of the Middle East.
The project, to be conducted over a period of 18 to 24 months, will involve several exchange visits. Initially, one or two American scholars/project organizers will travel to the Middle East region to become familiar with institutions and communities in those countries and with individuals who might serve as advisers or be selected as participants in the project and to gain their interest in the exchange. Subsequently, approximately 12 Middle Eastern scholars and clerics will travel to the United States for a period of three to four weeks. The Middle Eastern participants will visit Islamic centers, consult with American Muslim scholars and clerics, visit and become familiar with libraries and archives of Islamic documents, participate in discussions at religious and secular institutions that represent America's guarantee of human dignity and freedom of worship, and participate in workshops and seminars, both public and at institutions dedicated to scholarship and research. Finally, a group of American scholars and clerics will travel to the region, meet with counterparts, visit institutions, and, ideally, cooperate with participants in the original U.S. visit in presenting a seminar, a series of workshops, etc. in order to expand the network of individuals directly affected by the exchange. This series of visits would then be repeated in the following year.
The Office of Citizen Exchanges encourages applicants to be creative in planning project implementation. Activities may include both theoretical orientation and experiential, community-based initiatives designed to achieve objectives. Applicants should, in their proposals, identify any partner organizations and/or individuals in the Middle East or in the U.S. with which/whom they are proposing to collaborate and justify the collaboration on the basis of experience, accomplishments, etc.
Applications should include a description of a merit-based, focused participant selection process. Applicants should anticipate consulting with the Public Affairs Sections of U.S. Embassies in selecting participants, with the Embassy retaining the right to
The Public Affairs Sections (PAS) of the U.S. Embassies often play an important role in project implementation. The PAS will initially evaluate project proposals, and, once a grant is awarded, the PAS may, in consultation with the grantee organization, coordinate planning with the grantee organization and in-country partners, facilitate in-country activities, nominate participants and vet grantee nominations, observe in-country activities, and debrief participants. PAS will also evaluate project impact. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is responsible for producing and signing DS-2019 Forms. These forms will be provided the foreign participants by the U.S. Mission as part of the process of obtaining the necessary J-1 visas for entry to the United States on a government-funded project.
Though project administration and implementation are the responsibility of the grantee, the grantee is expected to inform the PAS in participating countries of its operations and procedures and to coordinate with PAS officers in the development of project activities. The PAS should be consulted regarding country priorities, political and cultural sensitivities, security issues, and logistic and programmatic issues.
III.1.
III.2.
When cost sharing is offered, it is understood and agreed that the applicant must provide the amount of cost sharing as stipulated in its proposal and later included in an approved grant agreement. Cost sharing may be in the form of allowable direct or indirect costs. For accountability, you must maintain written records to support all costs which are claimed as your contribution, as well as costs to be paid by the Federal government. Such records are subject to audit. The basis for determining the value of cash and in-kind contributions must be in accordance with OMB Circular A-110, (Revised), Subpart C.23—Cost Sharing and Matching. In the event you do not provide the minimum amount of cost sharing as stipulated in the approved budget, ECA's contribution will be reduced in like proportion.
III.3.
(b) Technical Eligibility: Proposals must comply with the requirements included in this Request for Grant Proposals in order to be considered technically eligible for consideration in the review process.
Please read the complete
IV.1 Contact Information to Request an Application Package: The Application Package comprises the Proposal Submission Instruction (PSI) document, consisting of required application forms and standard guidelines for proposal preparation.
The Solicitation Package may be downloaded from:
IV.2 To receive a hard copy of the Application Package via U.S. Postal Service, contact Thomas Johnston, Office of Citizen Exchanges, ECA/PE/C/NEA-AF, Room 216, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, Telephone (202)453-8162; Fax (202)453-8168; E-mail
IV.3. Content and Form of Submission: Applicants must follow all instructions in the Solicitation Package. The original and ten copies of the application should be sent per the instructions under IV.3e. “Submission Dates and Times section,” below.
IV.3a. 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 U.S. Government. This 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
IV.3b. All proposals must contain an executive summary, proposal narrative and budget. Please refer to the Application Package, containing the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) document, for additional formatting and technical requirements.
IV.3c. You must have nonprofit status with the IRS at the time of application. If your organization is a private nonprofit which has not received a grant or cooperative agreement from ECA in the past three years, or if your organization received nonprofit status from the IRS within the past four years, you must submit the necessary documentation to verify nonprofit status as directed in the PSI document. Failure to do so will cause your proposal to be declared technically ineligible.
IV.3d. Please take into consideration the following information when preparing your proposal narrative:
IV.3d.1
The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs places great emphasis on the secure and proper administration of Exchange Visitor (J visa) Programs and adherence by grantee program organizations and program participants to all regulations governing the J visa program status. Therefore, proposals should
The Office of Citizen Exchanges of ECA will be responsible for issuing DS-2019 forms to participants in this program.
A copy of the complete regulations governing the administration of Exchange Visitor (J) programs is available at
IV.3d.2.
IV.3d.3.
Successful monitoring and evaluation depend heavily on setting clear goals and outcomes at the outset of a program. Your evaluation plan should include a description of your project's objectives, your anticipated project outcomes, and how and when you intend to measure these outcomes (performance indicators). The more that outcomes are “smart” (specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and placed in a reasonable time frame), the easier it will be to conduct the evaluation. You should also show how your project objectives link to the goals of the program described in this RFGP.
Your monitoring and evaluation plan should clearly distinguish between program outputs and outcomes. Outputs are products and services delivered, often stated as an amount. Output information is important to show the scope or size of project activities, but it cannot substitute for information about progress towards outcomes or the results achieved. Examples of outputs include the number of people trained or the number of seminars conducted. Outcomes represent specific results a project is intended to achieve and are usually measured as an extent of change. Findings on outputs and outcomes should both be reported, but the focus should be on outcomes.
We encourage you to assess the following four levels of outcomes, as they relate to the program goals set out in the RFGP (listed here in increasing order of importance):
1.
2.
3.
4.
Consideration should be given to the appropriate timing of data collection for each level of outcome. For example, satisfaction is usually captured as a short-term outcome, whereas behavior and institutional changes are normally considered longer-term outcomes.
Overall, the quality of your monitoring and evaluation plan will be judged on how well it (1) specifies intended outcomes; (2) gives clear descriptions of how each outcome will be measured; (3) identifies when particular outcomes will be measured; and (4) provides a clear description of the data collection strategies for each outcome (
Grantees will be required to provide reports analyzing their evaluation findings to the Bureau in their regular program reports. All data collected, including survey responses and contact information, must be maintained for a minimum of three years and provided to the Bureau upon request.
IV.3e. Please take the following information into consideration when preparing your budget:
IV.3e.1. Applicants must submit a comprehensive budget for the entire project. There must be a summary budget as well as breakdowns reflecting both administrative and program budgets. Applicants may provide separate sub-budgets for each program component, phase, location, or activity to provide clarification. Budgets that limit administrative costs to approximately 25% of the funding sought from ECA will be given priority consideration.
IV.3e.2. Allowable costs for the program include the following:
(1) Direct program expenses
(2) Administrative costs
(3) Allowable indirect costs
Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions.
IV.3f.
Applicants must follow all instructions in the Solicitation Package.
When preparing your submission please make sure to include one extra copy of the completed SF-424 form and place it in an envelope addressed to “ECA/EX/PM”.
The original and ten copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, SA-44, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.: ECA/PE/C/NEA-AF-05-61, Program Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547.
Along with the Project Title, all applicants must enter the above Reference Number in Box 11 on the SF-424 contained in the mandatory Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI) of the solicitation document.
IV.3g. Intergovernmental Review of Applications: Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program.
IV.3h. Applicants must also submit the “Executive Summary” and “Proposal Narrative” sections of the proposal in text (.txt) format on a PC-formatted disk. The Bureau will provide these files electronically to the appropriate Public Affairs Section(s) at the U.S. embassy(ies) for its(their) review.
The Bureau will review all proposals for technical eligibility. Proposals will be deemed ineligible if they do not fully adhere to the guidelines stated herein and in the Solicitation Package. All eligible proposals will be reviewed by the program office, as well as the Public Diplomacy section overseas, where appropriate. Eligible proposals will be subject to compliance with Federal and Bureau regulations and guidelines and forwarded to Bureau grant panels for advisory review. Proposals may also be reviewed by the Office of the Legal Adviser or by other Department elements. Final funding decisions are at the discretion of the Department of State's Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final technical authority for grant awards resides with the Bureau's Grants Officer.
Technically eligible applications will be competitively reviewed according to the criteria stated below. All criteria carry equal weight in the proposal evaluation:
VI.1a.
Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review from the ECA program office coordinating this competition.
VI.2
Please reference the following Web sites for additional information:
VI.3.
1. Semi-annual program and financial reports, which include a description of program activities implemented in the course of the six-month period and an accounting of expenditures.
2. A final program and financial report no more than 90 days after the expiration date of the award.
3. Grantees will be required to provide reports analyzing their evaluation findings to the Bureau in their regular program reports. (Please refer to IV. Application and Submission Instructions (IV.3.d.3) above for Program Monitoring and Evaluation information.
All data collected, including survey responses and contact information, must be maintained for a minimum of three years and provided to the Bureau upon request.
All reports must be sent to the ECA Grants Officer and ECA Program Officer listed in the final assistance award document.
Organizations awarded grants will be required to maintain specific data on program participants and activities in an electronically accessible database format that can be shared with the Bureau as required. As a minimum, the data must include the following:
(1) Name, address, contact information and biographic sketch of all persons who travel internationally on funds provided by the grant.
(2) Itineraries of international and domestic travel, providing dates of travel and cities in which any exchange experiences take place. Final schedules for in-country and U.S. activities must be received by the ECA Program Officer at least three work days prior to the official opening of the activity.
For questions about this announcement, contact: Thomas Johnston, Office of Citizen Exchanges, ECA/PE/C/NEA-AF, Room 216, ECA/PE/C/NEA-AF-05-61, U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, Telephone: (202) 453-8162; Fax: (202) 453-8168; E-mail:
Please read the complete
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The proposed information collection described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). The Tennessee Valley Authority is soliciting public comments on this proposed collection as provided by 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1). Requests for information, including copies of the information collection proposed and supporting documentation, should be directed to the Agency Clearance Officer: Alice D. Witt, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street (EB 5B), Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801; (423) 751-6832. (SC: 0008ZN2)
Comments should be sent to OMB Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for Tennessee Valley Authority, no later than May 23, 2005.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of issuance of advisory circular.
This notice announces the issuance of change 1 to Advisory Circular (AC) 23-21, Airworthiness Compliance Checklists Used to Substantiate Major Alterations for Small Airplanes. The most significant change is a revision in all locations to the signature required so the aircraft may be returned to service after major alteration. The Aviation Safety Inspector in the Flight Standards District Office must now sign instead of an Airframe and Powerplant mechanic. Other changes were minor.
Change 1 to Advisory Circular 23-21 was issued by the Acting Manager of the Small Airplane Directorate on March 16, 2005.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose a PFC at Fort Lauderdale International Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2005.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address:
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Tom Jargiello, Director of Aviation of the Broward County Aviation Department at the following address: 320 Terminal Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the Broward County Aviation Department under § 158.23 of part 158.
Mr. Miguel Martinez, Program Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822, (407) 812-6331, extension 123. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose a PFC at Fort Lauderdale International Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (15 CFR part 158).
On April 14, 2005, the FAA determined that the application to impose a PFC submitted by Broward County Aviation Department was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than July 16, 2005.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Broward County Aviation Department.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and impose and use a PFC at McCarran International Airport, and use the revenue of a PFC at McCarran International Airport, Henderson Executive Airport, and North Las Vegas Airport under the provisions
Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2005.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, 15000 Aviation Blvd., Room 3012, Lawndale, CA 90261, or San Francisco Airports District Office, 831 Mitten Road, Room 210, Burlingame, CA 94010-1303. In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Randall H. Walker, Director of Aviation, Clark County Department of Aviation, at the following address: P.O. Box 11005, Las Vegas, NV 89111-1005. Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the Clark County Department of Aviation under § 158.23 of part 158.
Joseph Rodriguez, Environmental Planning and Compliance Section Supervisor, San Francisco Airports District Office, 831 Mitten Road, Room 210, Burlingame, CA 94010-1303, telephone: (650) 876-2778, extension 610. The application may be viewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and impose and use a PFC at McCarran International Airport and use the revenue from PFC at McCarran International, Henderson Executive, and North Las Vegas Airports under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
On March 28, 2005, the FAA determined that the application to impose and impose and use a PFC submitted by the Clark County Department of Aviation was substantially complete within the requirements of § 158.25 of part 158.
The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than June 24, 2005.
The following is a brief overview of the impose and impose and use application No. 05-05-C-00-LAS.
Class or classes or air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFCs: Non-Scheduled On-Demand Air Carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31.
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under
Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Springfield-Branson Regional Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2005.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, Central Region, Airports Division, 901 Locust Street, Kansas City, MO 64106.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Gary A. Cyr, Sr., A.A.E., Director of Aviation, at the following address: Springfield-Branson Regional Airport, 5000 West Kearney, Suite 15, Springfield, Missouri 65803.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the City of Springfield, Springfield-Branson Regional Airport, under section 158.23 of part 158.
Lorna Sandridge, PFC Program Manager, FAA, Central Region, 901 Locust Street, Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) 329-2641. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at the Springfield-Branson Regional Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
On January 13, 2005, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the City of Springfield, Missouri, was not substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of part 158. The City of Springfield submitted supplemental information on April 4, 2005, to complete the application. The FAA will approve or disapprove the supplemental application, in whole or in part, no later than August 2, 2005.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFCs: nonscheduled Part 1356 and air taxi operators.
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Springfield-Branson Regional Airport.
Department of Transportation, FAA.
Notice of submission deadline.
On October 1, 1999, the FAA amended the regulations governing takeoff and landing slots and slot allocation procedures at certain High Density Traffic Airports as a result of the “Open Transborder” Agreement between the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada. One element of this final rule established that the deadline for submission of requests for international slots will be published in a
In accordance with this amendment, the FAA announces in this notice that the deadline for submitting requests for international slots at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) for allocation under 14 CFR 93.217 is May 12, 2005.
Additionally, the FAA has designated Chicago's O'Hare International Airport (O'Hare) as a Level 2, Schedules Facilitated Airport under the IATA Guidelines. As such, the FAA requests carriers intening to conduct international service to O'Hare submit their intended schedules following the same procedures used for submitting requests for slots at JFK.
Requests for international slots must be submitted no later than May 12, 2005.
Requests may be submitted by mail to Slot Administration Office, AGC-220 Office of the Chief Counsel, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; facsimile: 202-267-7277; ARINC: DCAYAXD; email address:
Lorelei Peter, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone number: 202-267-3073.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 2002-2003 Hobby Wohnwagenwerk Exclusive 650 KMFE trailers are eligible for importation.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 2002-2003 Hobby Wohnwagenwerk Exclusive 650 KMFE trailers that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards are eligible for importation into the United States because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all such standards.
The closing date for comments on the petition is May 23, 2005.
Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 5 pm]. 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
Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and has no substantially similar U.S.-certified counterpart, shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle has safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards based on destructive test data or such other evidence as NHTSA decides to be adequate.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
Registered Importer Corporation of Oxnard, California (“RIC”) (Registered Importer 01-290) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 2002-2003 Hobby Wohnwagenwerk Exclusive 650 KMFE trailers that were not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards are eligible for importation into the United States. RIC contends that these vehicles are eligible for importation under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. RIC submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that 2002-2003 Hobby
Specifically, the petitioner claims that 2002-2003 Hobby Wohnwagenwerk Exclusive 650 KMFE trailers have safety features that comply with Standard No. 119
Petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 108
Standard No. 120
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 2001-2005 Mercedes Benz Sprinter trucks are eligible for importation.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 2001-2005 Mercedes Benz Sprinter trucks that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, are eligible for importation into the United States because (1) they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, and (2) they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
The closing date for comments on the petition is May 23, 2005.
Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 5 pm]. 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
Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
Registered Importer Corporation of Oxnard, California (“RIC”)(Registered Importer 01-290) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 2001-2005 Mercedes Benz Sprinter trucks are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which RIC believes are substantially similar are 2001-2005 Dodge Sprinter 2500/3500 trucks that were manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified 2001-2005 Mercedes Benz Sprinter trucks to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
RIC submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2001-2005 Mercedes Benz Sprinter trucks as originally manufactured, conform to many Federal motor vehicle safety standards in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2001-2005 Mercedes Benz Sprinter trucks are identical to their U.S-certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102
The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101
Standard No. 108
Standard No. 111
Standard No. 208
The petitioner states that the occupant protection system in these vehicles consists of an airbag and combination lap and shoulder belts at the driver's seating position.
Standard No. 214
The petitioner also states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 5 pm]. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice; grant of waiver.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA), formerly the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is granting Tractebel Power, Inc.'s (TPI) petition for a waiver of the pipeline safety regulations to employ a 1.0 longitudinal joint factor (LJF) for austenitic stainless steel pipe in its Tractebel Calypso Pipeline (TCP) project.
TPI petitioned RSPA/OPS for a waiver from compliance with the gas pipeline safety regulations at 49 CFR 192.113 to allow it to employ a 1.0 longitudinal joint factor (LJF) for austenitic stainless steel pipe. TPI requested the waiver because it intends to install a 96 mile, 24-inch diameter, X65 steel, standard API 5L compliant interstate natural gas pipeline. The pipeline will extend from its liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving and re-gasification terminal in Freeport, Grand Bahamas Island, to an onshore location in Broward County, FL. TPI intends to construct a portion of this pipeline through a U.S. Navy exclusion zone offshore of Port Everglades, in Broward County, FL. As a condition of the pipeline traversing the exclusion zone, the U.S. Navy stipulated that approximately 14,000 feet of the pipeline be constructed of a low magnetic permeability steel material to prevent electromagnetic interference with U.S. Navy operations. Therefore, TPI is proposing to use a 1.0 LJF and install austenitic stainless steel pipe to satisfy the U.S. Navy requirement. TPI also intends to use mechanical joints to isolate the carbon steel from the austenitic stainless steel pipeline and will use fusion bond epoxy abrasion coating material to minimize coating disbondment. TPI gave the following reasons for selecting austenitic stainless steel pipe and the use of a 1.0 LJF:
• The pipeline meets the requirements of the U.S. Navy and is a low magnetic permeability pipe material;
• The pipeline is manufactured to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards ASTM A 358 and A 999;
• The plate material is manufactured to comply with standards ASTM A 240 and Unified Numbering System S31254;
• The selected material is compatible with the bending properties and the test criteria in Appendix B of 49 CFR part 192;
• The selected material is compatible with the weldability testing and inspection criteria required by Appendix B of 49 CFR part 192; and
• The selected material is consistent with prior practice of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) standard ASME B31.8 to allow a LJF of 1.0 when the longitudinal seam has been subjected to 100 percent X-ray.
On September 17, 2004, RSPA/OPS published a notice in the
For the reasons explained above and in Notice 1, PHMSA/OPS finds that the requested waiver is consistent with pipeline safety. Therefore, TPI's request for waiver of compliance with 49 CFR 192.113 is granted on the condition that TPI conducts the following activities:
• TPI must X-ray 100 percent of the girth welds of this pipeline as part of the procurement specification to comply with the requirements of Appendix B to Part 192—Qualification of Pipe, Section II (B) Weldability;
• TPI must purchase ASTM A 358, class 1 pipe and radiograph 100 percent of the longitudinal joint;
• TPI must employ qualified welding procedures specifically designed to address the material characteristics of austenitic stainless steel pipe;
• TPI must consider and address any special testing requirements unique to the material characteristics of austenitic stainless steel pipe;
• TPI must provide PHMSA/OPS—Southern Region the opportunity to
• TPI must exceed the tensile testing requirements of Appendix B to Part 192, Qualification of Pipe, Section II (D) Tensile Properties—which requires one test per 10 lengths of pipe—and perform one tensile test per five lengths of pipe for both the plate and the welded joint per the tensile testing required under ASTM A 358 (Section 12).
49 U.S.C. 60118(c) and 49 CFR 1.53.
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice; hazardous liquid integrity management lessons learned meeting.
OPS will sponsor a 1
Tuesday, May 17, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Wednesday, May 18, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.
The Westin Oaks, 5011 Westheimer, Houston, Texas 77056; (713) 960-8100. For discounted rates, please refer to the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)—Liquid IM Meeting guest room block when making reservations. The deadline for reserving sleeping room accommodations is April 18, 2005. Further information is available on the PHMSA Web site at
This meeting is open to all interested parties. To facilitate meeting planning, advance registration for attending the workshop is strongly recommended. Advanced registration can be accomplished at the PHMSA web site. The deadline for advanced registration is Friday, May 13, 2005. Walk-in registration will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis.
Beth Callsen (tel. 202-366-4572; E-mail:
In 2000, OPS issued the first in a series of rules to improve safety and environmental protection in High Consequence Areas (HCAs). The first IM rule (65 FR 75378; November 3, 2000; effective May 29, 2001) applies to hazardous liquid operators who own or operate 500 or more miles of pipeline. Subsequently, the rule was extended to include operators who own or operate less than 500 miles of hazardous liquid pipeline, (67 FR 2136; January 26, 2002; effective February 15, 2002).
The IM rule applies to pipelines that can affect HCAs. HCAs include populated areas, unusually sensitive environmental areas, and commercially navigable waterways. The objectives of the rule are to:
• Accelerate the assessment of pipeline segments that can affect HCAs. Assessment includes in-line inspection, hydrostatic pressure testing, or other equivalent methods.
• Improve operator management systems to identify and prevent potential integrity threats.
• Improve government's role in the oversight of operator integrity management programs.
• Improve public confidence in safe pipeline operation.
The rule also addresses several National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations, Congressional mandates, and pipeline safety issues raised over the years. More information about the rule can be found at
Beginning September 2002, OPS began full IM Program inspections of hazardous liquid pipeline operators. In 2004, OPS inspected over 100 hazardous liquid pipeline operators with pipeline lengths ranging from a few miles to more than 10,000 miles. These pipelines comprise more than 99% of the nation's hazardous liquid pipeline mileage.
Through these inspections and the resulting enforcement actions, OPS has assured that operators are conducting integrity assessments of their pipelines, are repairing defects that could undermine safe operation, and are putting in place the management systems and tools to improve identification and remediation of potential unsafe conditions. These interactions with operators have provided OPS a thorough understanding of operator IM programs, and have significantly improved OPS's understanding of the physical condition of the nation's pipelines.
During this meeting, OPS will share the results and lessons learned from these inspections, and will describe how these lessons will be applied in planning and conducting future IM inspections. OPS will also cover the modifications it has made to the inspection protocols as a result of these initial inspections. Industry representatives will present their perspectives on the IM inspections, summarize their IM program accomplishments, and present their perspectives on future challenges.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of intent to issue an Advisory Bulletin; request for public comment.
This notice advises operators of gas, hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines and liquefied natural gas facilities that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office of
Comments must be received by June 6, 2005.
You must identify docket number RSPA-04-19856. Comments may either be mailed to U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Facility, Plaza 401, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 or submitted electronically at
Sheila Wright, Program Analyst, PHMSA, OPS at (202) 366-4554, or by e-mail,
Under 49 CFR Part 199, each operator having more than 50 covered employees must submit an annual Management Information System (MIS) report to OPS of its drug and alcohol testing results for covered employees by March 15th of each year for the prior calendar year. Operators with 50 or less covered employees may be required to submit annual MIS reports if notified by OPS in writing. A covered employee is a person employed by the operator, a contractor engaged by the operator, or a person employed by such a contractor, who performs operations, maintenance, or emergency-response functions regulated by 49 CFR parts 192, 193, or 195.
In the final rule, 58 FR 68258, Dec. 23, 1993, OPS concluded that submission of contractor testing data by operators could result in duplicative reporting and inaccurate data. OPS noted that inaccuracies could affect the positive rate for the entire industry, thereby affecting the minimum annual percent rate for random drug testing. Accordingly, OPS deferred collecting contractor testing data, but stated that operators must continue to maintain the records required by 49 CFR Part 199, and ensure their contractors maintain the same. OPS also stated that it would re-evaluate the collection of contractor testing data and develop a method of collecting to avoid the problem of duplication.
During subsequent meetings of the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee and the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, OPS discussed its intent to begin collecting contractor testing data. OPS pointed out that it plans to begin collecting this data in the 2006 reporting period, and begin any necessary enforcement in 2007. Comments at the meetings were supportive of the initiative to collect contractor data. Commenters suggested that it would be pragmatic for contractors to report their testing data directly to OPS. The transcript of the most recent public meeting is available in the docket
OPS does not directly regulate contractors with respect to drug and alcohol testing, but places the responsibility on operators to ensure all covered employees are tested and that the testing results are submitted annually to OPS. Accordingly, pipeline operators monitor contractor compliance with drug and alcohol testing requirements as required by 49 CFR part 199. Operators use a variety of methods to monitor covered contractor employees, such as testing of contract employees, requiring contractors to have their own testing programs, or working with contractors that belong to drug testing consortium groups.
Collecting contractor testing data is essential for analyzing OPS's approach to detecting and deterring use of controlled substances. The information is also necessary to calculate the minimum annual percent rate for random drug testing, which is based on the reported positive rate for the entire industry. Collecting this data will not require a regulatory change because 49 CFR part 199 requires operators to report testing data for all covered employees, which includes contractors. The preamble to the current rule merely deferred submission of the data until the development of a methodology. OPS intends to issue an Advisory Bulletin that will end the deferment period noted in the preamble to the final rule.
Commenters to the original final rule and at the public meeting indicated that submission of contractor testing data should be done by contractors themselves, not by pipeline operators. Based on these suggestions, OPS proposes in lieu of operators submitting contractor data, the operators may opt to use contractors as their agents to report the data. If operators choose this method, OPS encourages them to consider adding language in their contractual agreements to that effect. To facilitate these submissions, OPS would create and assign unique identifiers for contractors to submit annual testing data on the DOT MIS data collection form by mail or by online submission.
OPS encourages comments on this proposed method in addition to suggestions for alternative methods of collecting contractor testing data. Specifically, OPS invites comments on the validity of the method being proposed and ways to avoid duplication and enhance quality. Following the review of timely comments, OPS will issue an Advisory Bulletin notifying operators of the selected method to begin reporting contractor testing data in calendar year 2006.
Mississippi Southern Railroad, Inc. (MSRR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease, from The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS), and operate approximately 26.5 miles of rail line extending between milepost 133.0, near Bay Springs, MS, and milepost 159.5, near Newton, MS.
This transaction is related to STB Finance Docket No. 34683,
MSRR certifies that its projected revenues as a result of this transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier and states that such revenues will not exceed $5 million annually. The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or shortly after April 5, 2005.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34684, 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 Karl Morell, Of Counsel, Ball Janik LLP, 1455 F Street, NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Watco Companies, Inc. (Watco), has filed a verified notice of exemption to continue in control of the Mississippi Southern Railroad, Inc. (MSRR), upon MSRR's becoming a Class III rail carrier.
The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or shortly after April 5, 2005.
This transaction is related to the concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in STB Finance Docket No. 34684,
Watco, a Kansas corporation, is a noncarrier that currently controls 11 Class III rail carriers: South Kansas and Oklahoma Railroad Company (SKO), Palouse River & Coulee City Railroad, Inc. (PRCC), Timber Rock Railroad, Inc. (TIBR), Stillwater Central Railroad (SLWC), Eastern Idaho Railroad, Inc. (EIRR), Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad, Inc. (K&O), Pennsylvania Southwestern Railroad, Inc. (PSWR), Great Northwest Railroad, Inc. (GNR), Kaw River Railroad, Inc. (KRR), Mission Mountain Railroad, Inc. (MMT), and Appalachian & Ohio Railroad, Inc. (AO).
Applicant states that: (1) The rail lines operated by SKO, PRCC, TIBR, SLWC, EIRR, K&O, PSWR, GNR, KRR, MMT, and AO do not connect with the rail line being leased by MSRR; (2) the continuance in control is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect the rail line being acquired by MSRR with any railroad in the Watco corporate family; and (3) neither MSRR nor any of the carriers controlled by Watco are Class I carriers. Therefore, the transaction is exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under sections 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here, because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34683, 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 Karl Morell, Of Counsel, Ball Janik LLP, 1455 F Street, NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federally Advisory Committee Act) that the subcommittees of the Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and Clinical Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit Review Board will meet from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. as indicated below:
The addresses of the hotels are:
The purpose of the Merit Review Board is to provide advice on the scientific quality, budget, safety and mission relevance of investigator-initiated research proposals submitted for VA merit review consideration. Proposals submitted for review by the Board involve a wide range of medical specialties within the general areas of biomedical, behavioral and clinic science research.
The subcommittee meetings will be open to the public for approximately one hour at the start of each meeting to discuss the general status of the program. The remaining portion of each subcommittee meeting will be closed to the pubic for the review, discussion, and evaluation of initial and renewal projects.
The closed portion of the meetings involves discussion, examination, reference to staff and consultant critiques of research protocols. During this portion of the subcommittee meetings, discussion and recommendations will deal with qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, as well as research information, the premature disclosure of which could significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency action regarding such research projects.
As provided by subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, closing portions of these subcommittee meetings is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B). Those who plan to attend or would like to obtain a copy of minutes of the subcommittee meetings and rosters of the members of the subcommittees should contact LeRoy G. Frey, Ph.D., Chief, Program Review (121F), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20420 at (202) 254-0288.
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission has scheduled a meeting on May 9 and 10, 2005, at Sofitel Lafayette Square Hotel, 806 15th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. The meeting will convene at 8 a.m. and conclude at 5 p.m each day and is open to the public.
The purpose of the Commission is to carry out a study of the benefits under the laws of the United States that are provided to compensate and assist veterans and their survivors for disabilities and deaths attributable to military service. The Commission will receive briefings intended to provide an understanding of programs managed by the Department of Veterans Affairs and other Federal departments and agencies for disabled veterans and their survivors. The Commission will also take testimony from representatives of interested stakeholders and the public concerning issues relating to these benefits that should be addressed by the Commission. Stakeholder groups include veterans' service organizations and military associations.
The agenda for May 9 includes an introduction of Commission members, a description and the legislative history of VA's disability compensation program, Commission responsibilities, ethics requirements, other federal disability and survivor programs, and a review of literature concerned with disability issues. Agenda items for May 10 include testimony by panels comprised of representatives from veterans' service organizations and military associations.
Interested persons may attend and present oral statements to the Commission. Interested parties can provide written comments for review by the Commission in advance of the
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the annual meeting of the Department of Veterans Affairs Voluntary Service (VAVS) National Advisory Committee (NAC) will be held on May 25-28, 2005, at the Doubletree Paradise Valley Resort, 5401 North Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale, Arizona. The meeting sessions are scheduled from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. on May 25; from 8:30 a.m. until 3 p.m. on May 26 and 27; and from 8:30 a.m. until 2 p.m. on May 28, with a closing program at 6 p.m. that day. The meeting is open to the public.
The Committee, comprised of sixty-three national voluntary organizations advises the Secretary, through the Under Secretary for Health, on the coordination and promotion of volunteer activities within VA health care facilities. The primary purposes of this meeting are: To provide for committee review of volunteer policies and procedures; to accommodate full and open communications between the organizations, representatives and the Voluntary Service Office and field staff; to provide educational opportunities geared towards improving volunteer programs with special emphasis on methods to recruit, retain, motivate and recognize volunteers; and to approve committee recommendations.
The May 25 session will involve opening ceremonies and remarks by several VA and local officials. The May 26 session will feature a video presentation from Dr. Perlin, a Voluntary Service Report, and recognition of the recipients of the VAVS Award for Excellence and NAC Volunters of the Year. In addition, the James H. Parks Memorial Scholarship Luncheon will be held to honor an outstanding youth volunteer. The following educational workshops are scheduled:
1. Assignment-Driven Recruitment and Retention: It's All in the Packaging
2. My Health
3. Hospice Care-A Celebration of Life
4. The Family Support in Seamless Transition
On May 27, the business session will include subcommittee reports and presentations on the Fisher House and Seamless Transition. This session will be followed by a repeat of the educational workshops.
The May 28 session will include remarks from the Director, Veterans Canteen Service and Mr. Stephen Gower, a motivational speaker. The evening will conclude with a Volunteer Recognition Dinner, with entertainment provided by winners in the National Veterans Creative Arts Program.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. However, interested persons may either attend or file statements with the Committee. Written statements may be filed either before the meeting of within 10 days after the meeting and addressed to: Ms. Laura Balun, Administrative Officer, Voluntary Service Office (10C2), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Individuals interested in attending are encouraged to contact Ms. Balun at (202) 273-8952.
By direction of the Secretary.
In rule document 05-7523 beginning on page 19688 in the issue of Thursday, April 14, 2005, make the following correction:
On page 19692, the first table should be corrected in part to read as follows:
In rule correction C4-27678 appearing on page 19559 in the issue of April 13, 2005, the correction document should read as follows:
On page 75845, in § 10.37, in the first column, in paragraph (b), in the third line, “June 20, 2004” should read “June 20, 2005”.