Forest Service
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Nuclear Security Administration
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Land Management Bureau
Minerals Management Service
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Employment Standards Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Office of Personnel Management.
Interim rule with request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management is issuing interim regulations to implement a provision of the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 which provides an agency with the authority to grant a newly appointed or reappointed employee credit for prior work experience that otherwise would not be creditable for the purpose of determining the employee's annual leave accrual rate.
Send or deliver written comments to Donald J. Winstead, Deputy Associate Director for Pay and Performance Policy, Rm. 7H31, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415, by fax at (202) 606-0824, or by e-mail to
Sharon Dobson by telephone at (202) 606-2858, by fax at (202) 606-0824, or by e-mail at
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing interim regulations to implement Section 202(a) of the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-411, October 30, 2004). Section 202(a) amends 5 U.S.C. 6303 to provide OPM with the authority to prescribe regulations under which a newly appointed or reappointed employee who is covered by the Federal annual and sick leave program established under chapter 63 of title 5, United States Code, may be given service credit for prior experience that otherwise would not be creditable for the purpose of determining the employee's annual leave accrual rate. An employee may receive credit if the experience was obtained in a position having duties that directly relate to the duties of the position to which he or she is being appointed and if it is determined by the head of the agency that the use of this authority is necessary in order to achieve an important agency mission or performance goal.
Section 202(a) provides that not later than 180 days after enactment of the Act (April 28, 2005), OPM must prescribe regulations to allow the credit of non-Federal service for the purpose of determining an employee's annual leave accrual rate. OPM has added regulations at 5 CFR 630.205 to provide agencies with the authority to grant a newly appointed or reappointed employee with service credit for annual leave accrual rate purposes based on prior non-Federal work experience or a period of active duty in a uniformed service.
The interim regulations at 5 CFR 630.205(a) allow the head of an agency or designee to provide service credit for work experience that otherwise would not be creditable for the purpose of determining the annual leave accrual rate of a newly appointed employee or an employee who is reappointed following a break in service of at least 90 calendar days after his or her last period of civilian Federal employment. Prior to granting such credit, the agency head or his or her designee must determine that the employee meets both of the following conditions:
(1) The skills and experience the employee possesses are essential to the new position and were acquired through performance in a non-Federal position having duties that directly relate to the position to which he or she is being appointed; and
(2) The use of this authority is necessary to achieve an important agency mission or performance goal.
Previously, an employee who is a retired member of a uniformed service under 5 U.S.C. 3501 could be granted credit only for periods of active duty served during a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge was issued. The new regulations at 5 CFR 630.205(b) provide that an employee who is a retired member of a uniformed service may be granted credit for any period of active military service during which he or she performed duties directly related to the position to which he or she is being appointed. As in the case of granting credit for non-Federal service, when hiring a retired member of the uniformed service, the head of the agency must determine that the use of this authority is necessary to achieve an important agency mission or performance goal.
When an agency head or designee makes a determination to provide service credit for experience that otherwise would not be creditable, the agency must provide credit only for non-Federal work experience or experience in a uniformed service during which the employee performed duties that directly relate to the duties of the position to which he or she is appointed. An employee must provide written documentation, acceptable to the agency, of his or her qualifying service. The interim regulations at 5 CFR 630.205(e) require an agency to establish guidelines for documenting the use of this authority, as well as recordkeeping procedures to allow for the reconstruction of each action.
Credit for non-Federal work experience or experience in a uniformed service is granted to an employee on the date of his or her initial appointment or reappointment following a break in service of 90 calendar days from the date of his or her last period of civilian Federal employment. Service credit granted to an employee will remain creditable for annual leave accrual purposes unless the employee fails to complete 1 full year of continuous service with the appointing agency.
If an employee separates from Federal service or transfers to another agency prior to completing 1 full year of continuous service with the appointing agency, he or she is not entitled to retain service credit for non-Federal or active duty work experience. Prior to the transfer or separation of the employee, the agency must establish a new service computation date for leave under 5 U.S.C. 6303(a), subtracting the credit that was provided for non-Federal or
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with E.O. 12866.
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
Government employees.
5 U.S.C. 6311; 630.205 also issued under Pub. L. 108-411, 118 Stat 2312; 630.301 also issued under Pub. L. 103-356, 108 Stat. 3410 and Pub. L. 108-411, 118 Stat 2312; 630.303 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6133(a); 630.306 and 630.308 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6304(d)(3), Pub. L. 102-484, 106 Stat. 2722, and Pub. L. 103-337, 108 Stat. 2663; subpart D also issued under Pub. L. 103-329, 108 Stat. 2423; 630.501 and subpart F also issued under E.O. 11228, 30 FR 7739, 3 CFR, 1974 Comp., p. 163; subpart G also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6305; subpart H also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6326; subpart I also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6332, Pub. L. 100-566, 102 Stat. 2834, and Pub. L. 103-103, 107 Stat. 1022; subpart J also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6362, Pub. L. 100-566, and Pub. L. 103-103; subpart K also issued under Pub. L. 105-18, 111 Stat. 158; subpart L also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6387 and Pub. L. 103-3, 107 Stat. 23; and subpart M also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6391 and Pub. L. 102-25, 105 Stat. 92.
(a) The head of an agency or his or her designee may, at his or her sole discretion, provide credit for service that otherwise would not be creditable under 5 U.S.C. 6303(a) for the purpose of determining the annual leave accrual rate of a newly appointed employee or an employee who is reappointed following a break in service of at least 90 calendar days after his or her last period of civilian Federal employment. The head of the agency or his or her designee must determine that the skills and experience the employee possesses are—
(1) Essential to the new position and were acquired through performance in a non-Federal position having duties that directly relate to the duties of the position to which he or she is being appointed; and
(2) Necessary to achieve an important agency mission or performance goal.
(b) Notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 6303(a), the head of an agency or his or her designee may, at his or her sole discretion, provide credit for active duty uniformed service that otherwise would not be creditable under 5 U.S.C. 6303(a) for the purpose of determining the annual leave accrual rate of an employee who is a retired member of a uniformed service as defined by 38 U.S.C. 4303. The head of the agency or his or her designee must determine that the skills and experience the employee possesses are—
(1) Essential to the new position and were acquired through performance in a position in the uniformed services having duties that directly relate to the duties of the position to which he or she is being appointed; and
(2) Necessary to achieve an important agency mission or performance goal.
(c) When the head of an agency or his or her designee makes a determination to provide credit for non-Federal service or active duty in the uniform services under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, he or she must determine the amount of service that will be credited. The amount of service credited may not exceed the actual amount of service during which the employee performed duties directly related to the position to which the employee is being appointed.
(d) An employee must provide written documentation, acceptable to the agency, of his or her non-Federal or uniformed service.
(e) The agency must establish documentation and recordkeeping procedures sufficient to allow reconstruction of each action.
(f) Credit for prior non-Federal or uniformed service work experience under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section is granted to the employee upon the effective date of his or her initial appointment to the agency or reappointment after a 90-day break in service and remains creditable for annual leave accrual purposes thereafter unless the employee fails to complete 1 full year of continuous service with the appointing agency.
(g) If an employee separates from Federal service or transfers to another agency before completing 1 full year of continuous service with the appointing agency—
(1) Any credit under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section must be subtracted from the employee's total creditable service before the employee transfers or separates, and the agency must establish a new service computation date for leave accrual purposes under 5 U.S.C. 6303(a);
(2) Any annual leave accrued or accumulated by an employee as a result of receiving credit for service under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section remains to the credit of the employee; and
(3) The agency must—
(i) Transfer the annual leave balance to the new employing agency under 5 CFR 630.501 if the employee is transferring to a position to which annual leave may be transferred; or
(ii) Make a lump-sum payment under 5 CFR 550.1205 for any unused annual leave if the employee is separating from Federal service or moving to a position to which annual leave cannot be transferred.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Federal Airway 208 (V-208) by changing the originating point of the airway from the Santa Catalina, CA, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) to the Ventura, CA, VORTAC. This modification extends V-208 by incorporating a route segment that air traffic control (ATC) frequently assigns to aircraft arriving in the Los Angeles, CA, terminal area. This action will enhance air safety, simplify routings,
0901 UTC, July 7, 2005.
Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules, Office of System Operations and Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
On October 28, 2004, the FAA published in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 (part 71) to modify V-208 by changing the originating point of the airway from the Santa Catalina, CA, VORTAC to the Ventura, CA, VORTAC. The revision incorporates a routing that is currently issued by ATC when managing aircraft in the Los Angeles, CA, terminal area. Extending V-208 as described above will significantly reduce pilot-controller communications, alleviate radio frequency congestion, reduce the potential for pilot readback errors, and enhance the management of aircraft operations in the Southern California area.
Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.9M dated August 30, 2004, and effective September 16, 2004, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The domestic VOR Federal airway listed in this document will be published subsequently in the order.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Ventura, CA; INT Ventura, 175° and Santa Catalina 310° radials; Santa Catalina, CA; Oceanside, CA; Julian, CA; Thermal, CA; Twentynine Palms, CA; 20 miles, 24 miles 73 MSL, Needles, CA; Peach Springs, AZ; Grand Canyon, AZ; INT Grand Canyon 095° and Tuba City, AZ, 246° radials; Tuba City; Page, AZ; Hanksville, UT; Carbon, UT; Myton, UT; 79 MSL, Vernal, UT, 25 miles, 105 MSL, Cherokee, WY. The airspace within R-2503 and the airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States is excluded. The portion outside the United States has no upper limit.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule revises delivery addresses, telephone and facsimile numbers; makes a nomenclature change, and corrects a citation error. This rule revises the delivery address for the ENC Encryption Request Coordinator and the office within BIS that receives encryption review requests and reports. The rule also revises the facsimile number for the Office of Exporter Services, corrects the name of the Outreach and Educational Services Division, revises the office to which a voluntary self-disclosure may be sent, revises the title and address of the official to whom a voluntary self-disclosure may be sent, and corrects a citation error. These actions are being taken to reflect the reorganization or movement of certain offices or functions, and to correct an error in the regulations. This action is not intended to have a substantive effect on the rights or obligations of the public.
This rule is effective April 29, 2005.
Send comments concerning this rule to
William Arvin, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone: (202) 482-2440, Email:
This rule makes administrative changes and corrections to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) as described below.
The EAR require that certain encryption review requests and reports be submitted to the ENC Encryption Request Coordinator located in Fort Meade, Maryland and to BIS. This rule
• The suite number in the address of the ENC Encryption Request Coordinator is changed from 6131 to 6940 in § 740.8(b)(2)—(classification requests related to key escrow and key recovery products pursuant to License Exception Key Management Infrastructure (KMI)), § 740.17(e)(5)(ii)—(submission of semi-annual reports required pursuant to License Exception ENC), and Supp. No. 6 to Part 742 (Guidelines for submitting review requests for encryption items) to reflect a recent move by that organization;
• The name KMI Encryption Request Coordinator in § 740.8(b)(2) is changed to ENC Encryption Request Coordinator to reflect the current name of that organization; and
• The room number for deliveries to BIS's Information Technology Controls Division is changed from 2625 to 2093 in Supplement No. 6 to Part 742.
This rule revises the facsimile number that appears n § 748.4(h) (requests for emergency processing of export and reexport license applications) and in § 748.2(a) (requests for BIS forms from the Washington, DC facility of the Office of Exporter Services) to read “(202) 482-2927”. This rule also corrects the name of the Outreach and Educational Services Division in § 730.8 and § 748.2.
This rule removes the Office of Export Enforcement (OEE) field offices from the list of locations at which to make voluntary disclosures in § 764.5(c)(7). All such disclosures will have to be made to OEE headquarters. The rule also revises title of the headquarters official as well as the headquarters address, telephone number, and facsimile number to use when making such disclosures.
This rule corrects a citation error in § 762.1(a)(4) by revising the reference to § 734.2(b)(7) to read § 736.2(b)(7) because the latter rather than the former mentions the actions related to proliferation activities to which § 762.1(a)(4) refers.
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002)), as extended by the Notice of August 6, 2004, 69 FR 48763 (August 10, 2004) continues the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
1. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget Control Number. This rule involves collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under E.O. 13132.
4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it is unnecessary. The changes made by this rule are not substantive changes. This regulation revises delivery addresses and telephone and facsimile numbers, corrects citation errors, and removes a redundant notification requirement. The revisions made by this rule are administrative in nature and does not affect the rights or obligations of the public. Because these revisions are not substantive changes to the EAR, it is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. In addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. This rule only revises two delivery addresses for certain review requests and reports, changes the facsimile number for an office, corrects the name of a division, revises the location for filing a voluntary self-disclosure, and corrects a citation error. It is purely administrative in nature and does not affect the rights of the public. No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule.
Because notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Strategic and critical materials.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Exports, terrorism.
Administrative practice and procedure, Business and Industry, Confidential business information, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Law enforcement, Penalties.
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
(c)
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
(b) * * *
(2) * * * Submit the original request to BIS in accordance with § 748.3 of the EAR and send a copy of the request to:
Attn: ENC Encryption Request Coordinator, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6940, Fort Meade, MD 20755-6000.
(e) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) Attn: ENC Encryption Request Coordinator, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6940, Ft. Meade, MD 20755-6000.
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
* * * For electronic submissions via SNAP, you may fax a copy of the support documents to BIS at (202) 219-9179 or -9182 or you may send the documents to: Bureau of Industry and Security, Information Technology Controls Division, Room 2093, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. In addition, you must send a copy of your review request and all support documents to: Attn: ENC Encryption Request Coordinator, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6940, Fort Meade, MD 20755-6000. * * *
50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et. seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et. seq.; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 6, 2004, 69 FR 48763 (August 10, 2004).
(a) You may obtain the forms required by the EAR from any U.S. Department of Commerce District Office; or in person or by telephone or facsimile from the following BIS offices:
(h)
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
(a) * * *
(4) Any other transactions subject to the EAR, including, but not limited to, the prohibitions against servicing, forwarding and other actions for or on behalf of end-users of proliferation concern contained in §§ 736.2(b)(7) and 744.6 of the EAR. * * *
50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et. seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et. seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 6, 2004, 69 FR 48763 (August 10, 2004).
(c) * * *
(7)
Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
Final rule.
This rule amends regulations to correct an unintended potential gap and administrative oversight in the original deep gas royalty rule by making leases located partly in water deeper than 200 meters and issued during lease sales held in 2001 and later years expressly eligible for royalty relief for drilling deep gas wells on leases not subject to deep water royalty relief.
Marshall Rose, Chief, Economics Division, Minerals Management Service, at (703) 787-1536. E-mail:
Title 30 CFR part 203 regulates the reduction of oil and gas royalty under 43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3). Under section 1337(a)(3)(B), MMS may reduce, modify, or eliminate royalties on certain producing or non-producing leases or categories of leases to promote development or increased production or to encourage production of marginal resources, in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West longitude. A final rule published January 26, 2004 (69 FR 3492), and amended April 30, 2004 (69 FR 24052), offered an incentive for certain lessees to explore for and develop deep well gas reserves more rapidly. The objective of the gas incentive is to increase the volume of natural gas production from the OCS by encouraging deep drilling on leases in the shallow water areas of the GOM,
One important subset of these leases was inadvertently not expressly included in this incentive: Those leases straddling the deep water/shallow water depth line issued between January 1, 2001, and April 1, 2004, that did not contain deep well drilling relief terms that the lessee would have to renounce under § 203.48 of the January 26, 2004, final rule. Those leases were intended to be included and were explicitly included and addressed in the preamble to the final rule published January 26, 2004. Briefly, § 203.40 provides deep gas royalty relief to leases meeting various combinations of vintage, location, and production conditions. One of the changes between the proposed and final rule addressed comments on the proposed rule by adding eligibility for certain leases straddling the 200 meter water depth line. MMS intended to allow the incentive for all the leases that straddle this depth line that existed on the date of the final rule and to future such leases that straddle this depth line issued while the temporary incentive period is in effect as long as they were not “double dipping” in incentive programs. The preamble to the final rule explains that change as follows:
For leases lying partly in deep water, MMS prefers to avoid a situation in which any such lease can obtain non-discretionary relief from more than one categorical royalty relief program,
The last sentence in the above paragraph explains and confirms that MMS intended to offer deep gas royalty relief to leases straddling the 200 meter water depth line that did not have DWRRA section 304 non-discretionary royalty relief. Because non-discretionary deep water royalty relief has not been provided to leases in less than 400 meters of water since 2000, two kinds of leases meet those criteria—pre-DWRRA leases and leases issued in sales held in 2001-2004. As the preamble mentions, there were 50 leases in the former category, from lease sales held before enactment of the DWRRA that are still active. The latter category numbers 81 leases issued in lease sales held in 2001-2004. Additional such leases may be issued in lease sales held in the next several years. Modifications in the final rule explicitly made the 50 pre-DWRRA leases that meet those criteria eligible for royalty relief for drilling deep gas wells on leases not subject to deep water royalty relief (§ 203.40(a)(1) and (b)(2)).
Unfortunately, contrary to MMS's intent as expressed in the preamble to the final rule, the language in § 203.40(a)(2) does not make expressly eligible for deep gas royalty relief leases located partly in water less than 200 meters deep that were issued between January 1, 2001, and April 1, 2004. This is the case because such leases did not have any royalty incentives for deep well gas drilling included as part of their lease terms. Likewise, also contrary to MMS's intent as expressed in the preamble, language in § 203.40(a)(3) does not make similarly located leases issued on and after April 1, 2004, expressly eligible for deep gas relief. Under § 203.40(a)(2) and (a)(3), leases issued after 2001 need to exercise the option under § 203.48 to replace incentive terms in their original lease document with those in the regulation. However, leases have this option under § 203.48 only if they were issued with royalty relief provisions for deep well drilling. Leases located partly in water less than 200 meters deep were not issued with any royalty relief provisions for deep well drilling, and hence do not have any option to exercise. In fact, they do not need to have an option to
This amendment to the final rule issued on January 26, 2004, makes the rule language consistent with MMS's express intent as explained in the preamble by expressly authorizing royalty relief for drilling deep gas wells on all leases located partly in water less than 200 meters deep that are not subject to deep water royalty relief, regardless of when they were issued and regardless of whether the lease terms included royalty relief provisions. Lessees who read the preamble to the final rule and understood it to mean a lease straddling the boundary without a DWRRA incentive could participate in the deep gas incentive expected and may have relied on this explanation in the preamble. Without this amendment, leases similarly situated would not necessarily be treated the same.
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553) generally requires agencies to provide notice and an opportunity for public comment on substantive rules. The requirement does not apply, however, if the agency determines that notice and opportunity for public comment is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest.” DOI finds that good cause exists for dispensing with notice and opportunity for public comment in issuing this amended rule because those procedures are unnecessary where, as here, the agency has already provided notice and comment in the previous rulemaking on this exact issue and addressed it explicitly in the earlier preamble. This final rule simply conforms the Code of Federal Regulations to correct an inadvertent error in the regulatory text and may express what the earlier rule implied and its Preamble explained. DOI finds good cause to make this rule immediately effective under 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(3). Because it also relieves a restriction possibly imposed by the earlier rule, it also qualifies for an exception to the 30-day effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
According to the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this rule is not a significant regulatory action for which a Regulatory Analysis has been prepared. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has made that determination under Executive Order 12866.
(1) This amended final rule will not have an economic effect of $100 million or more. Though we estimated that the original deep gas rule would have such an effect, this technical correction involves only 2 percent (81 of 3,500) of leases covered by the deep gas incentive. Further, the effect of the incentive on this small subset of leases was already included in the economic analysis of the original regulatory action.
The full economic analysis is available at
(2) This amended rule will not create any inconsistencies with actions by other agencies because royalty relief is confined to leasing in Federal offshore waters that lie outside the coastal jurisdiction of State and other local agencies. Careful review of the lease sale notices, along with stringent leasing policies now in force, ensures that the Federal OCS leasing program, of which royalty relief is only a component, does not conflict with the work of other Federal agencies.
(3) This amended rule has no effect on entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or their recipients.
(4) This rule raises no novel legal or policy issue. It only corrects an oversight that omitted a small subset of the leases from eligibility for the deep gas incentive.
A detailed analysis of the small business impacts and alternatives considered can be found in the economic analysis of the original version of this regulation available at
This amended rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the SBREFA. This rule:
(1) Only clarifies and corrects an inadvertent omission of express language to include some 81 leases and any others similarly situated without any current lease term royalty relief incentives within the rule promulgated on January 26, 2004. These leases represent only a small fraction of the leases covered by the earlier rule and their effect was included in the estimated effect of the earlier rule.
(2) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. The overall deep gas incentive should materially moderate expected gas prices by adding to the overall supply, and this amended rule will contribute only a very small part to that effect.
(3) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Companies eligible for the deep gas royalty relief should produce more natural gas and earn more income while encountering no negative effects.
The revision to 30 CFR part 203 regulations, refers to, but does not change, information collection (IC) requirements in current regulations. The rule proposes no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements, and an OMB form 83-I submission to OMB under the PRA is not required. This rule corrects an unintended potential gap and administrative oversight to the rule and the IC requirements remain unchanged. The PRA provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information and assigns a control number, you are not required to respond. OMB approved the referenced information collection requirements under OMB control number 1010-0153, expiration 4/30/2006.
According to E.O. 13132, this rule does not have meaningful federalism implications. As noted above, it would have at most only a small effect relative to the original rule, which itself may have only a small consequence ($1 to $2 million a year) on Gulf Coast States in the form of reduced payments under section 8(g) of the OCSLA.
According to E.O. 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications; therefore a Takings Implication Assessment is not required.
This amended rule is not a significant rule and is not subject to review by OMB under E.O. 12866. This amended rule does not have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use. This amended rule may slightly increase and accelerate the production of gas from deep wells in shallow waters of the GOM by providing for a RSV volume for successful deep production and a royalty suspension supplement for unsuccessful deep drilling efforts to a few more leases, so it has a positive effect on energy supply based on our regulatory analysis.
This amended rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The amended rule does not have any Federal mandates. Nor does the rule have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531
According to E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the E.O.
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the NEPA is not required.
In accordance with E.O. 13175, this rule does not have tribal implications that impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments.
Continental shelf, Government contracts, Indian lands, Minerals royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands-mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur.
25 U.S.C. 396
Your lease may receive a royalty suspension volume under §§ 203.41 through 203.43, and may receive a royalty suspension supplement under §§ 203.44 through 203.46, if it:
(a) Was:
(1) In existence on January 1, 2001;
(2) Issued in a lease sale held after January 1, 2001, and before April 1, 2004, and either the lessee has exercised the option provided for in § 203.48 or the lease is located partly in water less than 200 meters deep and no deep water royalty relief provisions in statutes or lease terms apply to the lease; or
(3) Issued in a lease sale held on or after April 1, 2004, and either the lease terms provide for royalty relief under §§ 203.41 through 203.47 of this part or the lease is located partly in water less than 200 meters deep and no deep water royalty relief provisions in statutes or lease terms apply to the lease;
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has approved a temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the Norfolk Southern (NS) #5 Railroad Bridge across the Elizabeth River, Eastern Branch, at mile 1.1, in Norfolk, VA in May 2005. To facilitate extensive maintenance that is required at the bridge, the deviation allows the drawbridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for three daytime closure periods during May, each closure period lasting 2 to 4 days.
The deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on May 3 to 4:30 p.m. on May 19, 2005.
Bill Brazier, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6422.
The Norfolk Southern Corporation, who owns and operates the NS #5 Railroad Bridge, has requested temporary deviations in May 2005 from the operating regulation to change out two sets of lift joints from the lift span of the bridge and to replace 504 bridge ties on the east bound main track.
To facilitate this extensive maintenance of the bridge, the lift-span will be locked in the closed-to-navigation position during the following closure periods: each day from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., on May 3 and 4, 2005; each day from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. and from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on May 9 to 12 and on May 16 to 19, 2005. During these stages, the work requires completely immobilizing the operation of the lift span in the closed-to-navigation position. At all other times, the bridge
The Coast Guard has informed the known users of the waterway of the closure periods for the bridge so that these vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviations.
The District Commander has granted a temporary deviation from the operating requirements listed in 33 CFR 117.35 for the purpose of repair completion of the drawbridge. The temporary deviation allows the NS #5 Railroad Bridge across the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River, at mile 1.1, in Norfolk VA, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the following closure periods: each day from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., on May 3 and 4, 2005; each day from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. and from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on May 9 to 12 and on May 16 to 19, 2005.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is changing the regulations that govern the operation of the Norfolk Southern (NS) Railroad Bridge (NS #V2.8) across the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River, at mile 2.7, in Norfolk, VA. The final rule allows the NS #V2.8 bridge to be operated from a remote location, and to remain open for vessel traffic and to close only for train crossings and periodic maintenance. This rule will make the operation of the bridge more efficient, because currently the bridge only opens on signal, or on signal after notice.
This rule is effective May 31, 2005.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD05-04-209 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (obr), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this rulemaking.
Anton Allen, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6227.
On December 2, 2004, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Elizabeth River—Eastern Branch, Norfolk, VA” in the
Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC), who owns and operates this swing-type bridge at mile 2.7 across the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River, in Norfolk, VA, requested a change to the current operating procedures set out in 33 CFR Part 117.1007(a), which requires the draw to open on signal, from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., and open on signal with at least two hours notice, from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.
Under this rule, the NS Railroad Bridge (NS #V2.8) will remain open to vessel traffic, closing only for train crossings and periodic maintenance. This rule allows the NS Railroad Bridge (NS #V2.8) to be operated from a remote location at the NS Railroad Bridge (NS #5), at mile 1.1, over the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River.
NSC has installed closed circuit cameras in the area of the bridge and directly beneath the bridge, mounted on the center pier fender systems on both sides. Infrared sensors have also been installed to cover the swing radius of the bridge. This equipment enhances the controller's ability to monitor vessel traffic from the remote location. The controller will also monitor marine channel 13.
This change is being made to make the operation of the NS Railroad Bridge (NS #V2.8) more efficient. It will save operational costs by eliminating the continuous presence of bridge tenders, and is expected to decrease maintenance costs. In addition, the draw will be left in the open position and will only close for train crossings or periodic maintenance, and therefore will provide for greater flow of vessel traffic than the current regulation.
The Coast Guard received one comment on the NPRM from NSC. NSC requested slight revisions to the language to be used in this rule. The Coast Guard has incorporated the following changes to this rule: In paragraph (a)(3), replaced “less than
The Coast Guard considers these changes necessary for safe navigation and the final rule was changed to reflect these proposals.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. We reached this conclusion based on the fact that the changes have only a minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge. Although the NS Railroad Bridge (NS #V2.8) will be untended and operated from a remote location, mariners can continue their transits because the bridge will remain open to mariners, only to be closed for train crossings or periodic maintenance.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. No assistance was requested from any small entity.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because it has been determined that the promulgation of operating regulations for drawbridges are categorically excluded.
Bridges.
33 U.S.C. 499; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
(a) The draw of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge (NS #V2.8), mile 2.7 at Norfolk, shall operate as follows:
(1) The draw shall remain in the open position for navigation. The draw shall only be closed for train crossings or periodic maintenance authorized in accordance with subpart A of this part.
(2) The bridge shall be operated by the controller at the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge (NS #5), mile 1.1, over the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River in Norfolk, VA. The controller shall monitor vessel traffic with closed circuit cameras and infrared sensors covering the swing radius. Operational information will be provided 24 hours a day on marine channel 13 and via telephone (757) 446-5320.
(3) The bridge shall not be operated from the remote location in the following events: Failure or obstruction of the infrared sensors, closed-circuit cameras or marine-radio communications, or anytime controller's visibility is inhibited. In these situations, a bridge tender with Norfolk Southern must be called to operate the bridge on-site.
(4) Before the bridge closes for any reason, the remote operator will monitor waterway traffic in the area. The bridge shall only be closed if the off-site remote operator's visual inspection shows that the channel is clear and there are no vessels transiting in the area. While the bridge is moving, the operator shall maintain constant surveillance of the navigation channel.
(5) Before closing the draw, the channel traffic lights will change from flashing green to flashing red, the horn will sound five short blasts, and an audio voice warning stating, “Attention, Attention. Norfolk Southern's Railroad Bridge over the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River at milepost 2.7 will be closing to river traffic.” Five short blasts of the horn will continue until the bridge is seated and locked down to vessels, the channel traffic lights will continue to flash red.
(6) When the rail traffic has cleared, the horn will sound one prolonged blast followed by one short blast to indicate that the draw is opening to vessel traffic. During the opening swing movement, the channel traffic lights will flash red until the bridge returns to the fully open position. In the full open position to vessels, the bridge channel lights will flash green followed by an announcement stating, “Security, security, security. Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge at mile 2.7 is open for river traffic.” Vessels shall stay clear of both channels as to not interfere with infrared detectors, until green lights are displayed on the swing span.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a moving and fixed security zone around cruise ships entering, departing, mooring or anchoring at the Port of Fredericksted in Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. This regulation is a security measure designed to protect cruise ships at this port. All vessels, with the exception of cruise ships, are prohibited from entering the moving and fixed security zone around a cruise ship without the express permission of the Captain of the Port San Juan or their designated representative. The current temporary final rule at 33 CFR 165.T07-05-005 will be removed when this final rule is effective because it is unnecessary.
This rule is effective May 31, 2005.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket COTP-05-002 and are available for inspection or copying at Prevention Operations Command Office, San Juan, #5 LaPuntilla Final, Old San Juan, PR 00901-1800, between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
LTJG Katiuska Pabon, Prevention Operations Command San Juan at 787-729-2376.
On February 1, 2005, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Moving and Fixed Security Zone: Port of Fredericksted, Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands” in the
Based on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center buildings in New York and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, there is an increased risk that subversive activity could be launched from vessels in close proximity to cruise ships entering, departing, mooring or anchoring at any port of call. Following these attacks, national security and intelligence officials have warned that future terrorists attacks are likely and may include maritime interests such as cruise ships. The Captain of the Port San Juan proposes to reduce this risk by preventing unauthorized vessels from entering a moving or fixed security zone around each cruise ship entering, departing, anchoring or mooring at the Port of Fredericksted without the authorization of the Captain of the Port San Juan or their designated representative.
Captain of the Port San Juan can be contacted on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 (156.8 Mhz), or by telephone number (787) 289-0739. The United States Coast Guard Communications Center would notify the public via Broadcast Notice to Mariners VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 22, when a moving and fixed security zone is activated around a cruise ship at Fredericksted.
We did not receive any comments regarding this regulation and therefore made no changes from the proposed rule based on comments. We did, however, correct typographical errors in the coordinates in the proposed rule used for the Fredericksted Pier Lights. The final rule contains the correct coordinates.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this security zone to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Entry into the security zone would be prohibited for a limited period of time. Additionally, vessels may be allowed to enter the security zone with the express permission of the Captain of the Port San Juan or their designated representative.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule.
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(2) Persons desiring to transit through a security zone may contact the Captain of the Port San Juan who can be reached on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 (156.8 Mhz) or by calling (787) 289-2041, 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or designated representative.
(3) Sector San Juan will attempt to notify the maritime community of periods during which these security zones will be in effect by providing advance notice of scheduled arrivals and departures of cruise ships via a broadcast notice to mariners.
(c)
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Caderock Division Ship Systems Engineering Station (NSWCCD-SSES), a major source of nitrogen oxides (NO
This rule is effective on June 28, 2005 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by May 31, 2005. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number R03-OAR-2005-PA-0012 by one of the following methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
B. Agency Web site:
C. E-mail:
D. Mail: R03-OAR-2005-PA-0012, Dave Campbell, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
E. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Amy Caprio, (215) 814-2156, or by e-mail at
Pursuant to sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the CAA, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth or Pennsylvania) is required to establish and implement RACT for all major VOC and NO
State implementation plan revisions imposing RACT for three classes of VOC sources are required under section 182(b)(2). The categories are:
(1) All sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) document
(2) All sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; and
(3) All major non-CTG sources.
The Pennsylvania SIP already has approved RACT regulations and requirements for all sources and source categories covered by the CTGs. The Pennsylvania SIP also has approved regulations to require major sources of NO
It must be noted that the Commonwealth has adopted and is implementing additional “post RACT requirements” to reduce seasonal NO
On January 27, 2005, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP which establish and impose RACT for NSWCCD-SSES, a source of NO
Copies of the actual PAs and OPs imposing RACT and PADEP's evaluation memorandum are included in the electronic and hard copy docket for this final rule. As previously stated, all documents in the electronic docket are listed in the RME index at
EPA is approving these RACT SIP submittals because PADEP established and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in its SIP-approved generic RACT regulations applicable to these sources. The Commonwealth has also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on these sources sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations.
EPA is approving the revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP to establish and require NO
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 28, 2005. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule approving source-specific RACT requirements for NSWCCD-SSES in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
On August 29, 2003, EPA published a final rule approving the emission averaging program for existing sources subject to the state's rule limiting oxides of nitrogen (NO
This final rule is effective on May 31, 2005.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Regional Material in EDocket (RME) Docket ID
Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031.
This action revises two parts of the Wisconsin state implementation plan (SIP) for the control of NO
One revision modifies language to clarify which units are eligible for demonstrating compliance through emissions averaging. The emissions averaging provisions apply only to existing electric utility boilers in the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan ozone nonattainment areas (Kenosha, Manitowoc, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Washington, and Waukesha counties). The second revision creates a new NO
1. The Regional Office has established an official public rulemaking file for this action that is available both electronically and in hard copy form at the Regional office. The electronic public rulemaking file can be found under RME ID No. R05-OAR-2004-WI-0001. The official public file consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public rulemaking file does not include CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The hard copy version of the official public rulemaking file is available for public viewing at the Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the
EPA is approving, as part of the Wisconsin ozone SIP, certain sections of Wisconsin rule NR 428, Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions. These revisions refer to the addition of language to clarify which sources are eligible to participate in the emissions averaging program.
In addition, EPA is approving language that creates a separate categorical emission limit for new combustion turbines which burn biologically derived gaseous fuel.
The current version of NR 428 contained in the SIP allows utilities to demonstrate compliance with NO
Section NR 428.06(2)(a) is amended to specify that an eligible unit must be subject to the emission limitations for utility boilers under NR 428.03(a). The amendment eliminates the need to reference two provisions in determining eligible sources.
Eligible sources must still receive a proportion of the total 15,912 tons of NO
In this SIP revision, EPA is also approving a new categorical NO
The Wisconsin DNR created this new categorical NO
The Wisconsin DNR has determined that a separate categorical standard of 35 ppmdv at 15 percent oxygen is appropriate for a combustion turbine burning landfill gas or any other biologically derived fuel. Comparable alternatives for controlling emissions from sources that generate biologically derived gaseous fuel, as currently allowed under the SIP, are likely to result in greater NO
The use of a combustion turbine's higher energy efficiency and lower overall emissions potentially results in further environmental benefit. First, the turbine generates energy more efficiently than a reciprocating engine or power boiler burning biologically derived fuel. Second, the additional generated electricity for the same unit of fuel can potentially offset emissions from traditional electricity sources, such as coal-fired utility plants.
Therefore, the Wisconsin DNR has concluded that implementation of a separate categorical limit is necessary for the continued or increased use of combustion turbines firing biologically derived gaseous fuel. In addition, this action is likely to result in lower NO
The limit is placed in the section of NO
NR 428.04(2)(g)4. “Units fired by a biologically derived gaseous fuel.” No person may cause, allow or permit nitrogen oxides to be emitted from a biologically derived gaseous fuel fired combustion turbine in amounts greater than those specified in this subdivision.
a. 35 parts per million dry volume (ppmdv), corrected to 15% oxygen, on a 30-day rolling average basis for a simple cycle combustion turbine.
b. 35 parts per million dry volume (ppmdv), corrected to 15% oxygen, on a 30-day rolling average basis for a combined cycle combustion turbine.
With the creation of the new categorical emission limit, this revision amends the introductory language under provision NR 428.04(2)(g)(1), to acknowledge that combustion turbines only burning biologically derived gaseous fuel are not subject to the more stringent general emission limitations for burning any type of “gaseous fuels”. The amended language references the newly created subparagraph 4 and reads:
NR 428.04(2)(g)1.(intro.) “Gaseous fuel-fired units.” Except as provided in subds. 3. and 4., no person may cause, allow or permit nitrogen oxides to be emitted from a gaseous fuel-fired combustion turbine in amounts greater than those specified in this subdivision.
Biologically derived gaseous fuel is defined under the newly created provision NR 428.02(1). The current provision of NR 428.02(1) is renumbered to NR 428.02(2). The newly created definition is as follows:
NR 428.02(1) “Biologically derived gaseous fuel” means a gaseous fuel resulting from biological processing of a carbon-based feedstock.
Units subject to the new categorical limit for combustion turbines burning biologically derived gaseous fuel must meet the same compliance, monitoring, and reporting requirements established for all other new sources. These requirements have already been determined appropriate for combustion turbines and approved by EPA in the Wisconsin SIP.
EPA's review of the revisions to Wisconsin's SIP regarding the control of NO
EPA has concluded that the modification to Wisconsin's NO
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 31, 2005. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c)* * *
(111) On May 25, 2004, Lloyd L. Eagan, Director, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, submitted a revision to its rule for control of nitrogen oxide (NO
(i) Incorporation by reference.
Wisconsin rules NR 428.02(1)and (1m); NR 428.04(2)(g)(1); NR 428.04(2)(g)(4); and NR 428.06(2)(a) as published in the (Wisconsin) Register,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision removes oil application as an acceptable alternative fugitive dust emissions reduction method, due to an existing prohibition of oil application, on land, found in the Virginia statute. In addition, the revision changes a specific reference from “Executive Director” to “Director.” EPA is approving these minor revisions to Virginia's regulations in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
This rule is effective on June 28, 2005 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by May 31, 2005. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number R03-OAR-2005-VA-0003 by one of the following methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
B. Agency Web site:
C. E-mail:
D. Mail: R03-OAR-2005-VA-0003, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
E. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Linda Miller, (215) 814-2068, or by e-mail at
On February 2, 2004, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality submitted a formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of minor modifications to Virginia's fugitive dust and waiver regulations. These minor revisions remove language that conflicts with the Virginia statute and clarifies who may grant a waiver.
The SIP revision, submitted on February 2, 2004, includes regulatory modifications made to alleviate a conflict between statutory provisions and regulatory requirements. The Virginia statute (Code of Virginia, Section 62.1-44.34:18) prohibits the discharge of oil upon land. The previously SIP approved Virginia regulations concerning fugitive dust/emissions conflicted with the statutory prohibition. The revisions to 9 VAC 5-40-90 and 9 VAC 5-50-90 remove the reference to application of oil as a means to reduce fugitive dust emissions. The change does not affect the stringency of the SIP as there are several other alternatives to reduce fugitive emissions.
In addition, there are several other minor editorial corrections made to 9 VAC 5-40-120 and 9 VAC 5-50-120. The reference to “Executive Director” is changed to “Director, “ and the word “methods” is removed from several provisions in the regulation. These minor editorial changes do not alter the interpretation of the SIP approved regulations.
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed.
Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts. * * *” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
EPA is approving a revision to the SIP to remove the reference to application of oil as a means to reduce fugitive dust emissions in 9VAC 5-40-90-2 and 9 VAC 5-50-90-2. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment to approve a minor change to regulations and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 28, 2005. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule to approve minor changes to the visible emissions and fugitive dust regulations does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action to approve minor revisions to the Virginia fugitive dust and waiver provisions, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate matter.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The EPA is approving a revision to Maine's plan for controlling air pollution under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (“111(d) plan”). This revision to Maine's regulations at Chapter 124, “Total Reduced Sulfur Control From Kraft Pulp Mills” (“Chapter 124”), extends the compliance date for existing brownstock washers to April 17, 2007. This action is being taken in accordance with section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”).
This rule is effective on May 31, 2005.
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA 02114-2023; Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room B-108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC ; and the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, First Floor of the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental Health Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333-0017.
Ian D. Cohen, (617) 918-1655.
The following table of contents describes the format for the
On March 1, 2005, EPA published a Direct Final Rule (“DFR”) approving a revision to the State of Maine's 111(d) plan for the control of TRS from existing kraft pulp mills at Chapter 124. 70 FR 9872. A detailed explanation of EPA's rationale for approving the 111(d) plan revision was provided in the March 1, 2005 DFR. In accordance with direct final rulemaking procedures, on March 1, 2005, EPA also published a companion notice of proposed rulemaking of this revision. 70 FR 9901. On March 5, 2005, EPA received one adverse comment on its proposed approval, which is summarized and addressed in section 2 below.
The Agency received one adverse comment on EPA's proposed approval of Maine's 111(d) plan revision. A summary of that comment and EPA's response is provided below.
The term “total reduced sulfur” refers to a combination of compounds consisting primarily of hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide, and dimethyl disulfide. These compounds are emitted when sulfur-based chemicals are used to dissolve wood chips as part of the paper making process. 70 FR 9872, 9874 (Mar. 1, 2005). These sulfides are extremely odorous. 41 FR 42012 (September 24, 1976) (proposed new source performance standards (NSPS) for kraft pulp mills).
As EPA explained in both the Agency's 1979 Emission Guideline for kraft pulp mills (EPA Guidelines Series, “Kraft Pulping: Control of TRS Emissions from Existing Mills” (March 1979) (“TRS Emission Guideline”)) and EPA's 1978 new source performance standards for kraft pulp mills (43 FR 7568 (February 23, 1978)), studies analyzing the effects of TRS emissions from kraft pulp mills have focused on the odor associated with those emissions.
The Administrator has determined that TRS emissions from kraft pulp mills may cause or contribute to endangerment of the public welfare but
EPA has previously approved other revisions to Maine's section 111(d) plan consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR part 60. EPA has determined that the limited extension of the compliance date for brownstock washer systems at existing kraft pulp mills in Maine is reasonable and consistent with our regulations for the reasons discussed in the DFR and below. As an initial matter, EPA's recommended guideline emission limit for brownstock washers at existing kraft pulp mills is “no control.” TRS Emission Guideline at 1-7, 10-12. This is due to both safety concerns and excessive costs associated with the retrofit of existing brownstock washer systems to control vent gases in comparison to the marginal amount of TRS reduction that would be achieved by such controls (about 1 percent of total mill TRS emissions).
As explained in the preamble to EPA's National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry (“Pulp and Paper MACT”), the emission controls needed to comply with the Pulp and Paper MACT rule, which is a rule that directly affects brownstock washers, are expected to also reduce TRS emissions from kraft pulp mills. 63 FR 18504, 18507 (Apr. 15, 1998). The compliance date for kraft pulp mills in the Pulp and Paper MACT is April 17, 2006. 40 CFR 63.440(d)(1). EPA or a state may, however, allow an extension of up to 1 year from a MACT compliance date if a source needs additional time to install controls. CAA section 112(i)(3)(B); 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4). Maine recently granted a 1-year compliance extension to the Pulp and Paper MACT rule to four existing kraft pulp mills in the state. Consistent with 40 CFR 63.6(i), the extension of compliance will be incorporated into the sources' Title V operating permits.
It is reasonable and cost-effective to coordinate the compliance deadline for brownstock washer systems in Chapter 124 with the Pulp and Paper MACT compliance deadline, given that the four facilities affected by the 111(d) plan revision need additional time to obtain and install the control technology needed to achieve compliance with both Chapter 124 and the Pulp and Paper MACT. Such consideration of economic and technological difficulties associated with retrofitting existing facilities is consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B. EPA is approving Maine's 111(d) plan revision because it is not anticipated to endanger the public health, and because it is consistent with the requirements of CAA section 111(d) and 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.
EPA is approving the revised 111(d) plan controlling TRS emissions from existing kraft pulp mills as submitted by ME DEP on June 23, 2004. The revised plan, which consists of the revised regulation entitled “Chapter 124: Total Reduced Sulfur from Kraft Pulp Mills,” requires brownstock washers at existing kraft pulp mills to be in compliance with Chapter 124 by April 17, 2007. This action affects four existing kraft pulp mills in the State of Maine.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power
In reviewing 111(d) submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a 111(d) submission, to use VCS in place of a 111(d) submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 28, 2005. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Total reduced sulfur.
42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq.
(b) * * *
(6) A revision to the plan controlling TRS from existing kraft pulp mills which extends the final compliance date for brownstock washers to April 17, 2007, was submitted on June 23, 2004.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Interim final rule.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) prohibit States from issuing, renewing, transferring or upgrading a commercial driver's license (CDL) with a hazardous materials endorsement unless the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has first conducted a security threat assessment of the applicant and determined the applicant does not pose a security risk warranting denial of the hazardous materials endorsement. The FMCSRs currently provide a specific date on which States become subject to the new requirement. This interim final rule amends the FMCSRs to cross-reference the TSA's compliance date as the date when FMCSA's companion requirements also become applicable. Consistent with TSA regulations, FMCSA also reduces the amount of advance notice that States must provide to drivers that a security threat assessment will be performed when they renew a hazardous materials endorsement. This rule is being issued as an IFR because it relates back to an existing substantive IFR published on May 5, 2003. This IFR will be subsumed into that rulemaking when it is finalized. All outstanding comments on these issues will be addressed in that final document.
This rule is effective on April 29, 2005.
Mr. Robert Redmond, Office of Safety Programs, (202) 366-9579, FMCSA, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
This interim final rule is available for inspection and copying between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays at the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. An electronic version of this document along with all documents entered into this docket is available on the Internet at
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act [Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272] was enacted on October 25, 2001. Section 1012 of the USA PATRIOT Act amended 49 U.S.C. Chapter 51 by adding a new sec. 5103a titled “Limitation on issuance of hazmat licenses.” Section 5103a(a)(1) provides:
“A State may not issue to any individual a license to operate a motor vehicle transporting in commerce a hazardous material unless the Secretary of Transportation has first determined, upon receipt of a notification under subsection (c)(1)(B), that the individual does not pose a security risk warranting denial of the license.”
FMCSA shares with TSA responsibility for implementing sec. 1012 of the USA PATRIOT Act. TSA has established the security threat assessment, including security risk factors, citizenship/immigration requirements for the hazardous
On May 5, 2003, TSA published an interim final rule (68 FR 23852, referred to as the May 5 IFR) that established the security threat assessment requirements for drivers who apply for, renew, or transfer a hazardous materials endorsement for a commercial driver's license. The May 5 IFR required States to notify drivers who hold a hazardous materials endorsement about the need for a security threat assessment 180 days prior to the expiration date of the endorsement. The notice was required to inform the driver that he or she could initiate the security threat assessment at any time after receiving the notice, but no later than 90 days before the expiration date of the driver's endorsement.
On November 24, 2004, TSA published an interim final rule (
FMCSA is issuing this IFR without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to its authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision allows the agency to issue a final rule without notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that notice and comment procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest.” This amended IFR is ministerial in nature. It cross-references TSA's compliance deadline for the requirements of part 383, subpart I and reduces the lead-time States must give individuals currently holding a hazardous materials endorsement under § 383.141(c). Because the rule relieves a burden on stakeholders by extending the general compliance date and relaxing the dates for State driver notification requirements, FMCSA has concluded that it is within the scope of the May 5, 2003, IFR which requested comment and that further notice and comment on this issue are unnecessary.
FMCSA has determined this interim final rule is a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) because of substantial public interest. This rule does not impose any costs on any public, private, or government sector, therefore further economic analysis is unnecessary.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, was enacted by Congress to ensure small entities (small businesses, small not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) are not unnecessarily or disproportionately burdened by Federal regulations. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to review rules to determine if they have “a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” In this case, the requirement is inapplicable because a notice of proposed rulemaking was not required. Nonetheless, I certify that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As noted above, this interim final rule applies only to State governments and, through them, certain commercial motor vehicle drivers. It does not impose any costs on any public, private, or government sector.
Executive Order 13132 requires FMCSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” The term “policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under the Executive Order, FMCSA may construe a Federal statute to preempt State law only where, among other things, the exercise of State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the federal statute.
Although this amended interim final rule potentially has direct effects on the States, they are not substantial because the rule will allow States more time to comply with the TSA regulation published on November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68720), and thus avoid the withholding of Federal-aid highway funds that could result from non-compliance with the TSA rule. FMCSA has determined that this amended interim final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.
The provisions of 49 U.S.C. 31314 require DOT to withhold certain Federal-aid highway funds from States that fail to comply substantially with the requirements for State participation in the CDL program. As discussed in detail in the May 5 IFR [see 68 FR at 23847-23848], those provisions apply also to State compliance with portions of the TSA rule implementing sec. 1012 that apply to States. In addition, 49 U.S.C. 31312 authorizes DOT to prohibit States from issuing CDLs if the Secretary determines “that a State is in substantial noncompliance” with 49 U.S.C. chapter 313. These penalties are available for DOT to use when and if appropriate to encourage State compliance with TSA's sec. 1012 rule.
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), a Federal agency must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. This amended interim final rule does not contain any information collection requirements.
The agency analyzed this amended interim final rule for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
We have also analyzed this rule under sec. 175(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA) sec. 176(c), (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's General Conformity requirement since it involves policy development and civil enforcement activities, such as investigations, inspections, examinations, and the training of law enforcement personnel. See 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2). It will not result in any emissions increase nor will it have any potential to result in emissions that are above the general conformity rule's
We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. This action is not a significant energy action within the meaning of sec. 4(b) of the Executive Order because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards-related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety and security, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. FMCSA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and has determined that it will not impose any costs on domestic or international entities and thus would have a neutral trade impact.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal 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 $120.7 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, sec. 205 of the UMRA generally requires FMCSA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule. The provisions of sec. 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, sec. 205 allows FMCSA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
This amended interim final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $120.7 million annually. Thus, FMCSA has not prepared a written assessment under the UMRA.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutional Protected Property Rights.
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This amended interim final rule changes the compliance dates by which States must meet TSA requirements. This rule will not cause an increase in the number of hazardous materials incidents, nor increase the number of non-hazardous materials commercial motor vehicle crashes. Therefore, the FMCSA certifies that this action is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
FMCSA has assessed the energy impact of this rule in accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Public Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). FMCSA has determined that this final rule is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA.
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
Administrative practice and procedure, Commercial driver's license,
49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301
(a)
(c)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection for scribe lines and cracks in the fuselage skin at certain lap joints, butt joints, external repair doublers, and other areas; and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD is prompted by reports of fuselage skin cracks adjacent to the skin lap joints on airplanes that had scribe lines. Scribe line damage can also occur at many other locations, including butt joints, external doublers, door scuff plates, the wing-to-body fairing, and areas of the fuselage where decals have been applied or removed. We are proposing this AD to prevent rapid decompression of the airplane due to fatigue cracks resulting from scribe lines on pressurized fuselage structure.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 13, 2005.
Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
• Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590.
• By fax: (202) 493-2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.
You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at
Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 917-6438; fax (425) 917-6590.
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
We have received a report of scribe lines and fuselage skin cracks adjacent to the skin lap joints on two Boeing Model 737-200 series airplanes. Scribe lines are narrow, shallow, distinct lines of damage, usually associated with the removal of a fillet seal (from a lap joint) or gap seal (from a butt splice). Scribe lines have typically occurred during maintenance, including, for example, applying and removing graphic decals and stripping paint sealant from the lap joints, butt joints, certain external doublers, door scuff plates, and the wing-to-body fairing.
On one of the subject airplanes, a 5-inch crack was found at (body) station (STA) 827, just below the lap joint at stringer (S) S-4R. The airplane had accumulated 52,226 total flight cycles. On the second airplane, two cracks were found below the S-10R lap joint: a 10-inch crack between STA 757 and STA 767, and a 5-inch crack between STA 749 and STA 754. This airplane had accumulated 41,899 total flight cycles. Both airplanes had scribe lines along the lap joints and butt joints and around the wing-to-body fairing. The scribe lines appear to have been made on the skin when sealant was removed to prepare the airplane for repainting.
Analysis of the cracked skin areas confirmed that the cracks initiated at multiple sites along the scribe lines, which were 0.002 to 0.004 inch deep. The first airplane accumulated 5,500 flight cycles between crack initiation
Scribe lines, if not corrected, could result in fatigue cracks that could grow large enough to allow rapid decompression of the airplane.
The configuration of the fuselage is the same on Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. Therefore, all these models may be subject to the identified unsafe condition.
We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262, dated December 9, 2004. The service bulletin describes procedures for a detailed inspection for scribe lines in the fuselage skin at certain lap joints, butt joints, external repair doublers, scuff plates and repairs in the restricted zones around the door cutouts, and, if affected, the skin around the wing-to-body fairing. The service bulletin specifies the following corrective actions:
• Blending scribe lines that are within specified limits.
• Repairing scribe lines or completing a limited return-to-service (LRTS) program for scribe lines that exceed specified limits. The LRTS includes various repetitive inspections (ultrasonic, eddy current, substructure, internal detailed stringer inspections) for cracks in the area of the scribe lines.
• Contacting Boeing for crack repair instructions.
The inspection areas are divided into three zones, which specify locations and corresponding potential fatigue thresholds. Because of the complexity of the actions and the workload for affected operators, the service bulletin provides instructions for calculating separate inspection thresholds based on fatigue life of each zonal area. By defining criticality of location, the service bulletin addresses the most critical areas (
We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed below. The proposed AD would also require sending the inspection results of positive crack findings to Boeing.
The service bulletin (in Part 14) provides procedures for scribe lines found before the initial inspection threshold. This proposed AD would not require those procedures but would require only the directed inspection program (Parts 1 through 11). This proposed AD would allow the optional accomplishment of an LRTS program (in Parts 12 and 13), under certain conditions, to allow temporary return to service.
This proposed AD would require operators to report cracks found during the inspections. While the service bulletin does not explicitly direct operators to provide such a report, Boeing advises that the data from these reports will help in the ongoing efforts to improve the scribe line inspection program.
The service bulletin specifies compliance times relative to the date of issuance of the service bulletin; however, this proposed AD would require compliance before the specified compliance time relative to the effective date of the AD.
The service bulletin specifies that operators may contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repair in one of the following ways:
• Using a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.
We have coordinated these different requirements with Boeing.
There are about 3,132 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive comments on this AD action by June 13, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(d) This AD was prompted by reports of fuselage skin cracks adjacent to the skin lap joints on airplanes that had scribe lines. Scribe line damage can also occur at many other locations, including butt joints, external doublers, door scuff plates, the wing-to-body fairing, and areas of the fuselage where decals have been applied or removed. We are issuing this AD to prevent rapid decompression of the airplane due to fatigue cracks resulting from scribe lines on pressurized fuselage structure.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Do a detailed inspection for scribe lines and cracks in the fuselage skin at certain lap joints, butt joints, external repair doublers, and other areas, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262, dated December 9, 2004, except as provided by paragraph (g) of this AD. Do the actions at the time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of the service bulletin, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. Acceptable inspection exemptions are described in paragraph 1.E.1. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262.
(1) If no scribe line is found, no further work is required by this AD.
(2) If any scribe line is found: Do all applicable investigative and corrective actions at the time specified by doing all applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
A detailed inspection is defined in Note 10 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262 under 3.A., “General Information.” Specific magnification requirements may be specified in the steps of the Work Instructions.
(g) This AD requires accomplishment of Parts 1 through 11 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1262. Parts 12 and 13 of the service bulletin may be accomplished, if applicable, to allow temporary return to service. This AD does not require accomplishment of Part 14 of the service bulletin.
(h) If any scribe line or crack is found during any inspection required by this AD, and the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair according to a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or according to data meeting the certification basis of the airplane approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(i) Where the service bulletin specifies a compliance time after the issuance of the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
(j) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, submit a report of positive findings of cracks found during the inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD to the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Alternatively, operators may submit reports to their Boeing field service representatives. The report shall contain, as a minimum, the following information: airplane serial number, flight cycles at time of discovery, location(s) and extent of positive crack findings. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Send the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(2) If the inspection was done after the effective date of this AD: Send the report within 30 days after the inspection is done.
(k)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) requests public
We must receive written comments on or before June 28, 2005.
You may send comments to any one of the following addresses:
• Chief, Regulations and Procedures Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 41, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412.
• 202-927-8525 (facsimile).
•
•
•
You may view copies of this advance notice, the petitions, and any comments we receive on this notice by appointment at the TTB Library, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To make an appointment, call 202-927-2400. You may also access copies of the advance notice and comments online at
See Section VI of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments and for information on how to request a public hearing.
Lisa M. Gesser, Regulations and Procedures Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 128, Morganza, MD 20660; (301) 290-1460.
TTB is soliciting public comment on a wide range of alcohol beverage labeling and advertising issues to help the agency determine what regulatory changes in alcohol beverage labeling and advertising requirements, if any, TTB should propose in future rulemakings. Because of increased interest in including nutrition and ingredient information on alcohol beverage labels, TTB believes it is now appropriate to consider amending the alcohol beverage labeling and advertising regulations to provide more specific information to the consumer.
Accordingly, TTB is soliciting public comments on appropriate ways to use alcohol beverage labels to inform the public about the identity and quality of the products. In addition to specific questions posed later in this advance notice, TTB invites responses to the following general questions:
1. Should TTB seek to require mandatory nutrition labeling (that is, calories, fat, carbohydrates, and protein) for alcohol beverage products, or should nutrition information be permitted only on a voluntary basis?
2. Should TTB seek to require mandatory ingredient labeling (that is, a list of all ingredients used to make the product, including processing aids) for alcohol beverage products, or should ingredient labeling be permitted only on a voluntary basis?
3. What areas need further research and evaluation before TTB can reach decisions on whether and how changes can be made?
4. Are there modifications TTB can make to current requirements regarding alcohol beverage labels to help consumers better understand and benefit from the information on the label?
5. Should TTB harmonize its alcohol beverage labeling regulatory requirements with those of other major producing nations, such as the Member States of the European Union, Australia, and Canada, and with regulatory schemes of other Federal agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? If so, how would that be best done?
6. Are consumers likely to derive benefits from more specific information on alcohol beverage labels, and, if so, are those benefits sufficient to warrant the economic costs associated with such revisions?
7. What should be the agency's priorities in deciding which changes to make on alcohol beverage labels, that is, which changes are most important and which are least important?
8. Should any new labeling requirements apply equally to advertisements?
Sections 105(e) and 105(f) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), codified in the United States Code at 27 U.S.C. 205(e) and 205(f), set forth standards for regulation of the labeling and advertising of distilled spirits, wine (at least 7 percent alcohol by volume), and malt beverages, generally referred to as alcohol beverage products throughout this document. These sections give the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue regulations to prevent deception of the consumer, to provide the consumer with “adequate information” as to the identity and quality of the product, and to prohibit false or misleading statements. Additionally, these FAA Act provisions give the Secretary the authority to prohibit, irrespective of falsity, statements relating to age, manufacturing processes, analyses, guarantees, and scientific or irrelevant matters which are likely to mislead the consumer. In the case of malt beverages, the labeling and advertising provisions of the FAA Act apply only if the laws of the State into which the malt beverages are to be shipped impose similar requirements. TTB is responsible for the administration of the FAA Act and the regulations promulgated under it.
Subject to certain jurisdictional limitations, the FAA Act requires that alcohol beverage labels and advertisements be in conformity with the regulations prescribed under it. The basic FAA Act implementing regulations, which appear as parts 4, 5, and 7 in title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (27 CFR parts 4, 5, and 7), specifically state what mandatory information must appear, and what is prohibited from appearing, on labels and in advertisements. Most of the mandatory labeling information requirements for alcohol beverages flow directly from the purpose stated in the statute, that is, to “provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity and quality of the products, the alcoholic content thereof * * * the net contents of the package, and the manufacturer or bottler or importer of the product.” See 27 U.S.C. 205(e). The current specific requirements may be summarized as follows: brand name, product identity, the name and address of the bottler, packer, or importer, the net contents and alcohol content (see below) of the
In the case of alcohol content, it should be noted that alcohol content statements are not mandatory for all alcohol beverages falling within TTB's jurisdiction. The FAA Act provides that in the case of wines, statements of alcohol content shall be required only for wines containing more than 14 percent of alcohol by volume. See 27 U.S.C. 205(e). The implementing regulations provide that wines having an alcohol content of 14 percent alcohol by volume or less may bear on their labels either an alcohol content statement or the type designation “table” wine or “light” wine. See 27 CFR 4.36(a).
In the case of malt beverages, the FAA Act as enacted specifically prohibited the placement of alcohol content statements on malt beverage labels, unless required by State law. This provision of the law was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in
The implementing regulations establish the “identity” of alcohol beverage products by defining certain classes and types for wines and distilled spirits. With regard to malt beverages, statements of class and type must conform to the designation of the product as known to the trade. The class and type regulations were promulgated shortly after the enactment of the FAA Act in 1935, and with relatively few exceptions, these standards have remained unchanged since then.
The regulations also prohibit, irrespective of falsity, statements that directly, or by ambiguity, omission or inference, or by the addition of irrelevant, scientific or technical matter, tend to create a misleading impression. Additionally, the regulations prohibit the use of any health-related statements in the labeling and advertising of alcohol beverages, if such statements are untrue in any particular or tend to create a misleading impression. TTB evaluates such statements on a case-by-case basis, and may require a disclaimer or some other qualifying statement to dispel any misleading impression created by the health-related statement. Statements concerning calorie, carbohydrate, protein, and fat content are not considered health-related statements within the meaning of the TTB regulations.
In order to prevent the sale or shipment of improperly labeled alcohol beverages in interstate or foreign commerce, the FAA Act requires industry members to obtain a certificate of label approval prior to the bottling of, or removal from customs custody in bottles of, distilled spirits, wines, or malt beverages. The regulations do not require a certificate of label approval for products exported in bond. If an industry member can establish that a domestic wine or distilled spirits product is not to be sold, offered for sale, shipped or delivered for shipment, or otherwise introduced, in interstate or foreign commerce, a certificate of exemption is issued.
Industry members are not required to submit advertisements to TTB for review prior to use. However, TTB encourages industry members to voluntarily submit advertising materials for pre-clearance by the Bureau. In addition, TTB monitors advertisements that are already in the marketplace as part of its comprehensive compliance program to protect the consumer and encourage industry compliance (see Industry Circular 2004-6, dated November 19, 2004).
TTB and its predecessor agencies have traditionally utilized rulings for expressing interpretations of these regulations. The questions now before the Bureau require public rulemaking to resolve because some of the changes on which we are soliciting comments go beyond the mere interpretation of existing regulations.
In the case of ingredient disclosure, the Department of the Treasury has considered this issue on a number of occasions dating back to 1972 when the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a consumer health organization, petitioned TTB's predecessor, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), to require ingredient labeling. As a result of that petition, ATF published in the
Subsequently, on February 2, 1979, ATF published Notice No. 834 in the
(1) Elects to make an ingredient list available upon request;
(2) Places a statement on the front label or on a separate strip label notifying the consumer of the availability of an ingredient list and provides the name and, somewhere on the label, a full mailing address in the United States where such an ingredient list can be obtained upon request; and
(3) Does not place a statement on the label that could be misconstrued to be an ingredient list (for example, a partial ingredient list).
ATF stated that this exception would give the industry maximum flexibility to provide ingredient information at a minimum cost. At the same time, it would provide consumers who have the need or desire to avoid various ingredients a means to do so, thus
On February 17, 1981, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12291, which was published in the
As a result of ATF's review of existing regulations called for by Executive Order 12291, ATF concluded that T.D. ATF-66 was not in accord with the President's mandate. Therefore, on May 4, 1981, ATF published Notice No. 372 in the
ATF received a total of 8,068 comments containing 23,352 individual signatures. Of the comments received, 4,909 comments representing 17,138 individuals supported the proposal to rescind the ingredient labeling regulations and 3,159 comments, representing 6,214 individuals, opposed the rescission. In T.D. ATF-94, published in the
On February 8, 1983, CSPI and two individual consumers filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia contesting the rescission. See
Subsequently, ATF decided to reexamine the ingredient disclosure issue. On June 17, 1983, ATF published Notice No. 469 in the
During the comment period, a total of 1,840 comments containing 1,897 signatures were received. Of the total number of comments received, 1,538 supported the proposal to rescind the ingredient labeling regulations. Of these comments, 413 were from American alcohol beverage industry members or related industry members, 64 were from foreign industry members, four were from foreign governments, one was from a Federal agency, and 1,056 were from individuals. A total of 290 comments, representing 303 individuals, were received opposing the rescission of the ingredient labeling regulations.
After considering all of the comments, ATF published T.D. ATF-150 in the
CSPI and others brought suit against the Department of the Treasury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, again challenging the rescission of T.D. ATF-66. See
The Government appealed the district court's decision and on August 5, 1986, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the decision, affirming ATF's rescission of T.D. ATF-66. See
The ingredient labeling issue was reopened on December 16, 2003, when CSPI, together with the National Consumers League and other organizations and individuals, forwarded a petition to TTB requesting changes to the labeling regulations in 27 CFR parts 4, 5 and 7. This petition is discussed in further detail in Section V of this notice.
On August 10, 1993, in response to a petition submitted by a law firm on behalf of an unnamed client, ATF published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in the
In response to the advance notice, ATF received 55 comments. Of these comments, 41 commenters opposed nutrition labeling (including the Wine Institute, the Beer Institute, CSPI, and the Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities). Seven commenters supported mandatory nutrition labeling (including Seagram's, Brown-Forman, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, and the petitioner). Two commenters supported voluntary nutrition labeling. One commenter supported mandatory nutrition labeling only for “light,” reduced alcohol, and non-alcoholic beverages (for example, near beer).
Based on the comments received in response to the ANPRM, ATF concluded that there was neither significant consumer interest in nutrition information for alcohol beverages nor any convincing evidence that nutrition labeling would provide substantial useful information to consumers. Consequently, ATF denied the petition and terminated the rulemaking on this issue.
Presently, TTB requires a Statement of Average Analysis, in effect a nutrition statement, on all alcohol beverage product labels that bear calorie or carbohydrate claims. In addition, if an advertisement bears a carbohydrate or calorie claim (other then the term “lite” or “light” in the brand name) the advertisement must also bear a Statement of Average Analysis. These requirements are explained in more detail in Section V of this notice.
The specific issues and questions on which TTB is seeking public comment are discussed in the remainder of this notice.
In 1976, ATF issued a ruling that allowed the use of caloric and carbohydrate references as part of a statement of average analysis on malt beverage labels. See ATF Rul. 76-1, 1976 ATF C.B. 82. In subsequent rulings, ATF modified certain requirements with respect to malt beverage labeling statements, and announced its intention to engage in rulemaking on the use of the terms “light” and “lite” on malt beverage labels. See ATF Rul. 79-17, ATF Q.B. 1979-3, 3, and ATF Rul. 80-3, A.T.F.Q.B. 1980-2, 13.
In the 1980s, ATF published in the
After the issuance of Notice No. 362, CSPI petitioned the Bureau for an amendment that would require mandatory caloric content labeling for all alcohol beverages and establish a maximum calorie limit for alcohol beverages designated as “light,” “lite,” or low in calories. In Notice No. 600 (51 FR 28836, August 12, 1986), ATF announced its conclusion that mandatory caloric labeling for all alcohol beverages was unnecessary, and also rejected CSPI's suggestion to establish upper limits on low-calorie alcohol beverages. It again solicited comments on requiring a statement of average analysis on labels where the terms “light” or “lite” were used to denote low calories, and proposed that the calorie statement must appear on the brand label, while the remainder of the statement of average analysis could appear on any label.
In Notice No. 659 (53 FR 22678, June 17, 1988), ATF proposed a substantive standard for the use of “light” or “lite” as part of the brand or product name of a wine, distilled spirits, or malt beverage product. ATF solicited comments on two alternatives. The first would restrict the terms to products that contain at least 20 percent fewer calories than the producer's regular product, or if the producer did not make a regular product, 20 percent fewer calories than a competitor's same or similar regular product. The second alternative would require a statement on the label of the number of calories in the light product and in a “regular” product made by the producer or (if the producer does not make a “regular” product), a competitor.
After reviewing the comments on these various proposals, the Bureau decided not to issue a regulation governing the use of the terms “light” and “lite” on alcohol beverage labels.
Within the past few years, the industry expressed greater interest in the use of carbohydrate claims on alcohol beverage labels. Furthermore, TTB received inquiries from producers of wines and distilled spirits who wanted to know whether ATF Rul. 80-3 applied to their products in addition to malt beverages. Accordingly, on April 7, 2004, TTB issued Ruling 2004-1 to provide guidance to industry about the use of calorie and carbohydrate claims in the advertising and labeling of alcohol beverages.
The ruling allows for the use of truthful and specific statements about carbohydrate and calorie content while prohibiting statements that are false or misleading or that imply that consumption of low-carbohydrate alcohol beverages may play a healthy role in a weight maintenance or weight reduction plan. TTB believes that such claims are misleading in that they provide incomplete information about the health effects of alcohol consumption.
The ruling held that calorie and carbohydrate representations in the labeling and advertising of alcohol beverages are considered to be misleading unless they provide with such representations a “statement of average analysis.” A statement of average analysis must list the serving size as well as the quantity of each of the following contained in a single serving size:
• Calories;
• Carbohydrates (in grams);
• Protein (in grams); and
• Fat (in grams).
As part of the ruling, TTB issued interim standards for the use of terms such as “low carbohydrate,” “reduced carbohydrate,” and “lower carbohydrate.” The ruling did not, however, provide specific standards for the use of terms such as “low calorie,” “reduced calorie,” or “lower calorie.” TTB Ruling 2004-1 allows for the use of:
• “Low carbohydrate” (or “low carb”) on labels and in advertisements where: (1) a statement of average analysis is present; and (2) the standard serving size for the product (12 fl. oz. for malt beverages, 5 fl. oz. for wines, and 1.5 fl. oz. for distilled spirits) contains no more than 7 grams of carbohydrates.
• “Reduced carbohydrate” and “lower carbohydrate” on a label or in an advertisement that bears a statement of average analysis, as long as the term is
The ruling also held that, pending rulemaking on this issue, the terms “effective carbohydrates” and “net carbohydrates” are considered misleading and that their use on labels and in advertisements is prohibited.
TTB recognizes that the best way to develop standards for the use of terms such as “low carbohydrate” and “low calorie” is through the public notice and comment rulemaking process. Moreover, because TTB and FDA both have jurisdiction over alcohol beverages under their respective statutory mandates, TTB would prefer to have the benefit of FDA's decision-making process before setting a final “low carbohydrate” standard for alcohol beverage products that do not fall within FDA's exclusive jurisdiction. FDA has received several rulemaking petitions to set a standard for the use of the term “low carbohydrate” on food and beverage products they regulate, but has not yet set a standard.
We would also like to solicit comments on whether we should set additional substantive standards for the use of calorie claims in the labeling and advertising of alcohol beverages. FDA has set standards for the use of calorie claims (including “calorie-free”, “low-calorie,” “reduced calorie,” and “light” or “lite”) on food and beverage products they regulate. See 21 CFR 101.56 and 101.60(b).
To assist TTB in deciding whether to formulate specific regulatory proposals, we are soliciting comments from consumers, consumer and other interest groups, trade associations, and industry members on the following specific questions. We also are interested in receiving any additional information that a comment submitter believes is relevant to the issue of carbohydrate and calorie claims:
1. Should TTB promulgate regulations that define “low carbohydrate” for alcohol beverage products as containing no more than 7 grams of carbohydrates per standard serving size, as specified in Ruling 2004-1? Why or why not?
2. Should TTB continue to prohibit use of the terms “effective carbohydrates” and “net carbohydrates” on labels and in advertisements? Why or why not?
3. Should TTB wait for the conclusion of FDA's regulatory decision-making process for the use of the term “low carbohydrate” for food and beverage products FDA regulates before issuing regulations on a low carbohydrate standard for alcohol beverage products?
4. How should TTB define the terms “low calorie” and “reduced calorie” for alcohol beverage products? Should we propose standards for these claims consistent with FDA's standards? Should we develop our own alternate set of standards and, if so, what should they be?
5. Should TTB establish regulations for the use of the terms “light” and “lite” on alcohol beverage labels? If so, should we propose standards for these claims consistent with FDA's standards? How would these standards apply to products for which the term “light” is part of the standard of identity (such as “light whisky” or “light wine”)?
On December 16, 2003, CSPI, together with the National Consumers League, 67 other organizations, and eight individuals, forwarded a petition to TTB requesting changes to the labeling regulations in 27 CFR parts 4, 5, and 7. After receipt of the CSPI petition, additional individuals wrote to TTB requesting the addition of their names to the petition. This petition requests issuance of a final rule amending parts 4, 5, and 7 to require that labels of all alcohol beverages regulated by TTB include the following information in a standardized format:
• The beverage's alcohol content expressed as a percentage of volume;
• The serving size;
• The amount of alcohol in fluid ounces per serving;
• The number of calories per serving;
• The ingredients (including additives) from which the beverage is made;
• The number of standard drinks per container; and
• The
The petitioners propose that all alcohol beverage containers bear this information on an “Alcohol Facts” label and provide the following as an example for a 750 milliliter bottle of wine:
The petition asks that the words “Alcohol Facts” be immediately followed by a declaration of the number of standard drinks (servings) per container. The petitioners ask that, consistent with the
To assist TTB in deciding whether to propose specific regulatory changes in response to the above petition, we are requesting information from consumers, consumer and other interest groups, trade associations, and industry members on the desirability and feasibility of alcohol facts, including ingredient, labeling for alcohol beverages. Although TTB is soliciting comments on the following specific questions, the Bureau is also requesting any other relevant information on the subject.
1. Should alcohol beverage containers bear an Alcohol Facts label similar to the one presented in the CSPI petition? Why or why not?
2. Should such a label include an ingredient list as suggested in the CSPI petition?
3. Should the label be voluntary or mandatory?
4. If mandatory, should there be any exemptions from the alcohol facts and ingredient labels, such as for small businesses or for small containers?
5. Should current alcohol content statement labeling requirements be expanded to cover wines with an alcohol content of 14 percent alcohol by volume or less and malt beverages?
6. What would be the costs associated with mandatory alcohol facts and ingredient labeling to the industry and, ultimately, the consumer?
7. How might consumers benefit from such a label?
8. As a consumer, how much extra would you be willing to pay for alcohol facts and ingredient labeling information?
9. Are there alternatives to mandatory alcohol facts and ingredient labeling for alcohol beverages? For example, if a label lists a Web site or telephone number where a consumer could obtain such information about the product, would this be sufficient?
On April 10, 2004, Christine A. Rogers, PhD., a senior research scientist in the Exposure, Epidemiology and Risk Program at the Harvard School of Public Health, petitioned TTB to change the regulations to require labeling on alcohol products to list all ingredients and substances used in processing. Dr. Rogers, who is allergic to egg protein, is particularly concerned with alcohol beverage products that contain potentially allergenic substances (wheat, milk, and egg or nut proteins).
On August 2, 2004, the President signed the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 (FALCP Act, Title II of Public Law 108-282). The FALCP Act amends section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343) to require food and beverage products that contain an ingredient that bears or contains a major food allergen to include this information on its label. The FALCP Act's definition of “major food allergens” includes milk, eggs, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, and soybeans (as well as most proteins derived from these foods). The FALCP Act requires that products containing these ingredients be labeled using plain, common language; for example, instead of merely listing “semolina,” the label must list “wheat”, instead of merely listing “sodium casein,” the label must list “milk.” The FALCP Act allows for several options for the labeling of allergens in a food or beverage product:
• The common name of the allergen can be labeled within parentheses in the ingredient list, for example: “Ingredients: Water, wheat, whey (milk), albumen (eggs), and peanuts”. The label can list the allergen in summary form after or adjacent to an ingredient list, for example: “Ingredients: Water, sugar, whey, and albumen. Allergens: Milk and egg”.
The House of Representatives Committee Report accompanying the legislation indicates that TTB is to work with FDA to promulgate appropriate allergen labeling regulations for alcohol beverages (H.R. Rep. No. 608, 108th Cong., 2d Sess., at 3 (2004)).
In response to this Congressional instruction and the petition received from Dr. Rogers, TTB has been meeting with FDA and is considering rulemaking to require allergen labeling for alcohol beverages. To assist TTB in determining appropriate allergen labeling requirements for alcohol beverages, we are requesting information from consumers, consumer and other interest groups, trade associations, and industry. Although TTB is soliciting comments on the following specific questions, the Bureau is also requesting any other relevant information on the subject.
1. Should TTB require allergen labeling on alcohol beverage containers to be part of or adjacent to a larger list of all ingredients found in the product, similar to the requirements of the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004? Why or why not?
2. If the product name appearing on the label of an alcohol beverage container indicates that an allergen is present in the product, is it helpful to the consumer to have the allergen labeled again in a standardized allergen statement elsewhere on the container? To illustrate: If a product is called “Wheat Beer,” should it also have a label elsewhere on the container that reads: “Allergens: wheat”? Why or why not?
3. TTB's current regulations allow certain allergens such as milk, albumen (egg), isinglass (a protein from fish bladders), and soy flour to be used as fining, processing, and filtering agents in the production of alcohol beverages. While fining, processing, and filtering agents are not primary ingredients in an alcohol beverage product, low levels of an agent may remain in the final product after production. When an allergen is used as a fining, processing, or filtering agent to produce an alcohol beverage, should TTB require that the product be labeled “Processed with [a specific allergen]” or “May contain [a specific allergen]”? Why or why not?
4. Should allergenic fining, processing, and filtering agents be labeled in the exact same fashion as all other allergen ingredients? Why or why not?
5. Testing methods for detecting allergens in food and beverage products typically can only detect an allergen if it is present at or above a certain minimum value. In light of that fact, would it be helpful to consumers for TTB to require an allergenic fining, processing, or filtering agent to be labeled regardless of whether a detection test shows that the allergen is or is not present in the final product? Why or why not?
6. What is the lowest amount of an offending food allergen (or minimum threshold level) in an alcohol beverage product necessary to provide a mild, yet perceptible adverse allergic reaction in consumers with the most sensitive food allergies?
7. Is it possible to define a minimum threshold level for each major food allergen? If so, what are the minimum threshold levels for each major food allergen?
8. If FDA and/or the scientific community establish conclusively a minimum threshold level for a
9. What would be the costs associated with mandatory allergen labeling to the industry and, ultimately, the consumer?
10. How might consumers benefit from allergen labeling?
Following receipt of the petitions discussed above, TTB received inquires from industry members who would like to begin voluntarily providing on their labels certain facts about a serving of their product.
Because of the immediate interest in labeling products in this fashion, and in light of the length of time needed to conclude public notice and comment rulemaking procedures, TTB concluded that there was a need for interim guidance to the industry on what type of “serving facts” information we would allow on alcohol beverage labels and in advertisements, and in what format TTB would accept this information.
Accordingly, in July and then again in September of 2004, TTB posted on its Web site,
TTB solicited comments on a variety of options. We asked for comments on an optional “Serving Facts” panel that would include the serving size in fluid ounces based on what was previously specified in TTB Ruling 2004-1, the amount of servings per container, and for each serving the following information:
• Fluid ounces of alcohol (ethyl-alcohol) (to the nearest tenth of an ounce);
• Calories;
• Fat (in grams);
• Carbohydrates (in grams); and
• Protein (in grams).
We also solicited comments on a definition of a “standard drink” (defined as 0.6 fluid ounces of alcohol) and the number of standard drinks in a serving. Finally, we solicited comments on the optional use of three icons similar to the ones at the bottom of the label presented below:
In the second posting on our Web site, TTB solicited comments on an alternative label approach that omitted the icons and standard drink references. An example of this approach is as follows:
As a result of the two white papers, TTB received several comments concerning a voluntary serving facts panel. The comments reflected strong and varying opinions. A significant proportion of the comment submitters felt that the issue should be addressed in public notice and comment rulemaking rather than in a TTB ruling. Furthermore, many commenters believed that certain elements of the voluntary serving facts panel would tend to confuse or mislead consumers about the product.
In response to the issues raised by the commenters, on December 28, 2004, TTB issued a press release indicating that we would address these issues in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. Pending the completion of rulemaking proceedings, TTB does not intend to issue certificates of label approval bearing the optional “Serving Facts” panel. We believe it is important to have the benefit of public comments on these issues before making a decision as to whether the new elements in the panel might tend to mislead consumers. We will, of course, continue to allow the use of statements of average analysis on alcohol beverage labels.
Accordingly, TTB is requesting comments from consumers, consumer and other interest groups, trade associations, and industry members on the desirability and feasibility of adopting serving facts labeling for alcohol beverages. Although TTB is soliciting comments on the following specific questions, the Bureau is also requesting any other relevant information on the subject.
1. Should alcohol beverage containers bear a Serving Facts label similar to the one presented in this section? Why or why not?
2. Should such a label include a definition of a “standard drink” and if so, how should a “standard drink” be defined?
3. Should such a label include graphic icons similar to, but not necessarily limited to, the one presented in this section? Why or why not?
4. Should the label be voluntary or mandatory?
5. If mandatory, should there be any exemptions from the serving facts label, such as for small businesses or for small containers?
6. If not mandatory for all alcohol beverage products, should the Serving Facts label be required at least on alcohol beverages that make certain calorie or carbohydrate claims?
7. What would be the costs associated with mandatory serving facts labeling to the industry and, ultimately, the consumer?
8. How might consumers benefit from such a label?
9. As a consumer, how much extra would you be willing to pay for serving facts labeling information?
10. Are there alternatives to mandatory serving facts labeling for alcohol beverages? For example, if a label lists a Web site or telephone number where a consumer could obtain such information about the product, would this be sufficient?
11. Should TTB allow a further breakdown of nutrients (for example, trans fat, sugars, fiber)?
12. Does the use of “standard drink” and “serving size” on the same label create confusion? Does any confusion arise if a label specifies ounces of alcohol in conjunction with serving size and percent alcohol?
The proposed “Alcohol Facts” label and the “Serving Facts” label have the following informational components in common: (1) Calorie representation; (2) serving size; (3) number of servings per container; and (4) alcohol content expressed in fluid ounces. The components that are unique to only one label type are noted below:
• The “Alcohol Facts” label also includes the following information: (1) Alcohol content expressed as a percentage of alcohol by volume; (2) an icon of an alcohol beverage serving container; (3) the
• The “Serving Facts” label also includes the following information: (1) Fat content; (2) carbohydrate content; (3) protein content; (4) a definition of a “standard drink” as well as the number of standard drinks found in a serving of the alcohol beverage; and (5) three icons depicting three different alcohol beverage serving containers, separated by equal (=) signs and each carrying the legend “0.6 oz.”
TTB is interested in receiving comments on whether a composite label, which combines the essential information on the examples discussed, would be appropriate to provide the consumer with information they want and need to see on alcohol beverage product labels. TTB is also seeking comments on whether such a composite label should be mandatory or voluntary.
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider all comments as originals. You may submit comments in one of five ways:
•
•
(1) Be on 8.5 by 11-inch paper;
(2) Contain a legible, written signature; and
(3) Be no more than five pages long. This limitation assures electronic access to our equipment. We will not accept faxed comments that exceed five pages.
•
(1) Contain your e-mail address;
(2) Reference this notice number on the subject line; and
(3) Be legible when printed on 8.5 by 11-inch paper.
•
•
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether to hold a public hearing.
All submitted material is part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
You may view copies of this advance notice, the petitions, and any comments we receive by appointment at the TTB Library at 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5 by 11-inch page. Contact our librarian at the above address or telephone 202-927-2400 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments.
For your convenience, we will post this advance notice and any comments we receive on this proposal on the TTB Web site. We may omit voluminous attachments or material that we consider unsuitable for posting. In all cases, the full comment will be available in the TTB Library. To access the online copy of this notice, visit
Lisa M. Gesser and Joanne C. Brady of the Regulations and Procedures Division drafted this advance notice.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
In response to a petition, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau proposes to modify the name of the existing “Santa Rita Hills” American viticultural area by abbreviating its name to “Sta. Rita Hills.” We propose this change to prevent possible confusion between wines bearing the Santa Rita Hills appellation and wines bearing the Santa Rita brand name used by a Chilean winery. The size and boundaries of the existing viticultural area will remain unchanged. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. We invite comments on this proposed amendment to our regulations.
We must receive written comments on or before June 28, 2005.
You may send comments to any one of the following addresses:
• Chief, Regulations and Procedures Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 40, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412.
• 202-927-8525 (facsimile).
•
•
•
You may view copies of this notice, the petition, and any comments we receive on this proposal by appointment at the TTB Library, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To make an appointment, call 202-927-2400. You may also access copies of the notice and comments online at
See the
Rita Butler, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Regulations and Procedures Division, 1310 G. St., NW., Washington, DC 20220; telephone 202-927-8210.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA Act, 27 U.S.C. 201
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive American viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographic origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Petitioners may use the same procedure to request changes involving existing viticultural areas. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include—
• Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition;
• Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies;
• Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, elevation, physical features, and soils, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas;
• A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps; and
• A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked.
TTB received a petition from a group of 11 viticulturists and vintners in the established Santa Rita Hills viticultural area (27 CFR 9.162) in Santa Barbara County, California, proposing to abbreviate the name of the viticultural area as “Sta. Rita Hills.” The 11 people who signed this petition are: Richard R. Longoria, owner of Richard Longoria Wines; Mary Melville, Retail Marketing Manager for Melville Vineyards and Winery; Norman Huber, owner of Huber Vineyard; Wesley D. Hagen, Vineyard Manager at Close Pepe Estate; J. Richard Sanford, Managing Partner for Sanford Winery; David Lafond, General Manager of Santa Barbara Winery and Lafond Winery; John M. Sundheim, Vice President of Arita Hills, Inc. (vineyard); Peter Work, owner of the winery Wine @ Work; Deborah Hall, owner of Gypsy Canyon (Olivestone); Ashley Parker Snider, Executive Vice President of Fess Parker Winery and Vineyard; and M. Perry Osborne, owner/trustee for Hill Top Ranch.
The petitioners are requesting abbreviation of the name of the Santa Rita Hills viticultural area as “Sta. Rita Hills” in order to prevent confusion between wine bearing the “Santa Rita Hills” appellation and wines bearing the “Santa Rita” brand name. The petitioners do not believe such confusion is likely, but recognize the legitimate concerns of Viña Santa Rita, the Chilean producer of Santa Rita brand wines. The petitioners believe it would be in the best interests of all parties, including consumers in the United States and abroad, to abbreviate the name of the viticultural area to “Sta. Rita Hills.” Viña Santa Rita endorses this proposal. TTB has given recognition to viticultural areas under names different from those originally proposed in similar circumstances.
According to the petitioners, abbreviating the viticultural area name as suggested above would accommodate Viña Santa Rita's brand and trademark rights without compromising the accuracy of the viticultural area's name. As discussed more fully below:
• The term “Sta.” is a recognized abbreviation for the word “Santa,” as evidenced by standard dictionaries of abbreviations.
• Of particular significance is the use of the abbreviation “Sta.” in the United States to refer to wines made from grapes grown in such well-known appellations as Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County, the Santa Cruz Mountains, and the Santa Maria Valley.
• Historic evidence demonstrates that “Sta. Rita” has been used as an abbreviation for the “Santa Rita Hills” region. Such evidence also shows the term “Sta.” was frequently used with other California place names, such as Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, and Santa Rosa.
• The use of abbreviations in viticultural area names is not uncommon; approved viticultural areas include names like “Mt. Veeder” (27 CFR 9.123), “Mt. Harlan” (27 CFR 9.131), “St. Helena” (27 CFR 9.149), and “Isle St. George” (27 CFR 9.51). The petitioners believe the name “Sta. Rita Hills” fits comfortably within these precedents.
The current petition notes that on March 31, 1998, a group of viticulturists and vintners in Santa Barbara County, California, petitioned the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF, TTB's predecessor agency) to establish the “Santa Rita Hills” viticultural area in the western portion of the Santa Ynez Valley viticultural area. ATF published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
ATF received comments from 35 parties. Eleven parties, mostly Santa Barbara County winemakers, grape growers, and public officials, supported the proposed viticultural area. The remaining 24 parties were opposed, not to the establishment of the viticultural area, but to its proposed name.
Viña Santa Rita, a publicly traded Chilean company that has produced and sold wines under the brand name “Santa Rita” for more than 120 years, led this opposition. Viña Santa Rita commented that recognition of the “Santa Rita Hills” viticultural area would cause widespread consumer confusion and would damage Viña Santa Rita's vested trademark rights.
On May 31, 2001, ATF published a final rule in the
ATF recognized the similarities between the Santa Rita trademark and brand name and the Santa Rita Hills viticultural area, but concluded that consumers would not be confused by wines bearing the Santa Rita brand name and wines labeled with the Santa Rita Hills viticultural area.
The current petition states that Viña Santa Rita and the petitioners have since negotiated in good faith about the use of the Santa Rita Hills viticultural area name. The petitioners, with the agreement of Viña Santa Rita, believe that abbreviating the name “Santa Rita Hills” to “Sta. Rita Hills” would be in the best interest of everyone, including consumers in the United States and abroad. Moreover, the requested modification will, by agreement, obviate the need for further legal proceedings.
TTB regulations recognize that consumers can be confused when an American viticultural area and a brand name contain the same or similar terms but are used for different wines (see 27 CFR 4.39(i)). When confronted with a proposed viticultural area name that is similar to an existing brand or trademark, TTB solicits public comment for other potential names that might avoid such a dilemma. Upon occasion, TTB has modified the proposed viticultural area name to avoid conflict.
For example, in 1981, ATF considered recognizing a new AVA called “The Pinnacles” (46 FR 49601; Oct. 7, 1981).
Similarly, in 1992, ATF proposed establishing the Spring Mountain viticultural area (58 FR 8726; February 17, 1993). Spring Mountain Vineyards protested, claiming that its brand name, “Spring Mountain,” would be “rendered worthless” by establishment of a viticultural area of the same name. At Spring Mountain Vineyards' suggestion, the petitioners amended their petition to request the name “Spring Mountain District”, which was approved (27 CFR 9.143).
More recently, ATF considered recognizing the Diamond Mountain viticultural area (66 FR 29695; June 1, 2001). Diamond Mountain Vineyards objected, claiming the name would cause consumer confusion and conflict with its trademark right in the “Diamond Mountain Vineyards” brand. ATF agreed, noting consumers might confuse wines labeled with the Diamond Mountain viticultural area name with wines bearing the brand name “Diamond Mountain Vineyards.” Sufficient name evidence was provided for recognition of the “Diamond Mountain District” name and, therefore, ATF approved the viticultural area under this alternative name (see 27 CFR 9.166).
The current petition states that the requested modification to the viticultural area's name is intended to reconcile competing and legitimate claims to the “Santa Rita” name. The petition contends that modifying the viticultural area's name to feature the abbreviation “Sta.” would reduce the potential for consumer confusion. The petitioners feel that abbreviating the viticultural area's name would be consistent with TTB's policy of minimizing, when possible, the potential for consumer confusion between existing brand names and newly created viticultural areas.
Below, we discuss the evidence provided in the petition showing that “Sta. Rita Hills” is an appropriate name for the Santa Rita Hills viticultural area. According to the petition, “Sta. Rita Hills” is equally accurate and appropriate name for the area, since the term “Sta.” is a well-recognized abbreviation for “Santa.” This abbreviation is confirmed by authoritative sources such as the “Gale Press Abbreviations Dictionary” and “The Oxford Dictionary of Abbreviations.” The petition included copies of these sources. Based on this, the petitioners state that the terms “Santa Rita Hills” and “Sta. Rita Hills” are functionally identical.
The abbreviation “Sta.” has been used in reference to the Santa Rita Hills region, as well as other California regions, for over a century, according to the petition. The petition included copies of historic
According to the petition, the “Sta.” abbreviation continues to be used throughout the United States today, especially in connection with California wines. The Wine Enthusiast's Web site advertises a “wine boot camp” in “Sta. Barbara Cty,” and the term “Sta. Barbara” is used in wine reviews (see
Internet searches reveal many additional uses of the abbreviation “Sta.” with California place names. A tourism page promoting Santa Barbara County uses the abbreviation “Sta. Barbara” for addresses within the city (
The term “Sta. Rita” is used as an abbreviation for “Santa Rita” throughout the United States and in Spanish-speaking countries. For example, a simple Internet search performed by a petitioner found a University of Arizona faculty Web site that uses the term “N. Sta. Rita St.” to refer to “North Santa Rita Street,” located in Tucson, Arizona (
The petition states that use of the “Sta.” abbreviation is consistent with practices of the United States Board on Geographic Names, the body responsible for standardizing geographic names used by the Federal Government and printed on Federal maps. The Board's guidelines specify that the term “Saint” may be abbreviated “St.”. Particularly in regions where place names are derived from the Spanish language, as in Southern California, abbreviating the term “Santa,” the Spanish feminine form of the English word “Saint,” as “Sta.” is consistent with the Board's general approach to abbreviations.
Based on the information provided in the current petition, we believe that it is appropriate to modify the name of the Santa Rita Hills viticultural area by using the abbreviation “Sta.” in place of “Santa.” If this proposal is adopted, the name of the viticultural area would be modified to read Sta. Rita Hills. Vin
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. If we adopt the proposed modification of the name for the Santa Rita Hills viticultural area, the abbreviated “Sta. Rita Hills” name will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance. Consequently, wine bottlers using “Sta. Rita Hills” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the viticultural area's name as an appellation of origin. Accordingly, the proposed regulatory text set forth below in § 9.162(a) specifies that “Sta. Rita Hills” is a term of viticultural significance for purposes of part 4 of the TTB regulations.
For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin the name of a viticultural area specified in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the grapes used to make the wine must have been grown within the area represented by that name. If the wine is not eligible to use the viticultural area name as an appellation of origin and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Accordingly, if a new label or a previously approved label uses the name “Sta. Rita Hills” for a wine that does not meet the 85 percent standard, the new label will not be approved, and the previously approved label will be subject to revocation.
Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
Since July 30, 2001, the name of this viticultural area has been expressed as “Santa Rita Hills.” If a final rule abbreviating this viticultural area's name takes effect, we will approve wine labels showing “Sta. Rita Hills,” and not “Santa Rita Hills,” as the viticultural area appellation.
If a final rule is adopted, under our authority pursuant to 27 CFR 13.72(a)(2), we propose a transition period during which vintners may continue to use approved labels that carry “Santa Rita Hills” as the name of the viticultural area. However, one year after the effective date of that final rule, certificates of label approval showing “Santa Rita Hills” as an appellation of origin will be revoked by operation of that final rule (see 27 CFR 13.51). We have added a statement to this effect as a new paragraph (d) in § 9.162.
We invite comments from interested members of the public on whether we should modify the name of the Santa Rita Hills viticultural area to “Sta. Rita Hills.” We are especially interested in the use of the Sta. Rita Hills name as it applies to the region within the established Santa Rita Hills viticultural area's boundaries. We are also interested in comments on the impact, if any, that the abbreviation of the viticultural area's name may have on current wine labels. Please support your comments with specific information about the proposed modification or impact on current wine labels.
Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider all comments as originals. You may submit comments in one of five ways:
•
•
(1) Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper;
(2) Contain a legible, written signature; and
(3) Be no more than five pages long. This limitation assures electronic access to our equipment. We will not accept faxed comments that exceed five pages.
•
(1) Contain your e-mail address;
(2) Reference this notice number on the subject line; and
(3) Be legible when printed on 8.5- by 11-inch paper.
•
•
You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether to hold a public hearing.
All submitted material is part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
You may view copies of this notice, the petition, and any comments we receive by appointment at the TTB Library at 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Contact our librarian at the above address or telephone 202-927-2400 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments.
For your convenience, we will post this notice and any comments we receive on this proposal on the TTB Web site. We may omit voluminous attachments or material that we consider unsuitable for posting. In all cases, the full comment will be available in the TTB Library. To access the online copy of this notice and submitted comments, visit
We certify that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment.
The principal author of this document is Rita Butler, Regulations and Procedures Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend title 27, chapter 1, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
2. In subpart C, amend § 9.162 by revising the section heading, revising paragraph (a) and the introductory text of paragraphs (b) and (c), and adding a new paragraph (d), to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d) From July 30, 2001, until [1 day prior to effective date of the final rule], this viticultural area was named “Santa Rita Hills”. Effective [effective date of final rule], this viticultural area is abbreviated to “Sta. Rita Hills.” Existing certificates of label approval showing “Santa Rita Hills” as the appellation of origin are revoked by operation of this regulation on [date one year after the effective date of final rule].
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary regulated navigation area, temporary security zone and temporary drawbridge operation regulation during the Organization of American States (OAS) conference. These regulations are needed to provide for public safety and security during the OAS conference. The regulations will control the movement of vessels within the regulated navigation area, restrict access to the security zone, and alter the schedule of the Brooks Memorial Bascule Bridge.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 20, 2005.
You may mail comments and related material to U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Miami Prevention Office, 100 MacArthur Causeway, Miami Beach, FL 33139. Sector Miami maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Sector Miami between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant Douglas Tindall, Waterways Management Office, at (305) 535-8701.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD07-05-031], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting but we will discuss this regulation with waterway users in and around the regulated area. You may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Sector Miami at the address under
Incidents of property damage and destruction during previous international conferences such as the September 2003 World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial in Cancun, Mexico, the 2003 G-8 Summit in Calgary, Canada, the 2001 G-8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, the 1999 Seattle World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial, and the 2003 Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) conference in Miami, Florida indicate the potential for damage and destruction exists at the OAS conference in Ft. Lauderdale. Historically, trade conferences have experienced an influx of protestors and protest groups that oppose free international trade initiatives. Some of these groups have a propensity for violence and engage in seditious acts against conference attendees, conference venues, the general public, businesses, municipal buildings, and law enforcement personnel and equipment. Current information and intelligence indicates that there is a high potential for these groups to attempt similar acts during the OAS conference in Ft. Lauderdale.
Additionally, the Coast Guard has received information from local, state, and federal law enforcement officials that persons may launch subversive acts from the waters surrounding OAS conference venues. In the past, such subversive acts have included the use of personal watercraft to penetrate physical barriers in an attempt to launch projectiles at conference venues and participants. Certain groups have also used Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats (RHIBs) to facilitate unauthorized boardings of commercial ships. The use of high speed, highly maneuverable low draft watercraft such as personal watercraft and RHIBs poses a significant security threat to OAS venues, participants, Port Everglades and the public.
These regulations are being established to mitigate the above-mentioned threats and are necessary to protect the public, attendees, law enforcement officials and port operations from violent, disruptive and seditious acts.
The temporary security zone will prohibit all persons and vessels from entering the waters contained within an imaginary line drawn from a point at the southwest corner of the 17th Street Causeway Bridge where it meets the seawall; thence easterly to the western edge of the Intracoastal Waterway Channel; thence southerly along the western edge of the Intracoastal channel to a point on the northeast corner of Pier 7 and all waters westward of that imaginary line. This security zone is necessary to ensure the waters surrounding the Broward County Convention Center, which is the primary venue for the OAS conference, are not used by persons attempting subversive acts. The size of the security zone is necessary to provide law enforcement officials with time and space to identify, query and stop vessels and persons suspected of attempting subversive acts against the OAS conference.
The Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) encompasses all waters contained within an imaginary line from a point on the northwestern corner of the 17th Street Causeway Bridge where it meets the seawall; thence northerly to the northeast corner of Pier 6; thence easterly across the Intracoastal Waterway and along and following the SE 15th Street shoreline to a point on land at the intersection of the SE 15th Street shoreline and the West Lake Drive Bridge; thence southerly along the West Lake Drive Bridge to the northeast mouth of the unnamed canal leading to Sylvan Lake; thence westerly across the canal and along and following the southern shoreline of the Mercedes River encompassing all waters of the Pier 66 Marina to a point on the northwestern point of the Pier 66 Marina; thence south easterly and easterly along and following the shoreline to a point of land directly north of Day Beacon “6”; thence south to a point of land due south of Day Beacon “7”; thence westerly and southerly along and following the shoreline of John U. Lloyd State Park to a point on the northern corner of the mouth of Whiskey Creek; thence westerly to a point of land on the southern tip of Pier 9; thence northerly along and following the shoreline to the northeast corner of Pier 7; thence northwesterly along the western edge of the Intracoastal Waterway to a point on the seawall at the northwestern corner of the 17th Street Causeway Bridge where it meets the seawall.
The RNA will require all vessels within the regulated area to proceed continuously and at slow speed. Slow speed is defined as the speed at which a vessel proceeds when it is fully off plane, completely settled into the water and not creating excessive wake. In no instance should slow speed be interpreted as a speed less than that required to maintain steerageway. Requiring vessels within the RNA to transit at slow speed will allow law enforcement officials to identify, respond to, query, and stop vessels that are suspected of presenting a threat to the public, Port Everglades, and the OAS conference participants. Additionally, the slow speed requirement will allow the Coast Guard to adequately protect against threats of hostile and violent acts carried out by smaller vessels against commercial vessels transiting within Port Everglades.
Vessels greater than 100 feet shall not enter the RNA until permission to enter is granted by the Maritime Operations Center (MOC) or Designated Representative so that the MOC can better direct traffic flow within the RNA.
The RNA prohibits all personal watercraft (PWCs) from operating within the regulated area. For purposes of this rule, personal watercraft refers to a vessel(s), less than 16 feet in length, which uses an inboard, internal combustion engine powering a water jet pump as its primary source of propulsion. PWCs are designed to be operated by a person or persons sitting, standing or kneeling on the vessel, rather than within the confines of the hull. The length is measured from end to end over the deck excluding sheer, meaning a straight line measurement of the overall length from the foremost part of the vessel to the aftermost part of the vessel, measured parallel to the centerline. Bowsprits, bumpkins, rudders, outboard motor brackets, and similar fittings or attachments, are not included in the measurement. Length is stated in feet and inches.
The regulation prohibits PWCs from operating within the RNA due to their maneuverability, high speed, and minimal draft which allows them to outrun law enforcement vessels, operate in shallow and restricted areas and hurdle or dive under barriers erected by law enforcement officials. These facts make PWCs the preferred vessel for persons attempting subversive and violent acts against OAS conference attendees, law enforcement officials and the public.
The RNA excludes Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats (RHIBs), with the exception of RHIBs operated by licensed commercial salvors. For purposes of this rule, Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats refers to a vessel, which has an inflatable fabric or rubber collar or a foam collar surrounding the hull of the vessel. A RHIB's collar is normally joined to a fiberglass hull on larger models or a fabric hull on smaller models. Fabric hulls are often also themselves inflatable, or have an inflatable keel and sometimes have a soft or reinforced floor slated with wood or other rigid materials. RHIBs are powered by both outboard and inboard-outboard propulsion and because of their lightweight can easily be powered by oars as well. RHIBs' lightweight, enormous reserve buoyancy, stability, speed, maneuverability, shallow draft and large load-carrying capacity make them a preferred vessel for persons attempting illegal and subversive acts. Additionally, models with inflatable collars can be quickly deflated and stowed in small spaces and even carry bags. The collars are also non-marking, making them the preferred vessel for coming alongside other vessels, piers, docks, or facilities for the purpose of loading or offloading persons and cargo and thus, the preferred vessel for persons attempting unauthorized boarding of commercial vessels and illegal entries into waterfront facilities.
The RNA is necessary to ensure the safety of the public, Port Everglades, and the OAS conference as persons may attempt to board vessels while underway or moored in an effort to interrupt commerce and port operations. Also, persons may attempt unauthorized entry into or upon commercial and government facilities located along the main shipping channels throughout Port Everglades. The RNA, by regulating the movement of vessels, imposing a slow speed zone, and excluding personal watercraft and rigid hull inflatable boats will assist law enforcement officials in ensuring the safety and security of Port Everglades, the public and the OAS conference participants.
Nothing in the RNA alleviates vessels or operators from complying with all state and local laws in the area, including manatee slow speed zones.
The Brooks Memorial (S.E. 17th Street) drawbridge schedule described in 33 CFR 117.261(ii) will remain closed and only open upon direction of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Miami or MOC.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary, because the RNA and security zone will be in effect for a limited time over a limited area.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Intracoastal waterway and Port Everglades from June 4, 2005 through June 7, 2005. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because the rule will only be in effect for a limited time over a limited area. Vessel traffic may transit the Intracoastal waterway at slow speed and travel around the security zone.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small entities may contact the person listed under
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) and (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because we are establishing a RNA, security zone and suspending a drawbridge
Bridges.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR parts 117 and 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add temporary § 165.T07-031 to read as follows:
(a)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(2) All vessels within the Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) shall comply with the commands and instructions issued by the Designated Representative, the Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District, the Captain of the Port, Miami or the Coast Guard Marine Operations Center (MOC).
(3) Vessels greater than 100 feet in length shall check in directly with on-scene Designated Representative(s) or the MOC, via VHF channel 12 or telephone at (305) 535-8701 to obtain permission to enter or transit the RNA. All vessels that require the Brooks Memorial (17th Street) bascule bridge to open shall not enter the RNA until permission to open the Brooks Memorial bridge and/or enter the RNA is granted by the MOC or Designated Representative.
(4) No personal watercraft shall be permitted in the Regulated Navigation Area except those operated by law enforcement personnel.
(5) No Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats shall be permitted in the Regulated Navigation Area except those operated
(6) Entry into or remaining within the Security Zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Designated Representative, the Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District, the Captain of the Port, Miami or the Coast Guard Marine Operations Center (MOC). Persons desiring to enter or transit the areas encompassed by the Security Zone may contact on-scene Designated Representative(s) or the Coast Guard Maritime Operations Center on VHF channel 12 or via telephone at (305) 535-8701 in order to obtain permission to transit the Security Zone. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply at all times with the instructions of the Designated Representative, the Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District, the Captain of the Port, Miami or the Coast Guard Marine Operations Center (MOC).
(d)
3. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued under authority of Pub L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
4. In § 117.261, from June 4, 2005 until June 8, 2005, add paragraph (rr) to read as follows:
(rr) The draw of the Brooks Memorial (S.E. 17th Street) bridge, mile 1065.9 at Fort Lauderdale, shall remain closed unless ordered to open by the COTP.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose of establishing and requiring reasonably available control technology (RACT) for the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division Ship Systems Engineering Station (NSWCCD-SSES), a major source of nitrous oxide (NO
Comments must be received in writing by May 31, 2005.
Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number R03-OAR-2005-PA-0012 by one of the following methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
B. Agency Web site:
C. E-mail:
D. Mail: R03-OAR-2005-PA-0012, Dave Campbell, Chief, Air Quality Planning, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
E. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Amy Caprio, (215) 814-2156, or by e-mail at
For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia to remove the application of oil as an acceptable alternative fugitive dust emissions reduction method, due to an existing prohibition on oil application, on land, found in the Virginia statute. In addition, the revision changes a specific reference from “Executive Director” to “Director”. In the Final Rules section of this
Comments must be received in writing by May 31, 2005.
Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID Number R03-OAR-2005-VA-0003 by one of the following methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
B. Agency Web site:
C. E-mail:
D. Mail: R03-OAR-2005-VA-0003, Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
E. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Linda Miller, (215) 814-2068, or by e-mail at
For further information on the approval of minor revisions to Visible Emissions and Fugitive Dust standards, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Comments regarding (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The USDA Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to document and disclose the potential environmental effects of proposed invasive plant treatments. The Proposed Action is to apply manual, mechanical, biological, and/or herbicide treatments to control known invasive plant sites within approximately 13,000 acres (208 sites) on the Mt. Hood National Forest and southern Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon. The Proposed Action would also establish criteria for responding to infestations that cannot be predicted. This notice of intent revises the Notice to Intent to prepare an EIS announced in the
Comments concerning the scope of this analysis must be received no later than May 31, 2005, to ensure they are fully incorporated into the Draft EIS.
Submit written comments to Jennie O'Connor, Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy OR 97055. Electronic comments can be submitted to
Jennie O'Connor, Natural Resource Planner, Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy OR 97055 or by emailing
Invasive plants are compromising our ability to manage the National Forest for a healthy native ecosystem. Invasive plants create a host of environmental and other effects, most of which are harmful to native ecosystem processes, including: displacement of native plants; reduction in functionality of habitat and forage for wildlife and livestock; loss of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; increased soil erosion and reduced water quality; alteration of physical and biological properties of soil, including reduced soil productivity; changes to the intensity and frequency of fires; high cost (dollars spent) of controlling invasive plants; and loss of recreation opportunities.
Approximately 3,000 acres of forests and grasslands are known to already be degraded on the Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area by infestations of invasive, non-native plants. These infestations are situated on about 208 individual locations or sites. These infestations have a high potential to expand and further degrade forests and grasslands. Infested areas represent potential seed sources for further invasion onto neighboring lands.
There is an underlying need on these National Forest System lands for: (1) Reduce the extent of specific invasive plants at identified sites; and (2) timely treat new/additional invasive plant sites that may appear in the future. Without action, invasive plant populations will continue to grow, compromising our ability to manage for healthy native ecosystems and contributing to the spread of invasive plants.
The Proposed Action for this project is to treat approximately 13,000 infested acres and associated spread zones on the Mt. Hood National Forest and southern Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon. This includes 7 proposed treatment areas (2,000 acres) in the National Scenic Area, with the remainder of the sites on Mt. Hood National Forest. Treatment of these invasive plant sites would be a combination of manual, mechanical, biological, and herbicide treatment methods. Through the development long-term site goals, treatment of infested areas would be linked to revegetation and monitoring. Treatment would address 21 invasive plant species present on these sites.
Site-specific treatment prescriptions would be based on the biology of particular invasive plant species, site location, proximity to water, and size of the infestation. Prescriptions would follow integrated pest management principles. Integrated pest management (IPM) is a process by which one selects and applies a combination of management techniques (manual, mechanical, biological for example) that, together, would control a particular invasive plant species or infestation efficiently and effectively, with minimum adverse impacts to non-target organisms. IPM seeks to combine two or more management techniques which would interact to provide better control than any one of the actions might provide alone. It is typically species-specific, site-specific and designed to be practical with minimal risk.
On Mt. Hood National Forest and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, the proposed action includes approximately 20 acres of biological treatment, 30 acres of herbicide only treatment, 510 acres of herbicide plus manual treatments, 2025 acres of herbicide plus mechanical treatments, 130 acres of manual plus mechanical treatments, and 10385 acres of herbicide plus manual and mechanical treatments. Treatments may be repeated over several years until control/restoration objectives are met. The proportion of specific treatment methods may change over time.
In addition, a set of criteria that can be used for future invasive plant sites that may occur would also be established under the Proposed Action.
Maps of the proposed treatment sites and additional information on the proposal are available by contacting Jennie O'Connor, Mt. Hood National Forest (see above).
Public participation is an important part of the analysis. The Forest Service is seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State and local agencies, tribes, and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. Comments submitted during the scoping process should be in writing, and they should be specific to the action being proposed and should describe as clearly and completely as possible any issues the commenter has with the proposal. This input will be used in preparation of the draft EIS.
Comments submitted during the scoping conducted for the “Invasive Plant Treatment Project—Olympic, Gifford Pinchot, and Mt. Hood Nationals Forests and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area; Oregon and Washington” from February 23 to April 5, 2004 will be retained and considered in the development of this EIS. If you have additional comments on the revised proposed action these will be considered in conjunction with the previous comments.
In addition to this scoping, the public may visit Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. To facilitate public participation additional scoping opportunities will include: A scoping letter, public meetings (dates and locations yet to be determined), and Web sites with addresses
The potential for impacts/effects as a result of the establishment and spread of invasive plants and the potential for impacts/effects as a result of treatment actions designed to manage invasive plants are both important considerations that need to be addressed in the analysis. The following issues were identified during the initial scoping process:
• Human Health—Invasive plant treatments may result in health risks to forestry workers and the public, including contamination of drinking water.
• Treatment Effectiveness—Invasive plant treatments can vary in effectiveness. The presence and spread of invasive plants within National Forest System lands may affect the presence and spread of invasive plants on neighboring ownerships.
• Social and Economic—Invasive plant treatments vary in cost and affect the acreage that can be effectively treated each year given a set budget. Manual treatment methods may cost more per acre and provide more employment.
• Non-Target Plants and Animals—Impacts to non-target plant and animal species varies by invasive plant treatments. Mitigation and protection measures need to protect plant and animal species from the adverse effects of the proposed action.
• Soils, Water Quality and Aquatic Biota—Soil and ground disturbing impacts, effects to aquatic organisms, and water quality impacts vary by invasive plant treatments.
The No Action alternative will serve as a baseline for comparison of alternatives. Under the No Action alternative, Mt. Hood National Forest and the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area would continue to treat invasive plant species as authorized under existing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. As approved by NEPA decisions, 450 acres of herbicide treatments, 100 acres of manual treatments, and 10 acres of mechanical treatment are applied each year on Mt. Hood National Forest. As approved by NEPA decisions, approximately 150 acres using herbicide treatments, 25 acres using manual treatments, and 500 acres using mechanical treatment are applied each year on the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. The proposed action, as described above will be considered as an alternative. Additional alternatives may be developed to address key issues identified in the scoping and public involvement process.
The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public comment by January 2006. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of the draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if the comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provision of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1503.3).
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments may not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR part 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that,
Comments on the draft EIS will be analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in preparing the final EIS. The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in May 2006. There will be two responsible officials for this EIS. Duties of the Responsible Official will be shared between Gary Larsen, Forest Supervisor of the Mt. Hood National Forest, and Daniel Harkenrider, Area Manager of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. They will consider comments, responses, environmental consequences discussed in the final EIS, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a decision regarding this proposed action. The responsible officials will document the decision and rationale for the decision in the Record of Decision. It will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR Part 215).
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletions from Procurement List.
This action adds to the Procurement List products and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes from the Procurement List products previously furnished by such agencies.
May 29, 2005.
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703)603-0655, or email
On February 25, and March 4, 2005, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (70 FR 9269, and 10596) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:
On March 4, 2005, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (70 FR 10596) of proposed deletions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to procurement list.
The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List products and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in the notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following products and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on May 17, 2005 at 9 a.m. in Room 6087B of the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology.
1. Opening remarks and introductions.
2. Presentation of papers and comments by the public.
3. Report on meeting of Wassenaar Arrangement Experts Group.
4. Comments on China Machine Tool and Tool Builders' Association 2005 show.
5. Comments on machine tool licensing.
The meeting will be open to the public and a limited number of seats will be available. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials two weeks prior to Yvette Springer at
For more information, please contact Ms. Springer at 202-482-4814.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
April 29, 2005.
John Conniff at (202) 482-1009, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230.
At the request of both Dixion Brake System (Longkou) Ltd. and Laizhou Wally Automobile Co., Ltd., the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the People's Republic of China for the period April 1, 2004, through September 30, 2004.
Pursuant to 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1), the Department will issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated, and issue the final results within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. The Department may, however, extend the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of a new shipper review to 300 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated (19 CFR 351.214(i)(2)).
The Department finds that this case is extraordinarily complicated and that the preliminary results of this new shipper
This notice is in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
April 29, 2005.
Darla Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-2786.
On October 7, 1986, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue preliminary results within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order for which a review is requested. However, if it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of review within this time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary results to a maximum of 365 days.
We determine that this review is extraordinarily complicated because there are a large number of programs, including new subsidy programs, to be considered and analyzed by the Department. In order to complete our analysis, we require additional and/or clarifying information. As a result, it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the original time limits. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limits for completion of the preliminary results until no later than November 2, 2005, which is 365 days from the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The deadline for the final results of review continues to be 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of permits.
Notice is hereby given that the following individuals and institutions have been issued permits to conduct research on northern right whales (
The permit 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;
Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978)281-9200; fax (978)281-9371; and
Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432; phone (727)570-5301; fax (727)570-5320.
Carrie Hubard or Dr. Tammy Adams, (301)713-2289.
On April 7, 2004, notice was published in the
The permits authorize harassment of marine mammals during close
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
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 such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
In order to afford as many eligible applicants as possible an opportunity to receive funding under this program, we are reopening the Ready to Teach program FY 2005 competition. The new application deadline date for the competition is May 6, 2005.
Applications for grants under the Ready to Teach program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov site. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. For information about how to submit your application electronically, please refer to Section IV. 6.
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 (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed in this section.
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
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.327C.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
This priority is:
On July 21, 2000, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted rules to make television more accessible to people with visual disabilities by mandating that a certain amount of programming contain video description. However, in November 2002, a Federal court struck down these rules. Thus, because FCC accessibility rules do not currently require video description, only a limited number of television programs provide video description for individuals with blindness or low vision. For more information about video description, please refer to:
The FCC is also responsible for implementing and monitoring the closed captioning requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In that law, Congress authorized the FCC to adopt exemptions from general captioning requirements. For more information about closed captioning and the exemptions please refer to:
A project must do the following:
(a) Include criteria for selecting programs of high educational merit and take into account the preference of educators, students, and parents.
(b) Identify and support a consumer advisory group, including parents and educators, which must meet at least annually.
(c) Use the expertise of this consumer advisory group to certify that each program described or described and captioned with project funds is of educational value in the classroom setting at the preschool, elementary, or secondary level for children with disabilities. Acceptable programming must be appropriate for use in the classroom setting, focusing on the educational needs of students, including intellectual/cognitive or social/emotional needs.
(d) Identify the extent to which the programming is widely available.
(e) Identify the total number of program hours the project will make accessible and the cost per hour for description and, if the applicant is proposing both description and captioning, the cost per hour for description and captioning.
(f) For each video program, identify the source of any private or other public support, and the projected dollar amount of that support, if any.
(g) Demonstrate the willingness of program providers or program owners to permit and facilitate the description or, the description and captioning of their programs.
(h) Provide assurances from program providers or program owners stating that programs made accessible under this project will air, and will continue to air, with descriptions, or with descriptions and captions.
(i) If the applicant is proposing both description and captioning, provide assurances from program providers or program owners stating that programs captioned under this project would not otherwise be captioned to meet the FCC's captioning requirements, or are specifically exempt from the FCC's captioning requirements.
(j) Implement procedures for monitoring the extent to which full accessibility is provided, and use this information to make refinements in project operations.
(k) Identify the anticipated shelf-life and range of distribution of the video programs that is possible without further costs to the project.
In addition, projects funded under this priority must—
(a) Budget for a two-day Project Directors' meeting in Washington, DC during each year of the project.
(b) If the project maintains a Web site, include relevant information and documents in a format that meets a government or industry-recognized standard for accessibility.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
(b) Applicants and grant recipients funded under this competition must involve individuals with disabilities or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26 in planning, implementing, and evaluating the projects (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
1.
You may also contact ED Pubs at its Web site:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA Number 84.327C.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, the references, or the letters of support. However, you must include all of the application narrative in Part III.
We will reject your application if—
• You apply these standards and exceed the page limit; or
• You apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition may be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov), or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or by mail or hand delivery, please refer to section IV. 6.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
4.
5.
6.
a.
We have been accepting applications electronically through the Department's e-Application system since FY 2000. In order to expand on those efforts and comply with the President's Management Agenda, we are continuing to participate as a partner in the new government wide Grants.gov Apply site in FY 2005. Television Access-CFDA Number 84.327C is one of the competitions included in this project.
If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. We request your participation in Grants.gov.
You may access the electronic grant application for Television Access-CFDA Number 84.327C competition at:
Please note the following:
• Your participation in Grants.gov is voluntary.
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are time and date stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted with a date/time received by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will not consider your application if it was received by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30 p.m. on the application deadline date. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was submitted after 4:30 p.m. on the application deadline date.
• If you experience technical difficulties on the application deadline date and are unable to meet the 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, deadline, print out your application and follow the instructions in this notice for the submission of paper applications by mail or hand delivery.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that your application is submitted timely to the Grants.gov system.
• To use Grants.gov, you, as the applicant, must have a D-U-N-S Number and register in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). You should allow a minimum of five business days to complete the CCR registration.
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit your application in paper format.
• You may submit all documents electronically, including all information typically included on the Application for Federal Education Assistance (ED 424), Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Any narrative sections of your application should be attached as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text) or .PDF (Portable Document) format.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you a second confirmation by e-mail that will include a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
b.
If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address:
Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark,
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service,
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier, or
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark, or
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you submit your application in paper format by hand delivery, you (or a courier service) must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327C),550 12th Street, SW.,Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza,Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 4 of the Application for Federal Education Assistance (ED 424) the CFDA number—and suffix letter, if any—of the competition under which you are submitting your application.
(2) The Application Control Center will mail a grant application receipt acknowledgment to you. If you do not receive the grant application receipt acknowledgment within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
Jo Ann McCann, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4067, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2600. Telephone: (202) 245-7434.
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 Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC). Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Monday, June 6, 2005, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. Tuesday, June 7, 2005, 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m.
Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert Street, NW., Washington, DC 20008.
Karen Talamini; Office of Basic Energy Sciences; U. S. Department of Energy; Germantown Building, Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (301) 903-4563
• News from the Office of Science
• News from the Office of Basic Energy Sciences
• Report of the Committee of Visitors for the Division of Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences
• Update from Nanoscale Science Centers
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on April 13, 2005, American Transmission Company LLC (ATC), ATC Management, Inc. (ATCM), Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC), and WPS Investments, LLC (WPSI) (collectively, Applicants), submitted an application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization for the acquisition of certain securities in connection with construction work that WPSC has performed for ATC on two substations owned by ATC. Applicants state that as consideration for this construction work, WPSC would acquire shares of Class A Non-Voting stock in ATCM, and WPSC(s affiliate, WPSI, would acquire membership interests in ATC. The applicants further state that they have also filed for the requisite approval of the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin in connection with this securities issuance.
Take notice that on April 18, 2005, Neptune Regional Transmission System, LLC (Neptune) on behalf of Atlantic Energy Partners LLC (AEP), NewCo LLC (NewCo), EIF Neptune, LLC (EIF) and Starwood Energy Investors L.L.C. (Starwood) (collectively with Neptune, the Applicants) tendered for filing an application requesting all necessary authorizations under section 203 of the Federal Power Act, for a transfer of jurisdictional facilities to facilitate financing and investment arrangements and for a Commission determination that AEP, EIF and Starwood are not public utilities under the Federal Power Act.
Take notice that, on April 20, 2005, Oleander Power Project, Limited Partnership, (Oleaner Power) and Southern Power Company (Southern Power) jointly submitted an Application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act requesting that the Commission grant all authorizations necessary to permit the sale of certain partnership interests in Oleander Power to newly-formed special purpose subsidiaries of Southern Power Company. The Applicants request privileged treatment, pursuant to 18 CFR 388.112 for Exhibit I to their Application.
Take notice that, on April 19, 2005, Boston Edison Company (BECo) submitted its compliance filing to the March 8, 2005 Commission orders in Docket Nos. EL02-123-005 and EL02-123-006, and pursuant to Commission's April 14, 2005 Notice of Extension of Time and BECo's April 18, 2005 Request for Extension of Time.
BECo states that copies of the filing were served upon the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding and the affected customers.
Take notice that on April 11, 2005, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) submitted, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, revisions to the Midwest ISO's Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff and other information in compliance with the Commission's February 10, 2005, order in this proceeding,
The Midwest ISO has requested waiver of the service requirements set forth in 18 CFR 385.2010. The Midwest ISO states it has electronically served a copy of this filing, with attachments, upon all Midwest ISO Members, Member representatives of Transmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee participants, as well as all State commissions within the region. In addition, Midwest states that the filing has been electronically posted on the Midwest ISO's Web site at
Take notice that on April 8, 2005, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. has provided the following designation to American Electric Power Service Corporation for use in connection with the Service Agreement No. 1263.
Take notice that on April 19, 2005, Colton Power L.P. (Colton Power) tendered for filing pursuant to a letter order issued by the Commission on March 23, 2005 in Docket No. ER01-2644-006, an amended market-based rate tariff to: (1) Clarify that Colton Power must first receive Commission authorization prior to making any sales to affiliates with a franchised service territory; and (2) implement the reporting requirements established in Order No. 652.
Take notice that, on April 19, 2005, Duke Energy Arlington Valley, LLC (Duke Arlington Valley) submitted for filing revisions to its market-based rate tariff, designated as FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, to include the change in status reporting requirements adopted in
Duke Arlington Valley states that copies of the filing were served upon the parties on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
Take notice that on February 15, 2005, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, (PG&E) submitted for filing an electric refund report in compliance with the Commission's order issued November 30, 2004 in Docket Nos. ER04-415-000, 001 and 002.
Take notice that on April 19, 2005, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) tendered for filing its revision to SDG&E's TO tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 11, to provide for the inclusion of costs resulting from SDG&E's procurement procedure that was implemented in response to the California Public Utilities Commission Decision 04-07-028 in SDG&E's reliability services rates. SDG&E requests an effective date of June 18, 2005 to the tariff changes proposed herein.
SDG&E states that copies of the filing have been served on the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Electricity Oversight Board, the California Independent System Operator Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company.
Take notice that on April 19, 2005, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) tendered for filing its Service Agreement No. 22 to its FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 11. SDG&E states that this agreement provides for SDG&E to operate and maintain certain interconnection facilities required for a 47.955 MW generation project being constructed and owned by RAMCO Generation One in San Diego County. SDG&E requests an effective date of April 22, 2005.
SDG&E states that copies of the filing have been served on RAMCO Generation One, on the California Independent System Operator Corporation and on the California Public Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on April 19, 2005, Praxair Plainfield, Inc. (Plainfield) filed an application to amend its market-based rate tariff and seek waiver of certain regulations, and blanket approvals.
Take notice that on April 19, 2005, Cleco Power LLC (Cleco Power) filed a proposed new Attachment L to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) to incorporate by reference the North American Electric Reliability Council's transmission loading relief procedures, and any amendments on file and accepted by the Commission, as a part of Cleco's OATT. Cleco Power states that it designates the filing as FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 7 and Original Sheet No. 283. Cleco Power requests and effective date of April 20, 2005.
Take notice that on April 19, 2005, Westar Energy, Inc. (Westar) submitted for filing a notice of cancellation for first
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 comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all parties to this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible online at
National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Notice of availability.
The Livermore Site Office of the Department of Energy's (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announces the availability of the Final Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (DOE/EIS-0348) and Supplemental Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0236-S3) (LLNL SW/SPEIS). The Final LLNL SW/SPEIS was prepared in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and the DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). The Final LLNL SW/SPEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with continuing current Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) operations and foreseeable new or modified operations and facilities. The LLNL SW/SWPEIS also evaluates the potential environmental impacts of experiments at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) using plutonium, other fissile materials, fissionable materials, and lithium hydride. The Final LLNL SW/SPEIS analyses a Proposed Action and two alternatives, the No Action Alternative and a Reduced Operation Alternative. The No Action Alternative would continue operation of current LLNL programs in support of assigned missions. The Proposed Action includes operations discussed under the No Action Alternative and new or expanded operations in support of reasonably foreseeable mission requirements. The Reduced Operation Alternative consists of a reduction of activities compared to the No Action Alternative. The NNSA has identified the Proposed Action as the preferred alternative in the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS.
The NNSA intends to issue a Record of Decision on the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS no sooner than 30 days after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes a notice of filing of the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS in the
The Final LLNL SW/SPEIS is available on the LLNL Environmental Community Relations Web site
For general information on the DOE NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, EH-42, U.S. DOE, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756.
The continued operation of LLNL is critical to NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship Program and to preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons worldwide. LLNL maintains core competencies in activities associated with research and development, design, and surveillance of nuclear weapons, as well as the assessment and certification of their safety and reliability. LLNL also supports other DOE programs and Federal agencies such as the Department of Defense, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, EPA, and the Department of Homeland Security. The Final LLNL SW/SPEIS analyzes the environmental impacts of these operations.
LLNL was founded in 1952 as the second nuclear weapons design laboratory in order to promote innovation in the design of our nation's nuclear stockpile. LLNL consists of two sites: the Livermore Site located in Livermore, California (Alameda County); and Site 300, an experimental test site located near Tracy, California,
The alternatives evaluated in the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS represent a range of operation from the minimum level that maintains core capabilities (Reduced Operation Alternative) to the highest reasonable activity levels that could be supported by current facilities, and the potential expansion and construction of new facilities for identified future actions (Proposed Action). The No Action Alternative would continue operation of current LLNL programs in support of assigned missions and includes approved interim actions; facility construction, expansion, or modification; and decontamination and decommissioning projects for which NEPA analysis and documentation already exist. The Proposed Action includes operations discussed under the No Action Alternative and the construction of new facilities and expanded operations in support of future mission requirements. Specifically, the Proposed Action includes increasing the administrative and material-at-risk limits for plutonium and tritium, and the use of nuclear materials (plutonium, other fissile materials, fissionable materials, and lithium hydride) at the National Ignition Facility. The Reduced Operation Alternative represents a thirty percent reduction of the Stockpile Stewardship Program compared to the No Action Alternative. The Reduced Operation Alternative maintains full operational readiness for NNSA facilities and operations, but does not represent the level of operation required to fulfill the missions of the Stockpile Stewardship Program assigned to LLNL. The NNSA has identified the Proposed Action as its preferred alternative in the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS.
The Final LLNL SW/SPEIS contains responses to comments received during the public comment period, as well as changes that were made to the Draft LLNL SW/SPEIS in response to these comments. The NNSA will consider the analyses in the Final LLNL SW/SPEIS, along with other information, in making its decision regarding future operations at LLNL.
Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at 202-564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in the
Revision of FR Notice Published on 4/01/05: CEQ Comment Period Ending 6/30/2005 has been Extended to 7/05/2005.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory) to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSC, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN) or an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from April 6, 2005 to April 13, 2005, consists of the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.
Comments identified by the docket identification (ID) number OPPT-2005-0027 and the specific PMN number or TME number, must be received on or before May 31, 2005.
Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the
Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7408M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address:
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the premanufacture notices addressed in the action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number and specific PMN number or TME number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the technical person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action and the specific PMN number you are commenting on in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions
This status report identifies the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. If you are interested in information that is not included in the following tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.
In Table I of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: the EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.
In Table II of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the Notices of Commencement to manufacture received:
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Premanufacturer notices.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of tentative approval and solicitation of requests for a public hearing.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the provision of section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, and the requirements governing the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation, 40 CFR part 142, that the State of West Virginia is revising its approved Public Water System Supervision Program. West Virginia has adopted the Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring Rule (the Arsenic Rule) that requires community and non-transient non-community water systems to comply with the revised arsenic maximum contaminant level of 0.010 mg/L. EPA has determined that these revisions, all effective April 29, 2004, are no less stringent than the corresponding Federal regulations. Therefore, EPA has decided to tentatively approve these program revisions. All interested parties are invited to submit written comments on this determination and may request a public hearing.
Comments or a request for a public hearing must be submitted by May 31, 2005. This determination shall become effective on May 31, 2005, if no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, and if no comments are received which cause EPA to modify its tentative approval.
Comments or a request for a public hearing must be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. Comments only, may also be submitted electronically to Patti Kay Wisniewski at
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8 a.m.
• Drinking Water Branch, Water Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
• Bureau for Public Health, Department of Health and Human Resources, Capital & Washington Streets, 1 Davis Square, Suite 200, Charleston, WV 25301
Patti Kay Wisniewski, Drinking Water Branch (3WP22) at the Philadelphia address given above; telephone (215) 814-5668 or fax (215) 814-2318.
All interested parties are invited to submit written comments on this determination and may request a public hearing. All comments will be considered, and, if necessary, EPA will issue a response. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Regional Administrator. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by May 31, 2005, a public hearing will be held. A request for public hearing shall include the following: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and of information that the requesting person intends to submit at such a hearing; and (3) the signature of the individual making the request; or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comments concerning information collections titled “Acquisition Services Information Requirements.”
Comments must be submitted on or before June 28, 2005.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to Gary A. Kuiper, Counsel, (202) 942-3824, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., PA-1730-3000, Washington, DC 20429. All comments should refer to “Acquisition Services Information Requirements.” Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. [FAX number (202) 898-3838; E-mail:
A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Mark Menchik, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 3208, Washington, DC 20503.
Gary A. Kuiper, at the address identified above.
FDIC Background Investigation Questionnaire for Contractor Personnel Management Officials, Form 1600/04 (1-03). [Added questions regarding other names used, race, height, weight, eye color, hair color, contract number and oversight manager.]
FDIC Contractor Representation and Certifications, Form 3700/04A (8-02). [Changed format so form can be filled out online.]
FDIC Background Investigation Questionnaire for Contractor, Form 1600/07 (8-02). [No changes.]
FDIC Notice and Authorization Pertaining to Consumer Reports, Form 1600/10 (10-02). [Added statement that authorization is valid for one year or upon separation of employment/services from the FDIC.]
FDIC Integrity and Fitness Representations and Certifications, Form 3700/12 (11-03). [In the instructions for the form, “Definitions” was replaced with “Unique Terms” and the explanations of “conflict of interest” and “ownership or control” were simplified; also, examples were given of “pattern or practice of defalcation regarding obligations,” and of “conflicts of interest.”]
FDIC Contractor Application, Form 3700/13 (5-02).
Contractor Past Performance RFP Reference Check Questionnaire, Form 3700/29 (10-01).
Contractor Application Revision Request, Form 3700/33 (8-98).
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the collections should be modified prior to submission to OMB for review and approval. Comments submitted in response to this notice also will be summarized or included in the FDIC's requests to OMB for renewal of these collections. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 24, 2005.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 25, 2005.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces the first meeting of the Citizens' Health Care Working Group mandated by section 1014 of the Medicare Modernization Act.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 11 and Thursday, May 12, 2005 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Friday, May 13, 2005 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hampton Inn & Suites Reagan National Airport, 2000 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia. The meeting is open to the public.
Ken Cohen, Citizens' Health Care Working Group, at (301) 443-1489 or
The agenda and roster will be available on the Citizens' Health Care Working Group Web site,
Section 1014 of Public Law 108-173, the Medicare Modernization Act (42 U.S.C. 299 note) directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, to establish a Citizens' Health Care Working Group (Working Group). The statute charges the Working Group to: (1) Identify options for changing our health care system so that every American has the ability to obtain quality, affordable health care coverage; (2) provide for a nationwide public debate about improving the health care system; and (3) submit their recommendations to the President and the Congress.
The Citizens' Health Care Working Group is composed of 15 members: the Secretary of DHHS is designated as a member by the statute and the Comptroller General of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is directed to appoint the remaining 14 members. The Comptroller General announced the 14 appointments on February 28, 2005. A list of the Working Group members is available on the GAO Web site (
This meeting will include three components: (1) Briefings for the Working Group on aspects of the health care system that the statute requires then to address; (2) hearings on two broad topics, the uninsured and drivers of health care costs; and (3) a portion of each day will be devoted to ongoing Working Group business.
The briefings will address the following topics: overview of the health care system, public insurance programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and State Childrens' Health Insurance Program), the private health insurance market, the uninsured, and drivers of health care costs.
The hearings portion of the meeting is expected to address the following issues: public and private sector initiatives to expand health insurance coverage and public or private sector initiatives to control costs.
The business portions of the meeting on each day will include discussions of future field hearings, the required Report of the American People, and begin the discussion of approaches for conducting the community meetings required by the statute.
The official agenda will be available on the Working Group's website.
Individuals or organizations wishing to provide written information for consideration by the Working Group should submit information electronically to
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the Agency's function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS Web site address at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed within 30 days of this notice directly to the OMB desk officer: OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, Attention: Christopher Martin, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235,Washington, DC 20503.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
2.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS’ Web site address at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed within 60 days of this notice to the address below:CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development,Attention: Melissa Musotto, PRA Specialist,Room C4-26-05,7500 Security Boulevard,Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces that laboratories located in the State of Washington that possess a valid license under the Medical Test Site Licensure Law, Chapter 70.42 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), continue to be exempt from the requirements of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) until April 30, 2007.
The continuance granted by this notice is effective until April 30, 2007.
Sandra Farragut, (410) 786-3531.
Section 353 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), as amended by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, Pub. L. 100-578 (CLIA), provides that no laboratory may perform tests on human specimens unless it has a certificate to perform these tests issued by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Under section 1861(s) of the Social Security Act, the Medicare program will pay for laboratory services only if the laboratory has a CLIA certificate. Section 1902(a)(9)(C) of the Social Security Act requires that State Medicaid plans pay only for laboratory services furnished by CLIA-certified laboratories. Thus, although subject to specified exemptions, laboratories generally must have a current and valid CLIA certificate to test human specimens and to be eligible for payment from the Medicare or Medicaid programs. Regulations implementing section 353 of the PHS Act are contained in 42 CFR part 493.
Section 353(p) of the PHS Act provides for the exemption of laboratories from CLIA requirements in a State that applies requirements that are equal to or more stringent than those of CLIA.
Regulations in 42 CFR part 493 subpart E implement section 353(p) of
On July 1, 1997 (62 FR 35513), we published a notice in the
In order to determine whether we should grant or continue an approval of an existing CLIA exemption to laboratories licensed by a State, we conduct a detailed and in-depth comparison of State licensure program and CLIA requirements to determine whether the State program meets the requirements at § 493.551 and § 493.553. In summary, the State must—
• Have laws in effect that provide for requirements that are equal to or more stringent than CLIA requirements;
• Have a State licensure program that licenses or approves laboratories that meet State requirements that meet or exceed CLIA requirements, and, therefore, meet the condition-level requirements of the CLIA regulations;
• Meet the requirements and be approved in accordance with § 493.555 and § 493.557(b);
• Demonstrate that it has enforcement authority and administrative structures and resources adequate to enforce its laboratory requirements;
• Permit CMS or CMS agents to inspect laboratories within the State;
• Require laboratories within the State to submit to inspections by CMS or CMS agents as a condition of licensure;
• Agree to pay the cost of the validation program administered by CMS and the cost of the State's pro rata share of the general overhead to develop and implement CLIA as specified in § 493.645(a), § 493.646(b), and § 493.557(b); and
• Take appropriate enforcement action against laboratories found by CMS or CMS agents not to be in compliance with requirements comparable to condition-level requirements, as specified in § 493.557(b).
As specified in our regulations at § 493.555 and § 493.557(b), our review of a State laboratory program includes (but is not necessarily limited to) an evaluation of—
• Whether the State's requirements for laboratories are equal to or more stringent than the CLIA condition-level requirements;
• The State's inspection process requirements to determine—
• The State's agreement with us to ensure that the agreement obligates the State to—
Washington has applied for continued exemption of its laboratories from CLIA program requirements.
We evaluated the application to verify Washington's assurance of continued compliance with the following subparts of part 493: Subpart H, Participation in Proficiency Testing for Laboratories Performing Nonwaived Testing; Subpart J, Facility Administration for Nonwaived Testing; Subpart K, Quality Systems for Nonwaived Testing, Subpart M, Personnel for Nonwaived Testing; Subpart Q, Inspection; and Subpart R, Enforcement Procedures.
The Washington State Laboratory Licensure Program was found to continue to meet the requirements of subparts H, J, K, M, Q, and R.
We also verified the State of Washington's assurance that it requires the laboratories it licenses to meet the requirements for the following subparts of part 493 as explained below:
The State of Washington submitted a comparison of its laboratory licensure requirements with comparable CLIA condition-level requirements (that is, a crosswalk); a description of its inspection process; proficiency testing monitoring process; its data management and analysis system; its investigative and complaint response procedures; its current list of licensed laboratories; and its policy regarding announcement and unannouncement of inspections. We have determined that the State of Washington has complied with the requirements under subpart E of part 493 and that the requirements of its laboratory licensure program are equal to the condition-level requirements in subparts H, J, K, M, Q, and R of part 493.
The Washington State program's requirements are equal to the CLIA
The Washington State Program's requirements are equal to the CLIA requirements at § 493.1100 through § 493.1105.
The Quality Control (QC) requirements of the Washington State Laboratory Licensure Program have been evaluated against the requirements of the CLIA regulations. The Washington State Program has modified its survey process and made revisions to its requirements encompassing general QC as well as specialty and subspecialty QC requirements in order to reflect the new QC requirements of the CLIA regulations. As such, we have determined that the Washington State Program's requirements are equal to the requirements of the CLIA regulations.
The Washington State Program requirements are equal to the CLIA requirements at § 493.1403 through § 493.1495 for laboratories that perform moderate and high complexity testing.
The Washington State Laboratory Licensure Program requires laboratories to comply with the inspection requirements of § 493.1773 and § 493.1780 of this subpart, as applicable. Thus, we have determined that the Washington State Program's requirements are equal to the requirements of the CLIA regulations.
The Washington State Program meets the requirements of subpart R to the extent that subpart R applies to State laboratory licensure programs. Accordingly, we have determined that the Washington State Program's enforcement and appeal policies are equal to the requirements of the CLIA regulations.
The Federal validation inspections of CLIA-exempt laboratories, as specified in § 493.563, were conducted on a representative sample basis as well as in response to any substantial allegations of noncompliance (complaint inspections). The outcome of those validation inspections has been and will continue to be CMS’ principal tool for verifying that the laboratories located in and licensed by the State are in compliance with CLIA requirements.
Staff in the CMS Regional Office in Seattle, Washington have conducted validation inspections of a representative sample (approximately 5 percent) of the laboratories inspected by the Washington State Office of Laboratory Quality Assurance (LQA). The validation inspections were primarily of the concurrent type; that is, CMS surveyors accompanied Washington's inspectors, each inspecting against his or her agency's respective regulations. Analysis of the validation data revealed no significant differences between the State and Federal findings. The validation surveys verified that the Washington inspection process covers all CLIA conditions applicable to each laboratory being inspected, and also verified that the State laboratory licensure requirements meet or exceed CLIA condition-level requirements. The CMS survey staff found the State inspectors highly skilled and qualified. The LQA inspected laboratories in timely fashion, that is, all laboratories were inspected within the required 24-month cycle. All parameters monitored by CMS staff to date indicate that Washington is meeting all requirements for approval of CLIA exemption. This Federal monitoring will continue as an on-going process.
Approval of the CLIA exemption for laboratories located in and licensed by Washington is subject to removal if we determine that the outcome of a comparability review or a validation review inspection is not acceptable, as described under § 493.573 and § 493.575, or if Washington fails to pay the required fee every 2 years as required under § 493.646.
In accordance with § 493.557(b)(8), Washington will continue to agree to provide us with changes to a laboratory's specialties or subspecialties based on the State's survey. Washington also will provide us with changes in a laboratory's certification status, such as a change from a regular certificate to a certificate of waiver.
CLIA is a totally user-fee funded program. The registration fee paid by laboratories is intended to cover the cost of the development and administration of the program. However, when a State's application for exemption is approved, we do not charge a fee to laboratories in the State. The State's share of the costs associated with CLIA must be collected from the State, as specified in § 493.645.
Washington must pay for the following:
• Costs of Federal inspection of laboratories in the State to verify that Washington's laboratory licensure program requirements are enforced in an appropriate manner. The average Federal hourly rate is multiplied by the total hours required to perform Federal validation surveys within the State.
• Costs incurred for Federal investigations and surveys triggered by complaints that are substantiated. We will bill Washington on a semiannual basis.
• Washington's proportionate share of the costs associated with establishing, maintaining, and improving the CLIA computer system, a portion of those services from which Washington received direct benefit or contributed to the CLIA program in the State. Thus, Washington is being charged for a portion of CMS’ direct and indirect costs as well as a portion of the costs incurred by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In order to estimate Washington's proportionate share of the general overhead costs to develop and implement CLIA, we determined the ratio of laboratories in the State to the total number of laboratories nationally. Approximately 1.6 percent of the registered laboratories are in Washington. We determined that 1.6 percent of the applicable CDC and CMS costs should be borne by Washington.
Washington has agreed to pay us the State's pro rata share of the overhead costs and anticipated costs of actual validation and complaint investigation surveys. A final reconciliation for all laboratories and all expenses will be made. We will reimburse the State for any overpayment or bill it for any balance.
CMS grants continued approval of the CLIA exemption for all laboratory specialties and subspecialties to all laboratories located in and licensed by the State of Washington effective April 30, 2001 to April 30, 2007.
The State of Washington applied timely for re-approval, that is, to continue approval for exemption beyond the period ending April 30, 2001. Review of the application for continued approval, and evaluation of the outcomes of the validation inspections indicated that continued approval for 6 more years was in order. The actual publication of the continued approval was delayed, however, due to the timing of the publication of changes to the CLIA regulations, and subsequently the time period necessary
This document does not impose information collection, and recordkeeping requirements, which are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 35). Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the PRA.
This notice announces the continuance of the exemption of laboratories licensed by the State of Washington from the requirements of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). The State has established that the quality of laboratory services required under its Laboratory licensure program continues to be equal or more stringent than those required by the CLIA program. Washington also has established that it has a comparable program to monitor and evaluate compliance with its laboratory licensure program requirements. The effect of the continued exemption from CLIA requirements is that laboratories will remain under State, rather than Federal, regulation, with no discernible difference in the operations of the programs. Consequently, we anticipate that our continued approval of Washington's CLIA exemption will not affect the laboratories or the quality and availability of services provided.
We have examined the impact of this notice as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This notice does not reach the economic threshold and thus is not considered a major rule.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $6 million to $29 million in any 1 year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity. We are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because we have determined that this notice will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a notice may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined that this notice will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure in any 1 year by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $110 million. This notice will have no consequential effect on the governments mentioned or on the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this regulation does not impose any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of E.O. 13132 are not applicable.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Section 353(p) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 263a).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS),HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the second public meeting of the Advisory Board on the Demonstration of a Bundled Case-Mix Adjusted Payment System for End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Services. Notice of this meeting is required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(1) and (a)(2)). The Advisory Board will provide advice and recommendations with respect to the establishment and operation of the demonstration mandated by section 623(e) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.
The meeting is on May 24, 2005 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., eastern standard time.
The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn—BWI Airport, 890 Elkridge Landing Rd., Linthicum, MD 21090.
Attendance is limited to the space available, so seating will be on a first come, first served basis.
Web site: Up-to-date information on this meeting is located at
Hotline: Up-to-date information on this meeting is located on the CMS Advisory Committee Hotline at 1 (877)
Pamela Kelly by e-mail at
On June 2, 2004, we published a
The Advisory Board on the Demonstration of a Bundled Case-Mix Adjusted Payment System for ESRD Services will study and make recommendations on the following issues:
• The drugs, biologicals, and clinical laboratory tests to be bundled into the demonstration payment rates.
• The method and approach to be used for the patient characteristics to be included in the fully case-mix adjusted demonstration payment system.
• The manner in which payment for bundled services provided by non-demonstration providers should be handled for beneficiaries participating in the demonstration.
• The feasibility of providing financial incentives and penalties to organizations operating under the demonstration that meet or fail to meet applicable quality standards.
• The specific quality standards to be used.
• The feasibility of using disease management techniques to improve quality and patient satisfaction and reduce costs of care for the beneficiaries participating in the demonstration.
• The selection criteria for demonstration organizations.
This meeting is open to the public. The Advisory Board will hear background presentations from CMS. The Advisory Board will then deliberate openly on the general topic and will make recommendations on specific topics for future meetings. The Advisory Board will also allow at least a 30-minute open public session. Interested parties may speak or ask questions during the public comment period. Comments may be limited by the time available. Written questions should be submitted by May 17, 2005 to
5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a). (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program)
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces a meeting of the Practicing Physicians Advisory Council (the Council). The Council will be meeting to discuss certain proposed changes in regulations and carrier manual instructions related to physicians' services, as identified by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary). This meeting is open to the public.
The meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 23, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. e.d.t.
The meeting will be held in Room 705A, 7th floor, in the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201.
Kelly Buchanon, Designated Federal Official, Practicing Physicians Advisory Council, 7500 Security Blvd., Mail Stop C4-11-27, Baltimore, MD, 21244-1850, telephone (410) 786-6132, or e-mail
The Secretary is mandated by section 1868(a) of the Social Security Act (the Act) to appoint a Practicing Physicians Advisory Council (the Council) based on nominations submitted by medical organizations representing physicians. The Council meets quarterly to discuss certain proposed changes in regulations and carrier manual instructions related to physicians' services, as identified by the Secretary. To the extent feasible and consistent with statutory deadlines, the consultation must occur before publication of the proposed changes. The Council submits an annual report on its recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services not later than December 31 of each year.
The Council consists of 15 physicians, each of whom must have submitted at least 250 claims for physicians' services under Medicare in the previous year. Members of the Council include both participating and nonparticipating physicians, and physicians practicing in rural and underserved urban areas. At least 11 members of the Council must be physicians as described in section 1861(r)(1) of the Act; that is, State-licensed doctors of medicine or osteopathy. The remaining 4 members may include dentists, podiatrists, optometrists and chiropractors. Members serve for overlapping 4-year terms; terms of more than 2 years are contingent upon the renewal of the Council by appropriate action prior to
The Council held its first meeting on May 11, 1992. The current members are-Jose Azocar, M.D.; Ronald Castellanos, M.D. (Chairperson); Rebecca Gaughan, M.D.; Peter Grimm, D.O.; Carlos R. Hamilton, M.D.; Dennis K. Iglar, M.D.; Christopher Leggett, M.D.; Barbara McAneny, M.D.; Geraldine O'Shea, D.O.; Laura B. Powers, M.D.; Anthony Senagore, M.D.; and Robert L. Urata, M.D.
The meeting will commence with the swearing-in of three Council members. The Council's Executive Director will give a status report and the CMS responses to the recommendations made by the Council at the March 7, 2005 meeting and prior meeting recommendations. Additionally, updates will be provided on the Physician Regulatory Issues Team (PRIT), and the National Provider Identifier. In accordance with the Council charter, we are requesting assistance with the following agenda topics:
• Pay for Performance Initiatives
• Recovery Audits
• Part D Prescription Drug Program
• Competitive Acquisition for Drugs
(Section 1868 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ee) and section 10(a) of Pub. L. 92-463 (5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)).
Pursuant to this announcement, OCS will award funds to help build the capacity of faith-based and community organizations that address the needs of distressed communities. A “distressed community” is defined as a neighborhood or geographic community with an unemployment rate and/or poverty rate equal to or greater than the state or national rate. Priority areas of need include at-risk youth; the homeless; marriage education and preparation services to help couples who choose marriage for themselves develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages; or social services to those living in rural communities.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Community Services (OCS) announces that applications will be accepted for new grants pursuant to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary's Compassion Capital Fund (CCF) authorized under section 1110 of the Social Security Act governing Social Services Research and Demonstration activities and the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005, Public Law 108-447.
Pursuant to this announcement, OCS will award funds to help build the capacity of faith-based and community organizations that address the needs of distressed communities. A “distressed community” is defined as a neighborhood or geographic community with an unemployment rate and/or poverty rate equal to or greater than the State or national rate. Priority areas of need include at-risk youth; the homeless; marriage education and preparation services to help couples who choose marriage for themselves develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages; or social services to those living in rural communities.
Faith-based and community organizations have a long history of providing an array of important services to people and communities in need of charitable services in the United States. These groups have unique strengths that government cannot duplicate. They hold the trust of their community neighbors and leaders and have great understanding of the needs of the community and its systems. As a result, they are well positioned to understand the unique needs of at-risk youth, the homeless, those choosing to develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages, and those living in rural communities in need of social services. Furthermore, the sense of mission from which these organizations work often translates into a unique approach to service delivery, a dedication of service to others, and a cultural awareness specific to their surrounding communities.
In recognition of this history and ability, President Bush believes it is in the public's interest to broaden Federal efforts to work with faith-based and community organizations, and he has made it a priority to ensure that these groups are treated equally with other organizations that apply for Federal funding. A key part of this effort to enhance and expand the participation of faith-based and community groups in serving those in need is the Compassion Capital Fund (CCF) Targeted-Capacity Building program described in this announcement.
Although the CCF Targeted Capacity Building program has addressed issues of at-risk youth in the past, this year, President Bush has specifically identified the need to focus on helping at-risk youth overcome the perilous risk of gang influence and involvement. Consequently, those interested in proposing at-risk youth activities are encouraged to propose projects that address this critical youth issue.
The purpose of the CCF Targeted Capacity Building program is to help build the capacity of grassroots faith-based and community organizations that address the needs of distressed communities. The CCF Targeted Capacity Building Program funds capacity-building activities that produce measurable impact resulting in more sustainable organizations. Capacity-building activities ensure that grassroots organizations have the tools to facilitate key changes within their organization. By addressing issues that are critical to the long-term viability of the organization, non-profits are better prepared and positioned to understand and meet the needs of the communities they serve.
CCF Targeted Capacity-Building grants will be awarded to grassroots faith-based and community organizations serving “distressed communities.” These grassroots organizations must use the funds in one of the four priority areas of need towards their organization's capacity-building in at least one of these five critical areas: (1) Leadership development, (2) organizational development, (3) programs/services, (4) funding, and (5) community engagement. Examples of the kinds of activities that relate to each critical area are listed below. This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive:
The goal of the CCF Targeted Capacity-Building Program is to help promising organizations bolster their sustainability and ultimately be able to serve more people more effectively and/or more efficiently, or expand/enhance services to distressed communities on a continuing basis. Applicants must describe, in concrete terms, their plans for using funds to improve their organization in a sustainable way. Grantees must use these awards to increase efficiency and capacity; therefore, these awards cannot be used to augment or supplant direct service delivery funds. For example, an organization that distributes food to the poor will not receive a grant simply to purchase additional food. Nor, for example, will an organization that provides substance abuse treatment services receive additional funds simply to enable it to provide exactly the same services to more people. Although these awards might well enable these organizations to assist additional individuals, they would not serve to improve the organizations' sustainability, efficiency, or capacity. Rather, the organizations would simply use additional funds in the same way they use existing funds, without fundamentally changing or improving their services.
ACF encourages and will grant preference to those eligible organizations whose annual operational budget is less than $500,000, or whose tribal membership is less than 5,000. Please see Section III.3 Other Eligibility Information, Section IV.2 Content and Form of Application Submission, V.1 Evaluation Criteria, and V. 2 Review and Selection Process for a detailed description.
Organizations that receive CCF funds may not engage in inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization, as part of the programs or services funded with CCF funds. If an organization conducts such inherently religious activities, the activities must be offered separately, in time or location, from the programs or services funded with CCF assistance, and participation must be voluntary for beneficiaries of the CCF-funded programs or services. In addition, an organization receiving CCF funds shall not, in providing CCF-funded services, discriminate against a program beneficiary or prospective program beneficiary on the basis of religion or religious belief. Regulations pertaining to the Equal Treatment for Faith-Based Organizations, which includes the prohibition against Federal funding of inherently religious activities, can be found at either 45 CFR 87.1 or the HHS Web site at
Faith-based and community organizations are eligible to apply for these grants. Other eligible entities include:
Fiscal year (FY) 2003 and (FY) 2004 Compassion Capital Fund (CCF) Targeted Capacity Building grantees are eligible to apply for funding under this announcement as long as the social service priority area addressed by their FY 2005 proposed project differs from the priority area addressed in their FY 2004 project.
Eligible organizations in Non-Metropolitan counties as defined by the Office of Management and Budget are eligible for a grant under the social service priority area, Rural Communities. Due to the fact that entire counties are designated as Metropolitan when in fact, large parts of many counties may be rural in nature; ZIP Codes in Metropolitan counties that meet the criteria as defined by the Office of Rural Health are also eligible. To determine if a ZIP Code is defined as rural, please refer to the Web site at
ACF encourages and will grant preference to organizations whose annual operational budget is less than $500,000, or whose tribal membership is less than 5,000.
In addition, ACF anticipates awarding up to 5 percent of the funds available under this announcement to the following eligible organizations:
Please see Section I. Funding Opportunity Description, IV.2 Content and Form of Application Submission, V.1 Evaluation Criteria, and V.2 Review and Selection Process for a detailed description.
Please see Section IV for required documentation supporting eligibility or funding restrictions if any are applicable.
No.
All applicants must have a Dun & Bradstreet number. On June 27, 2003 the Office of Management and Budget published in the
Please ensure that your organization has a DUNS number. You may acquire a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line on 1-866-705-5711 or you may request a number on-line at
Non-profit organizations applying for funding are required to submit proof of their non-profit status. Proof of non-profit status is any one of the following:
• A reference to the applicant organization's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in the IRS Code.
• A copy of a currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate.
• A statement from a State taxing body, State attorney general, or other appropriate State official certifying that the applicant organization has a non-profit status and that none of the net earning accrue to any private shareholders or individuals.
• A certified copy of the organization's certificate of incorporation or similar document that clearly establishes non-profit status.
• Any of the items in the subparagraphs immediately above for a State or national parent organization
Private, non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit with their applications the survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms,” “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants,” titled, “Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants,” at:
Applications that exceed the ceiling amount will be considered non-responsive and will not be eligible for funding under this announcement.
An application that fails to satisfy the deadline requirements referenced in Section IV.3 will be considered non-responsive and will not be considered for funding under this announcement.
You may submit your application to us in either electronic or paper format. To submit an application electronically, please use the
Please note the following if you plan to submit your application electronically via Grants.gov:
• Electronic submission is voluntary, but strongly encouraged.
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.
• To use Grants.gov, you, as the applicant, must have a DUNS Number and register in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). You should allow a minimum of five days to complete the CCR registration.
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit a grant application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit an application in paper format.
• You may submit all documents electronically, including all information typically included on the SF 424 and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• Your application must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this program announcement.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The Administration for Children and Families will retrieve your application from Grants.gov.
• We may request that you provide original signatures on forms at a later date.
• You may access the electronic application for this program on
• You must search for the downloadable application package by the CFDA number.
An original and two copies of the complete application are required. The original and each of the two copies must include all required forms, certifications, assurances, and appendices, be signed by an authorized representative, have original signatures, and be submitted unbound.
Private, non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit with their applications the survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms,” “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants,” titled, “Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants,” at:
While applicants may be working in more than one priority area, applicants must select one (1) priority area and label their application accordingly. The four (4) priority areas include: At-risk youth; Homeless; Healthy Marriage; and Rural Communities. Applications proposing projects covering more than one priority area will not be given a higher priority than those projects working in just one area.
The application must be double-spaced and single-sided on 8 x 11 plain white paper, with 1″ margins on all sides. The application must use Times New Roman 12 point font or Arial 12 point font.
The Table of Contents must not exceed one (1) page. The Project Narrative must not exceed nine (9) pages. Pages submitted beyond the first nine (9) pages in the Project Narrative section will be removed prior to panel review. The Appendix must not exceed five (5) pages. Pages submitted beyond the first five (5) in the Appendix section will be removed prior to panel review. The Appendix includes any additional supporting documentation.
All pages of the application must be sequentially numbered. The Budget, Narrative Budget Justification, Standard Forms for Assurances, Certifications, and Disclosures are not included in the Project Narrative and Appendix page limitations.
Applicants are requested not to send pamphlets, brochures, or other printed material along with their applications as these pose copying difficulties. These materials, if submitted, will not be included in the review process.
The project description should include all the information requirements described in the specific evaluation criteria outlined in the program announcement under Section V Application Review Information. In addition to the project description, the applicant needs to complete all the standard forms required for making applications for awards under this announcement.
Applicants seeking financial assistance under this announcement must file the Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance; SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs; SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs. The forms may be reproduced for use in submitting applications. Applicants must sign and return the standard forms with their application.
Applicants must furnish prior to award an executed copy of the Standard Form LLL, Certification Regarding Lobbying, when applying for an award in excess of $100,000. Applicants who have used non-Federal funds for lobbying activities in connection with receiving assistance under this announcement shall complete a disclosure form, if applicable, with their applications (approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0348-0046). Applicants must sign and return the certification with their application.
Applicants must also understand they will be held accountable for the smoking prohibition included within
Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with all Federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination. By signing and submitting the applications, applicants are providing the certification and need not mail back the certification form. Complete the standard forms and the associated certifications and assurances based on the instructions on the forms. The forms and certifications may be found at:
The voluntary budget or tribal membership size assurance is not required for a complete application; however, ACF encourages any eligible non-profit organization, including Native American Tribal Organizations, whose annual operational budget is less than $500,000 or Native American Tribal Governments, federally recognized Indian Tribes, Consortia of Indian Tribes, or Incorporated non-federally recognized Tribes whose tribal membership is less than 5,000 to include the assurance with its application in order to receive an additional 5 points in the scoring of the application. In absence of a properly authorized assurance, no additional points will be granted. By signing the voluntary budget or tribal membership size assurance the authorizing official is attesting to the validity of all statements on the assurance. Please see Appendix A for instructions on completing the Voluntary Budget or Tribal Membership Size Assurance and Section V.1 for a detailed description of the relevant criteria that will be evaluated.
Please see Section V.1. Criteria, for instructions on preparing the full project description.
The closing time and date for receipt of applications is referenced above. Applications received after 4:30 p.m. eastern time on the closing date will be classified as late.
Applications hand carried by applicants, applicant couriers, other representatives of the applicant, or by overnight/express mail couriers shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., eastern time, at the address referenced in Section IV.6., between Monday and Friday (excluding Federal holidays).
ACF cannot accommodate transmission of applications by facsimile. Therefore, applications transmitted to ACF by fax will not be accepted regardless of date or time of submission and time of receipt.
Any application received after 4:30 p.m. eastern time on the deadline date will not be considered for competition.
Applicants using express/overnight mail services should allow two working days prior to the deadline date for receipt of applications. Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed.
You may use the checklist below as a guide when preparing your application package.
Private, non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit with their applications the survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms,” “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants,” titled, “Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants,” at:
This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” and 45 CFR part 100, “Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services Programs and Activities.” Under the Order, States may design their own processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance under covered programs.
As of October 1, 2004, the following jurisdictions have elected to participate in the Executive Order process: Arkansas, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, American Samoa, Guam, North Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands. As these jurisdictions have elected to participate in the Executive Order process, they have established SPOCs. Applicants from participating jurisdictions should contact their SPOC, as soon as possible, to alert them of prospective applications and receive instructions. Applicants must submit all required materials, if any, to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no submittal is required) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a. Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2).
A SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards. SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine endorsements as official recommendations. Additionally, SPOCs are requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and those official State process recommendations which may trigger the “accommodate or explain” rule.
When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be addressed to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Grants Management, Division of Discretionary Grants, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 4th floor, Washington, DC 20447.
When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be addressed to: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Division of Discretionary Grants, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447.
Although the remaining jurisdictions have chosen not to participate in the process, entities that meet the eligibility requirements of the program are still eligible to apply for a grant even if a State, Territory, Commonwealth, etc. does not have a SPOC. Therefore, applicants from these jurisdictions, or for projects administered by federally-recognized Indian Tribes, need take no action in regard to E.O. 12372.
The official list, including addresses, of the jurisdictions elected to participate in E.O. 12372 can be found on the following URL:
A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and Territory is included with the application materials for this announcement.
An application that exceeds the upper value of the dollar range specified will be considered non-responsive and will be returned without further review.
Submission by Mail: An applicant must provide an original application with all attachments, signed by an authorized representative and two copies. Please see Section IV.3 for an explanation of due dates. Applications should be mailed to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families Office of Community, Compassion Capital Fund Targeted Capacity Building Program, 1815 North Fort Meyer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22209.Attention: Barbara Ziegler Johnson.
Hand Delivery: An applicant must provide an original application with all attachments signed by an authorized representative and two copies. Please see Section IV.3 for an explanation of due dates. Applications should be delivered to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families Office of Community, Compassion Capital Fund Targeted Capacity Building Program, 1815 North Fort Meyer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22209. Attention: Barbara Ziegler Johnson.
Electronic Submission:
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed and reviewing the collection information.
The project description is approved under OMB control number 0970-0139 which expires 4/30/2007.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The following are instructions and guidelines on how to prepare the “Project Summary/Abstract” and “Full Project Description” sections of the application. Under the evaluation criteria section, note that each criterion is preceded by the generic evaluation requirement under the ACF Uniform Project Description (UPD).
Provide information on the applicant organization(s) and cooperating partners, such as organizational charts, financial statements, audit reports or statements from CPAs/Licensed Public Accountants, Employer Identification Numbers, names of bond carriers, contact persons and telephone numbers, child care licenses and other documentation of professional accreditation, information on compliance with Federal/State/local government standards, documentation of experience in the program area, and other pertinent information. If the applicant is a non-profit organization, submit proof of non-profit status in its application.
The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing: (a) A reference to the applicant organization's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations
Clearly identify the physical, economic, social, financial, institutional, and/or other problem(s) requiring a solution. The need for assistance must be demonstrated and the principal and subordinate objectives of the project must be clearly stated; supporting documentation, such as letters of support and testimonials from concerned interests other than the applicant, may be included. Any relevant data based on planning studies should be included or referred to in the endnotes/footnotes. Incorporate demographic data and participant/beneficiary information, as needed. In developing the project description, the applicant may volunteer or be requested to provide information on the total range of projects currently being conducted and supported (or to be initiated), some of which may be outside the scope of the program announcement.
Outline a plan of action that describes the scope and detail of how the proposed work will be accomplished. Account for all functions or activities identified in the application. Cite factors that might accelerate or decelerate the work and state your reason for taking the proposed approach rather than others. Describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technological innovations, reductions in cost or time, or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in such terms as the number of people to be served and the number of activities accomplished.
When accomplishments cannot be quantified by activity or function, list them in chronological order to show the schedule of accomplishments and their target dates.
If any data is to be collected, maintained, and/or disseminated, clearance may be required from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This clearance pertains to any “collection of information that is conducted or sponsored by ACF.”
List organizations, cooperating entities, consultants, or other key individuals who will work on the project along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution.
Identify the results and benefits to be derived.
Provide a budget with line item detail and detailed calculations for each budget object class identified on the Budget Information form. Detailed calculations must include estimation methods, quantities, unit costs, and other similar quantitative detail sufficient for the calculation to be duplicated. Also include a breakout by the funding sources identified in Block 15 of the SF-424.
Provide a narrative budget justification that describes how the categorical costs are derived. Discuss the necessity, reasonableness, and allocability of the proposed costs.
Description: Costs of employee salaries and wages.
Justification: Identify the project director or principal investigator, if known. For each staff person, provide the title, time commitment to the project (in months), time commitment to the project (as a percentage or full-time equivalent), annual salary, grant salary, wage rates, etc. Do not include the costs of consultants or personnel costs of delegate agencies or of specific project(s) or businesses to be financed by the applicant.
Description: Costs of employee fringe benefits unless treated as part of an approved indirect cost rate.
Justification: Provide a breakdown of the amounts and percentages that comprise fringe benefit costs such as health insurance, FICA, retirement insurance, taxes, etc.
Description: Costs of project-related travel by employees of the applicant organization (does not include costs of consultant travel).
Justification: For each trip, show the total number of traveler(s), travel destination, duration of trip, per diem, mileage allowances, if privately owned vehicles will be used, and other transportation costs and subsistence allowances. Travel costs for key staff to attend ACF-sponsored workshops should be detailed in the budget.
Description: “Equipment” means an article of nonexpendable, tangible personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost which equals or exceeds the lesser of (a) the capitalization level established by the organization for the financial statement purposes, or (b) $5,000. (
Justification: For each type of equipment requested, provide a description of the equipment, the cost per unit, the number of units, the total cost, and a plan for use on the project, as well as use or disposal of the equipment after the project ends. An applicant organization that uses its own definition for equipment should provide a copy of its policy or section of its policy which includes the equipment definition.
Description: Costs of all tangible personal property other than that included under the Equipment category.
Justification: Specify general categories of supplies and their costs. Show computations and provide other information which supports the amount requested.
Description: Costs of all contracts for services and goods except for those that belong under other categories such as equipment, supplies, construction, etc. Include third party evaluation contracts (if applicable) and contracts with secondary recipient organizations, including delegate agencies and specific project(s) or businesses to be financed by the applicant.
Justification: Demonstrate that all procurement transactions will be conducted in a manner to provide, to the maximum extent practical, open and
Recipients might be required to make available to ACF pre-award review and procurement documents, such as request for proposals or invitations for bids, independent cost estimates, etc.
Whenever the applicant intends to delegate part of the project to another agency, the applicant must provide a detailed budget and budget narrative for each delegate agency, by agency title, along with the required supporting information referred to in these instructions.
Enter the total of all other costs. Such costs, where applicable and appropriate, may include but are not limited to insurance, food, medical and dental costs (noncontractual), professional services costs, space and equipment rentals, printing and publication, computer use, training costs, such as tuition and stipends, staff development costs, and administrative costs.
Justification: Provide computations, a narrative description and a justification for each cost under this category.
Description: Total amount of indirect costs. This category should be used only when the applicant currently has an indirect cost rate approved by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or another cognizant Federal agency.
Justification: An applicant that will charge indirect costs to the grant must enclose a copy of the current rate agreement. If the applicant organization is in the process of initially developing or renegotiating a rate, upon notification that an award will be made, it should immediately develop a tentative indirect cost rate proposal based on its most recently completed fiscal year, in accordance with the cognizant agency's guidelines for establishing indirect cost rates, and submit it to the cognizant agency. Applicants awaiting approval of their indirect cost proposals may also request indirect costs. When an indirect cost rate is requested, those costs included in the indirect cost pool should not also be charged as direct costs to the grant. Also, if the applicant is requesting a rate which is less than what is allowed under the program, the authorized representative of the applicant organization must submit a signed acknowledgement that the applicant is accepting a lower rate than allowed.
The following evaluation criteria appear in weighted descending order. The corresponding score values indicate the relative importance that ACF places on each evaluation criterion; however, applicants need not develop their applications precisely according to the order presented. Application components may be organized such that a reviewer will be able to follow a seamless and logical flow of information (
In considering how applicants will carry out the responsibilities addressed under this announcement, competing applications for financial assistance will be reviewed and evaluated against the following criteria:
(a) Service Area (5 Points): An application will be evaluated on the extent to which the applicant identifies the specific service area for project implementation and the target population they serve.
(b) Needs of Service Area (5 Points): An application will be evaluated on the extent to which the applicant describes the specific needs of the targeted service area; documents that the proposed project will be implemented in a distressed community and/or engages organizations that serve low-income populations; and documents that the project addresses a vital need in a distressed community. A “distressed community” is defined as a neighborhood or geographic community with an unemployment rate and/or poverty rate equal to or greater than the state or national rate. The application documents that both the unemployment level and poverty level for the targeted neighborhood or community are equal to or greater than the state or national level. The application cites the most recent available statistics from published sources,
(c) Applicant's Capacity-Building Needs (10 Points). An application will be evaluated on the extent to which the applicant documents the capacity-building needs of their organization. The needs of the organization must be described in relationship to the following five critical areas of organizational capacity: (1) Leadership development, (2) organizational development, (3) programs/services, (4) funding, and (5) community engagement.
(d) Project Objectives (10 Points): An application will be evaluated on the extent to which the applicant states all primary project objectives. Applications will be evaluated on the extent to which the objectives of the proposed project are clearly stated and shown to address the needs of the organization in at least one of the five critical areas: (1) Leadership development, (2) organizational development, (3) programs/services, (4) funding, and (5) community engagement. Applications will be evaluated on the extent to which the applicant presents a compelling need in the community for an increase or improvement in services. Applicants must demonstrate how the receipt of this Federal grant will enable the applicant to increase its capacity to address these vital needs.
Capacity-Building Strategy. An application will be evaluated on the extent to which the applicant describes a plan for developing organizational capacity in at least one of five critical areas: (1) Leadership development, (2) organizational development, (3) programs/services, (4) funding, and (5) community engagement. Applications will be evaluated based on the extent to which the capacity-building approach or strategy is logical, reasonable, and clearly linked to the desired results and benefits expected.
(a) Past Experience: (10 Points). An application will be evaluated on the extent to which the applicant demonstrates experience in and a proven track record in addressing the needs of “distressed community (ies)”, through the provision of social services. A “distressed community” is defined as a neighborhood or geographic community with an unemployment rate and/or poverty rate equal to or greater than the state or national rate. Applications will also be evaluated on the extent to which the applicant documents a history of service in the proposed project service area. In addition, applications will be also be evaluated on the extent to which the applicant includes concrete examples of services and/or programs.
(b) Organizational Capacity and Project Staff (5 Points). An application will be evaluated on the extent to which the applicant describes how the proposed project fits into the structure
An application will be evaluated on the extent to which it identifies the results or benefits expected to be derived from project activities. Applicants must describe how the proposed project will impact the sustainability of their organization. Applicants must describe the process for determining the relationship between project activities and anticipated outcomes, including any output measures to be used to evaluate the proposed project. Applicants must clearly describe the relationship(s) among project objectives, activities and anticipated results. The results and benefits proposed by the applicant must be reasonable and likely, quantified, clearly linked to and supported by the proposed capacity-building approach.
An application will be evaluated based on the extent to which the applicant includes a budget that is clear, easy to understand, and that provides a detailed justification for the amount requested. Applicants should refer to the budget information presented in the Standard Forms 424 and 424A and to the budget justification instructions in section C. General Instructions for the Uniform Project Description. Since non-Federal reviewers will be used in the review of applications, applicants may omit from the copies of the application submitted (not from the original), the specific salary rates or amounts for individuals in the application budget and instead provide only summary information.
The extent to which the application demonstrates that the applicant has an annual operational budget of less than $500,000, or a tribal membership of less than 5,000 via a signed assurance from an authorized official (Please see Appendix A for instructions on completing the assurance).
Since ACF will be using non-Federal reviewers in the review process, applicants have the option of omitting from the application copies (not the original) of specific salary rates or amounts for individuals specified in the application budget.
No grant award will be made on the basis of an incomplete application.
Applications received by the due date will be reviewed and scored competitively. Experts in the field, generally persons from outside the Federal government, will use the evaluation criteria listed in Part V of this announcement to review and score the applications. The results of this review will be a primary factor in making funding decisions. ACF may also solicit comments from Regional Office staff and other Federal agencies. ACF may consider a variety of factors in addition to the review criteria identified above, including geographic diversity/coverage and types of applicant organizations, in order to ensure that the interests of the Federal Government are met in making the final selections. Furthermore, ACF may limit the number of awards made to the same or affiliated organizations although they would serve different geographic areas. Please note that applicants that do not comply with the requirements in the section titled “Eligible Applicants” will not be included in the review process.
ACF encourages and will grant preference to those eligible organizations whose annual operational budget is less than $500,000, or whose tribal membership is less than 5,000. Please see Section I. Funding Opportunity Description, III.3 Other Information on Eligibility, IV.2 Content and Form of Application Submission, and V.1 Evaluation Criteria for a detailed description.
Applications that are approved but unfunded may be held over for funding in the next funding cycle, pending the availability of funds, for a period not to exceed one year.
The successful applicants will be notified through the issuance of a Financial Assistance Award document which sets forth the amount of funds granted, the terms and conditions of the grant, the effective date of the grant, the budget period for which initial support will be given, the non-Federal share to be provided, and the total project period for which support is contemplated. The Financial Assistance Award will be signed by the Grants Officer and transmitted via postal mail.
Organizations whose applications will not be funded will be notified in writing.
Direct Federal grants, sub-award funds, or contracts under this Compassion Capital Fund Capacity Building program shall not be used to support inherently religious activities such as religious instruction, worship, or proselytization. Therefore, organizations must take steps to separate, in time or location, their inherently religious activities from the services funded under this Program. Regulations pertaining to the Equal Treatment For Faith-Based Organizations, which includes the prohibition against Federal funding of inherently religious activities, can be found at either 45 CFR 87.1 or the HHS Web site at
Grantees are subject to the requirements in 45 CFR part 74 (non-governmental) or 45 CFR part 92 (governmental) as well as 45 CFR part 87.
Financial Reports: Semi-Annually
Grantees will be required to submit program progress and financial reports (SF 269) throughout the project period. Program progress and financial reports are due 30 days after the reporting period. In addition, final programmatic and financial reports are due 90 days after the close of the project period.
Original reports and one copy should be mailed to: Administration for Children and Families, Office of Grants Management, Division of Discretionary Grants, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447.
Additional information about this program and its purpose can be located on the following Web sites:
Applicants will be sent acknowledgements of received applications.
As the authorized individual signing this grant application on behalf of (name of applicant), I hereby attest and certify that the most recent annual operational budget for (name of applicant) is less than $500,000, or that the tribal membership of (name of applicant) is less than 5,000.
Pursuant to this announcement, ACF will award funds to experienced organizations to deliver capacity-building services to faith-based and community organizations through the provision of training, technical assistance, and sub-awards.
Intermediary organizations will assist faith-based and community organizations with capacity-building activities in five critical areas: (1) Leadership development, (2) organizational development, (3) programs and services, (4) funding, and (5) community engagement. Capacity-building activities are designed to increase an organization's sustainability and effectiveness, enhance its ability to provide social services, diversify its funding sources, and create collaborations to better serve those most in need.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Community Services (OCS) announces that applications will be accepted for new grants pursuant to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Compassion Capital Fund (CCF) authorized under Section 1110 of the Social Security Act governing Social Services Research and Demonstration activities and the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. Law 108-447.
Pursuant to this announcement, ACF will award funds to experienced organizations to deliver capacity-building services to faith-based and community organizations through the provision of training, technical assistance, and sub-awards.
Intermediary organizations will assist faith-based and community organizations with capacity-building activities in five critical areas: (1) Leadership development, (2) organizational development, (3) programs and services, (4) funding, and (5) community engagement. Capacity-building activities are designed to increase an organization's sustainability and effectiveness, enhance its ability to provide social services, diversify its funding sources, and create collaborations to better serve those most in need.
Faith-based and community organizations have a long history of providing an array of important services to people in need in the United States. These organizations possess unique strengths that the government cannot duplicate. As a result, they are well positioned to assist individuals and families with the most pressing social service needs.
In recognition of this history and ability, President Bush believes it is in the public's interest to broaden Federal efforts to work with faith-based and community organizations and has made improving funding opportunities for such organizations a priority. CCF is a key part of the effort to enhance and expand the participation of faith-based and community groups serving those in need. Intermediary organizations awarded funds under this announcement will serve as partners to both the Federal government and to the faith-based and community organizations that they assist. The intermediaries will represent a diverse set of affiliations, and will assist community-level organizations that have a range of service goals, target populations, affiliations, and beliefs.
Historically, the CCF program has identified the following social service priorities: homelessness, prisoners reentering the community, children of prisoners, at-risk youth, addicts, elders in need, families in transition from welfare to work and organizations that provide marriage education and preparation services to help couples who choose marriage for themselves, develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages. Although the CCF program has addressed issues of at-risk youth in the past, this year, President Bush has specifically identified the need to focus on helping at-risk youth overcome the perilous risk of gang influence and involvement. Consequently, those interested in proposing at-risk youth activities are encouraged to propose projects that address these critical youth issues.
This announcement represents a new direction resulting from experience over the first three years of the CCF program. Consistent with the aim of a demonstration project, we intend to test innovative and creative approaches to grants in aid. Consequently, this announcement proposes a 17 month
The goal of the Compassion Capital Fund (CCF) Demonstration Program is to help grassroots faith-based and community organizations maximize their social impact as they provide services to those most in need including the homeless, prisoners reentering the community, children of prisoners, at-risk youth, addicts, elders in need, families in transition from welfare to work and couples who choose marriage for themselves, to develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages.
The CCF Demonstration Program provides funding for intermediary organizations in well-defined geographic locations with a proven track record of community involvement and experience in providing training and technical assistance to smaller faith- and community-based organizations in their communities. These intermediary organizations serve as a bridge between the Federal government and the grassroots faith-based and community organizations that the CCF Demonstration Program is designed to assist.
The CCF Demonstration Program does not fund direct social service provision. Rather, the CCF Demonstration Program funds capacity-building activities that produce measurable impact resulting in more sustainable organizations. By addressing issues that are critical to the long-term viability of non-profit organizations, faith-based and community organizations are better prepared and positioned to understand and meet the needs of their communities.
ACF encourages applications from organizations that propose to work with and have experience working with faith-based and community organizations that historically have not been supported by governmental funds. Intermediaries must be established organizations with well-developed connections to and working relationships with the non-profit community in the geographic area they propose to serve. In most cases, intermediaries or their partners will be physically located in the geographic area they propose to serve. In addition, for an intermediary organization to provide effective training and technical assistance in capacity building, they should demonstrate a cultural sensitivity that establishes credibility with their target audience of faith-based and community organizations in the geographic area they select.
Intermediary organizations will provide two services within their communities:
1. Capacity-building training and technical assistance to faith-based and community organizations; and
2. Financial support—through sub-awards—to some subset of the organizations receiving training and technical assistance.
ACF seeks intermediary organizations with demonstrated ability to provide training and technical assistance to faith-based and community organizations in five critical areas of capacity building: (1) Leadership development, (2) organizational development, (3) programs/services, (4) funding, and (5) community engagement. Applicants must demonstrate the ability to provide training and technical assistance in all five areas of capacity building. This may be accomplished by a single organization, or through partnerships among several organizations. If organizations propose to collaborate to provide CCF intermediary services, they must have a well-developed working relationship and a history of working together prior to announcement of this funding opportunity.
Applicants must submit a coherent plan for providing training and technical assistance in all five of the critical areas of capacity building. Training and technical assistance activities must produce measurable results for the organizations served. Examples of the kinds of activities that relate to each element are listed below. This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive:
Intermediaries must demonstrate their ability to correctly assess the highest impact capacity building needs of the organizations they propose to serve. Applicants must describe the process they will use to assist faith-based and community organizations with the identification of organizational needs. Applicants must include a detailed description of pre- and post-assessment methods to be used to determine the measurable impact of training, technical assistance and sub-award activities provided.
For purposes of this program announcement, training will refer to
Technical assistance must be provided on a long-term, ongoing basis, rather than through single or short-term contacts (such as a nationwide series of seminars or conferences). The training and technical assistance strategy must address a minimum of two (2) of the identified needs for each faith-based and community organization served; although, it is expected that in aggregate the faith-based and community organizations served will represent the full range of all five critical areas. A minimum of fifty percent (50 percent) of training and technical assistance provided by an intermediary must be in the form of direct and individualized technical assistance to address the identified priority needs of the faith-based and community organization (
CCF intermediaries will be required to issue sub-awards in an amount representing at least forty percent (40 percent) of the total Federal funds requested. (Please see section V.1 for a detailed description regarding sub-award strategy).
ACF expects to work closely with organizations that receive funding to ensure that CCF monies are used appropriately and in the most effective manner possible. Intermediary organizations that receive CCF awards will be required to develop, with guidance from and in consultation with ACF, a detailed plan to issue sub-awards within 60 days of receipt of an award under this announcement. Please note that this plan will be based on the sub-award strategy outlined in Section V.1. ACF will work with grantees to develop their sub-award strategy into a concrete sub-award plan. ACF must review and approve this plan prior to the issuance of any sub-awards using Federal funds awarded under this announcement. Intermediary organizations must report on the use of funds for sub-awards. Intermediary organizations will also be required to develop, with guidance from and in consultation with ACF, an evaluation plan within six months of receipt of an award for working with sub-awardees to develop outcome measures and to evaluate the activities supported by the sub-awards.
Approved applicants must be willing to work closely with ACF, and any entities funded by ACF, to coordinate, assist, or evaluate the activities of the intermediary organizations providing technical assistance and issuing sub-awards.
Proposed budgets should include the cost of travel-related expenses for two key personnel with responsibility for the CCF award to attend a two-day orientation workshop with Federal officials in Washington, DC. This meeting will focus on orientation to Federal objectives for the project; information about related activities supported by HHS and other Federal agencies; Federal grants management requirements; and coordination between and among the approved intermediary organizations and other entities funded by ACF to be involved in the CCF initiative.
Direct Federal grants, sub-award funds, or contracts under the Compassion Capital Fund Demonstration Program shall not be used to support inherently religious activities such as religious instruction, worship, or proselytization. Therefore, organizations must take steps to separate, in time or location, their inherently religious activities from the CCF-funded services. Regulations pertaining to the Equal Treatment For Faith-Based Organizations, which includes the prohibition against Federal funding of inherently religious activities, can be found at either 45 CFR 87.1 or the HHS Web site at
Grantees may be asked to participate in a national evaluation of the Compassion Capital Fund program. The program will cooperate with any research or evaluation efforts sponsored by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF).
A cooperative agreement is Federal assistance in which substantial Federal Involvement is anticipated. Responsibilities of Federal Staff and the successful applicants are negotiated prior to an award. The grantees funded under this announcement will work collaboratively with the CCF program office on the development of products and prior to finalization and dissemination will submit products such as training and technical assistance plans and sub-award plans to the CCF program office for review and approval. Please see
This announcement is inviting applications for project periods up to 17 months. Awards, however, will be made on a competitive basis, for a 17-month budget period.
Yes.
Grantees must provide at least
All applicants must have a Dun & Bradstreet number. On June 27, 2003 the Office of Management and Budget published in the
Please ensure that your organization has a DUNS number. You may acquire a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line on 1-866-705-5711 or you may request a number on-line at
Non-profit organizations applying for funding are required to submit proof of their non-profit status.
Proof of non-profit status is any one of the following:
• A reference to the applicant organization's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in the IRS Code.
• A copy of a currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate.
• A statement from a State taxing body, State attorney general, or other appropriate State official certifying that the applicant organization has a non-profit status and that none of the net earning accrue to any private shareholders or individuals.
• A certified copy of the organization's certificate of incorporation or similar document that clearly establishes non-profit status.
• Any of the items in the subparagraphs immediately above for a State or national parent organization and a statement signed by the parent organization that the applicant organization is a local non-profit affiliate.
Private, non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit with their applications the survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms,” “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants,” titled, “Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants,” at:
Any application received after 4:30 p.m. eastern time on the deadline date will not be considered for competition.
You may submit your application to us in either electronic or paper format.To submit an application electronically, please use the
Please note the following if you plan to submit your application electronically via Grants.gov
• Electronic submission is voluntary, but strongly encouraged.
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.
• To use Grants.gov, you, as the applicant, must have a DUNS Number and register in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). You should allow a minimum of five days to complete the CCR registration.
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit a grant application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit an application in paper format.
• You may submit all documents electronically, including all information typically included on the SF 424 and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• Your application must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this program announcement.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The Administration for Children and Families will retrieve your application from Grants.gov.
• We may request that you provide original signatures on forms at a later date.
• You may access the electronic application for this program on
• You must search for the downloadable application package by the CFDA number.
An original and two copies of the complete application are required. The original and each of the two copies must include all required forms, certifications, assurances, and appendices, be signed by an authorized representative, have original signatures, and be submitted unbound.
Private, non-profit organizations are encouraged to submit with their applications the survey located under “Grant Related Documents and Forms,” “Survey for Private, Non-Profit Grant Applicants,” titled, “Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants,” at:
The Table of Contents must not exceed one (1) page.
The Project Abstract must not exceed one (1) page.
The Project Narrative must not exceed twenty-five (25) pages. Pages submitted beyond the first 25 in the application's Project Narrative section will be removed prior to panel review.
The Appendix must not exceed twenty (20) pages. The Appendix includes the sample assessment tool(s) to be used to assist organizations served in identifying organizational needs in the five critical capacity-building areas, cost share commitment letters, and any other additional supporting documentation.
All pages of the application must be sequentially numbered. The Budget, Narrative Budget Justification, Standard Forms for Assurances, Certifications, Disclosures, and cost-share letters are not included in the Project Narrative and Appendix page limitations.
Applicants are requested not to send pamphlets, brochures, or other printed material along with their applications as these pose copying difficulties. These materials, if submitted, will not be included in the review process. In addition, applicants should not submit any additional letters of endorsement beyond any that may be required.
Applicants seeking financial assistance under this announcement must file the Standard Form (SF) 424, Application for Federal Assistance; SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs; SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs. The forms may be reproduced for use in submitting applications. Applicants must sign and return the standard forms with their application.
Applicants must furnish prior to award an executed copy of the Standard Form LLL, Certification Regarding Lobbying, when applying for an award in excess of $100,000. Applicants who have used non-Federal funds for lobbying activities in connection with receiving assistance under this announcement shall complete a disclosure form, if applicable, with their applications (approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0348-0046). Applicants must sign and return the certification with their application.
Applicants must also understand they will be held accountable for the smoking prohibition included within Pub. L. 103-227, Title XII Environmental Tobacco Smoke (also known as the PRO-KIDS Act of 1994). A copy of the
Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with all Federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination. By signing and submitting the applications, applicants are providing the certification and need not mail back the certification form. Complete the standard forms and the associated certifications and assurances based on the instructions on the forms. The forms and certifications may be found at:
Please see
Applications hand carried by applicants, applicant couriers, other representatives of the applicant, or by overnight/express mail couriers shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., eastern time, at the address referenced in
ACF cannot accommodate transmission of applications by facsimile. Therefore, applications transmitted to ACF by fax will not be accepted regardless of date or time of submission and time of receipt.
Any application received after 4:30 p.m. eastern time on the deadline date will not be considered for competition.
Applicants using express/overnight mail services should allow two working days prior to the deadline date for receipt of applications. Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed.
This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” and 45 CFR part 100, “Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services Programs and Activities.” Under the Order, States may design their own processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance under covered programs.
As of October 1, 2004, the following jurisdictions have elected to participate in the Executive Order process: Arkansas, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, American Samoa, Guam, North Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands. As these jurisdictions have elected to participate in the Executive Order process, they have established SPOCs. Applicants from participating jurisdictions should contact their SPOC, as soon as possible, to alert them of prospective applications and receive instructions. Applicants must submit all required materials, if any, to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no submittal is required) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a. Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2).
A SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards. SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine endorsements as official recommendations. Additionally, SPOCs are requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and those official State process recommendations which may trigger the “accommodate or explain” rule.
When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be addressed to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Grants Management, Division of Discretionary Grants, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 4th floor, Washington, DC 20447.
Although the remaining jurisdictions have chosen not to participate in the process, entities that meet the eligibility requirements of the program are still eligible to apply for a grant even if a State, Territory, Commonwealth, etc. does not have a SPOC. Therefore, applicants from these jurisdictions, or for projects administered by federally-recognized Indian Tribes, need take no action in regard to E.O. 12372.
The official list, including addresses, of the jurisdictions elected to participate in E.O. 12372 can be found on the following URL:
A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and Territory is included with the application materials for this announcement.
Fiscal year (FY) 2003 and (FY) 2004 Compassion Capital Fund Demonstration Program grantees are ineligible to apply.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),Administration
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),Administration for Children and Families Office of Community Services,Compassion Capital Fund Demonstration Program,1815 North Fort Meyer Drive, Suite 300,Arlington, Virginia 22209,Attention: Attention: Barbara Ziegler Johnson.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed and reviewing the collection information.
The project description is approved under OMB control number 0970-0139 which expires 4/30/2007.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The following are instructions and guidelines on how to prepare the “Project Summary/Abstract” and “Full Project Description” sections of the application. Under the evaluation criteria section, note that each criterion is preceded by the generic evaluation requirement under the ACF Uniform Project Description (UPD).
Provide information on the applicant organization(s) and cooperating partners, such as organizational charts, financial statements, audit reports or statements from CPAs/Licensed Public Accountants, Employer Identification Numbers, names of bond carriers, contact persons and telephone numbers, child care licenses and other documentation of professional accreditation, information on compliance with Federal/State/local government standards, documentation of experience in the program area, and other pertinent information. If the applicant is a non-profit organization, submit proof of non-profit status in its application.
The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing: (a) A reference to the applicant organization's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in the IRS Code; (b) a copy of a currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate, (c) a statement from a State taxing body, State attorney general, or other appropriate State official certifying that the applicant organization has a non-profit status and that none of the net earnings accrue to any private shareholders or individuals; (d) a certified copy of the organization's certificate of incorporation or similar document that clearly establishes non-profit status, (e) any of the items immediately above for a State or national parent organization and a statement signed by the parent organization that the applicant organization is a local non-profit affiliate.
Clearly identify the physical, economic, social, financial, institutional, and/or other problem(s) requiring a solution. The need for assistance must be demonstrated and the principal and subordinate objectives of the project must be clearly stated; supporting documentation, such as letters of support and testimonials from concerned interests other than the applicant, may be included. Any relevant data based on planning studies should be included or referred to in the endnotes/footnotes. Incorporate demographic data and participant/beneficiary information, as needed. In developing the project description, the applicant may volunteer or be requested to provide information on the total range of projects currently being conducted and supported (or to be initiated), some of which may be outside the scope of the program announcement.
Outline a plan of action that describes the scope and detail of how the proposed work will be accomplished. Account for all functions or activities identified in the application. Cite factors that might accelerate or decelerate the work and state your reason for taking the proposed approach rather than others. Describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technological innovations, reductions in cost or time, or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in such terms as the number of people to be served and the number of activities accomplished.
When accomplishments cannot be quantified by activity or function, list them in chronological order to show the schedule of accomplishments and their target dates.
If any data is to be collected, maintained, and/or disseminated, clearance may be required from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This clearance pertains to any “collection of information that is conducted or sponsored by ACF.”
List organizations, cooperating entities, consultants, or other key individuals who will work on the project along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution.
Identify the results and benefits to be derived.
Provide a budget with line item detail and detailed calculations for each budget object class identified on the Budget Information form. Detailed calculations must include estimation methods, quantities, unit costs, and other similar quantitative detail sufficient for the calculation to be duplicated. Also include a breakout by the funding sources identified in Block 15 of the SF-424.
Provide a narrative budget justification that describes how the categorical costs are derived. Discuss the necessity, reasonableness, and allocability of the proposed costs.
Recipients might be required to make available to ACF pre-award review and procurement documents, such as request for proposals or invitations for bids, independent cost estimates, etc.
Whenever the applicant intends to delegate part of the project to another agency, the applicant must provide a detailed budget and budget narrative for each delegate agency, by agency title, along with the required supporting information referred to in these instructions.
Enter the total of all other costs. Such costs, where applicable and appropriate, may include but are not limited to insurance, food, medical and dental costs (noncontractual), professional services costs, space and equipment rentals, printing and publication, computer use, training costs, such as tuition and stipends, staff development costs, and administrative costs.
In considering how applicants will carry out the responsibilities addressed under this announcement, competing applications for financial assistance will be reviewed and evaluated against the following criteria:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Applicants will also be evaluated on the extent to which the above information is provided with regard to consultants or staff from other organizations proposed to work on the project.
An application will be evaluated on the extent to which it demonstrates that the organization is established and has well-developed connections to and working relationships with the non-profit community in the geographic area they propose to serve.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
Applications will be evaluated on the extent to which the outlined strategy is comprehensive, describes the process that the applicant will employ to outreach to and identify and select organizations to receive training and technical assistance, and estimates the types and number of organizations expected to receive training and technical assistance. For purposes of this program announcement, training will refer to group-based adult education and skill-building activities (
Applications will be evaluated on the extent to which training and technical assistance plans address a minimum of two (2) of the identified needs for each faith and community based organization served. A minimum of 50 percent of the technical assistance provided by intermediaries must be in the form of direct and individualized technical assistance to address the identified priority needs of the faith and community-based organization (
(c)
• Sub-award recipients will be chosen through a fair and open competitive process that includes outreach to both faith-based and community organizations.
• Sub-award recipients will not be pre-selected. The criteria for selection of sub-awardees will not include consideration of the religious nature of a group or the religious nature of the program it offers.
• Intermediary organizations will provide ongoing technical assistance
• Priority for sub-awards will be given to organizations that historically have not received grants from the Federal government.
• Priority for sub-awards will be given to organizations implementing program(s) in several priority areas including: the homeless, elders in need, at-risk youth, particularly those facing the specific risk of gang influence and involvement, families in transition from welfare to work, those in need of intensive rehabilitation such as addicts or prisoners, and couples who choose marriage for themselves, to develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages.
• Intermediaries will not require sub-award applicants to provide matching funds or give them a preference in the selection process if they offer matching funds in their applications.
• Intermediaries will not require sub-award applicants to have 501(c)(3) status or to identify a sponsoring organization with 501(c)(3) status.
• Organizations that partner with an intermediary to deliver technical assistance or provide cost-sharing funds for the proposed project will not to be eligible for sub-awards, unless approved by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF).
• Sub-awards will be in amounts manageable for a small organization.
• Intermediaries will not provide recipients of a CCF sub-award a second sub-award for the same purpose for the duration of the grant.
• Intermediaries will inform sub-awardees that their activities are governed by all applicable Federal laws and regulations including those in 45 CFR 87.1, which state that direct Federal grants, sub-award funds, or contracts under the Compassion Capital Fund Demonstration Program shall not be used to support inherently religious activities such as religious instruction, worship, or proselytization.
• The central focus of an intermediary proposed sub-award concept will be capacity-building activities that further the sustainability of sub-awardees' social service efforts. Sub-awards will be used to assist organizations in differing stages of development. For example, funds may be provided to fledgling organizations to improve their basic functions, such as attaining 501(c)(3) status or developing sound financial systems.
• Sub-awards will not be used to provide direct services, but rather improve the sub-awardee's efficiency and capacity.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
Since ACF will be using non-Federal reviewers in the review process, applicants have the option of omitting from the application copies (not the original) of specific salary rates or amounts for individuals specified in the application budget.
No grant award will be made on the basis of an incomplete application.
Applications received by the due date will be reviewed and scored competitively. Experts in the field, generally persons from outside the Federal government, will use the evaluation criteria listed in Part V of this announcement to review and score the applications. The results of this review will be a primary factor in making funding decisions. ACF may also solicit comments from Regional Office staff and other Federal agencies. ACF may consider a variety of factors in addition to the review criteria identified above, including geographic diversity/coverage and types of applicant organizations, in order to ensure that the interests of the Federal Government are met in making the final selections. Furthermore, ACF may limit the number of awards made to the same or affiliated organizations although they would serve different geographic areas. Please note that applicants that do not comply with
As stated, CCF monies must be used towards the organization's capacity-building and not for direct services. Additionally, organizations that receive CCF funds may not engage in inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization, as part of the programs or services funded with CCF funds. If an organization conducts such inherently religious activities, the activities must be offered separately, in time or location, from the programs or services funded with CCF assistance, and participation must be voluntary for beneficiaries of the CCF-funded programs or services. In addition, an organization receiving CCF funds shall not, in providing CCF-funded services, discriminate against a program beneficiary or prospective program beneficiary on the basis of religion or religious belief.
Applications that are approved but unfunded may be held over for funding in the next funding cycle, pending the availability of funds, for a period not to exceed one year.
The successful applicants will be notified through the issuance of a Financial Assistance Award document which sets forth the amount of funds granted, the terms and conditions of the grant, the effective date of the grant, the budget period for which initial support will be given, the non-Federal share to be provided, and the total project period for which support is contemplated. The Financial Assistance Award will be signed by the Grants Officer and transmitted via postal mail.
Organizations whose applications will not be funded will be notified in writing.
Direct Federal grants, sub-award funds, or contracts under this Compassion Capital Fund Intermediary Demonstration Program shall not be used to support inherently religious activities such as religious instruction, worship, or proselytization. Therefore, organizations must take steps to separate, in time or location, their inherently religious activities from the services funded under this Program. Regulations pertaining to the Equal Treatment For Faith-Based Organizations, which includes the prohibition against Federal funding of inherently religious activities, can be found at either 45 CFR 87.1 or the HHS Web site at
45 CFR Part 74
45 CFR Part 92
Grantees are subject to the requirements in 45 CFR part 74 (non-governmental) or 45 CFR part 92 (governmental) as well as 45 CFR part 87.
Grantees will be required to submit program progress and financial reports (SF 269) throughout the project period. Program progress and financial reports are due 30 days after the reporting period. In addition, final programmatic and financial reports are due 90 days after the close of the project period.
Original reports and one copy should be mailed to:
Grantees may be asked to participate in a national evaluation of the Compassion Capital Fund program. The program will cooperate with any research or evaluation efforts sponsored by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF).
Additional information about this program and its purpose can be located on the following Web sites:
Applicants will be sent acknowledgements of received applications.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for GEODON and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Submit written comments and petitions to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Claudia Grillo, Office of Regulatory Policy (HFD-013), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 240-453-6699.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive,
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted, as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product GEODON (ziprasidone hydrochloride). GEODON is indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for GEODON (U.S. Patent No. 4,831,031) from Pfizer, Inc., and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated July 16, 2003, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of GEODON represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Shortly thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for GEODON is 3,933 days. Of this time, 2,511 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,422 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,825 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The Indian Health Service (IHS), with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) of the National Institutes of Health announces an initiative to support the Native American Research Centers for Health (NARCH) grant. This funding mechanism will develop opportunities for conducting research and research training to meet the needs of American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities. The estimated funds (total costs) available for the first year of support for the entire initiative is expected to be over $2.2 million in FY 2006. The actual amount may vary, depending on the response to the Request for Applications (RFA) and the availability of funds. Eligibles include federally-recognized Indian Tribes, Tribally sanctioned non-profit Tribal organizations, Non-profit national or area Indian health boards, and consortiums of two or more of those Tribes, Tribal organizations, or health boards.
The NARCH initiative will support partnerships between AI/AN Tribes or Tribally-based organizations such as the National Indian Health Board and Area Health Boards, and institutions that conduct intensive academic-level biomedical, behavioral and health services research. These partnerships are called Native American Research Centers for Health (NARCH). The purposes of the NARCH initiative are:
1. To develop a cadre of AI/AN scientists and health professionals engaged in biomedical, clinical, behavioral and health services research who will be competitive in securing
2. To increase the capacity of both research-intensive institutions and AI/AN organizations to work in partnership to reduce distrust by AI/AN communities and people toward research; and
3. To encourage competitive research linked to the health priorities of the AI/AN organizations and to reducing health disparities. These purposes will be achieved by supporting student development projects, faculty/researcher development projects, and research projects (including pilot projects) developed by each NARCH partnership.
The AI/AN Tribal nations and communities have long experienced poorer health status than other Americans. Although major gains of reducing health disparities were made in the last half of the twentieth century, most gains stopped by the mid 1980s (Trends in Indian Health 1998-99) and a few diseases,
Additional factors known to contribute to health status and disparities include:
1. Family, home, and work environments;
2. General or culturally specific health practices;
3. Social support systems;
4. Lack of access to culturally-appropriate health care; and
5. Attitudes toward health.
Yet none of these alone or in combination accounts for all documented differences. Health disparities of AI/ANs may also reflect a lack of research relevant to improve their health status. Many AI/ANs distrust research for historical reasons. One approach that combats this distrust is to ensure that Tribes are senior partners in training and research that involves them, as for example in community-based participatory research. This approach is especially helpful to design both training relevant to researchers from Tribal communities, and research relevant to the health needs of the communities.
Research Objectives: Due to the complexity of factors contributing to the health and disease of AI/ANs, and to their health disparities compared with other Americans, the collaborative efforts of the agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the collaboration of researchers and AI/AN communities, are needed to achieve significant improvements in the health status of AI/AN people. To accomplish this goal, in addition to objectives set by the Tribe, Tribal Organization or Indian Health Board, the IHS NARCH program will pursue the following program objectives:
A. To Develop a Cadre of AI/AN Scientists and Health Professionals—Offering opportunities to develop more AI/AN scientists and health professionals engaged in research, and to conduct biomedical, clinical, behavioral and health services research that is responsive to the needs of the AI/AN community and the goals of this initiative; Faculty/researchers and students at each proposed NARCH will develop investigator-initiated, scientifically meritorious research projects, including pilot research projects, and will be supported through science education projects designed to increase the numbers of, and to improve the research skills of, AI/AN investigators and investigators involved with AI/ANs.
B. To Enhance Partnerships—Recent community-based participatory research suggests that AI/AN communities can work collaboratively in partnership with health researchers to further the research needs of AI/ANs. Fully utilizing all cultural and scientific knowledge, strengths, and competencies, such partnerships can lead to better understanding of the biological, genetic, behavioral, psychological, cultural, social, and economic factors either promoting or hindering improved health status of AI/ANs, and generate the development and evaluation of interventions to improve their health status.
C. To Reduce Health Disparities—In the amended Indian Health Care Improvement Act, Public Law (Pub. L.) 94-437, IHS was legislatively mandated to improve the delivery of effective health care to AI/ANs. In the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, NIH was encouraged to increase the number of under-represented minorities participating in biomedical, clinical, and behavioral research, including studies on drug abuse and alcoholism, and the examination of the role of resiliency in the prevention and treatment of those conditions. Also, the “Initiative To Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health” by HHS (
Reducing health disparities among AI/AN communities and individuals may be fostered by greater understanding of how to enhance their strengths and resilience. While AI/AN communities have relied on health research and medical science to reduce health disparities, they also have relied on their own psychological, organizational, and cultural assets and strengths to survive major harms and disruptions over the centuries, and to rebound from insults to health.
The mission of NIH is to acquire new knowledge that will lead to better health by understanding the processes underlying health and disease that in turn will help prevent, detect, diagnose, and treat disease and disability. The NARCH initiative works toward the NIH mission by supporting research that discovers the interrelationships among the many factors that contribute to health and disease, and by helping train and promote researchers concerned with AI/AN health.
Awards under this initiative will be administered using the competing institutional grant mechanism of the IHS. This funding opportunity will be
The estimated funds (total costs) available for the first year of support for the entire initiative is expected to be over $ 2.2 million in Fiscal Year 2006. The actual amount may vary, depending on the response to the RFA and availability of funds. An application may request a project period not to exceed four years of support, and direct costs not to exceed $800,000 in the first year. Direct costs to the applicant include the entire cost of each subcontract—that is, each subcontract's direct cost plus the subcontract's appropriate Facilities and Administration (F&A) cost. Because it is anticipated that all budget requests will exceed $250,000, the modular grant requirements would not apply to this RFA.
The maximum grant period may not exceed four years, with the opportunity for a competing renewal at the end of that period.
The proposed NARCH must be a working partnership of the AI/AN organization and of the research-intensive institution. Applicants eligible to receive a NARCH award are the AI/AN organizations of the partnerships. As the grantee, the AI/AN organization will define criteria and eligibility for participation in all aspects of the partnership, consistent with this announcement. A minimum of 30 percent of the grant funds must remain with that AI/AN organization, that is, no more than 70 percent may be subcontracted to other institutions or organizations.
The AI/AN applicant must be one of the following:
A. A federally recognized Indian Tribe; or
B. A Tribally sanctioned non-profit Tribal organization; or
C. A non-profit national or area Indian health board; or
D. A consortium of two or more of those Tribes, Tribal organizations, or health boards.
Cost sharing or matching is not required.
The Research-Intensive Partner must be an accredited public or private nonprofit university or other institution that has an established record of conducting research into the health problems of AI/AN; has demonstrated a commitment to enhancing the capability of AI/AN faculty/researchers, students, investigators, and communities to engage in biomedical, behavioral, clinical and health services research; and has demonstrated a commitment to mentoring AI/AN faculty/researchers, students, and investigators.
The Principal Investigator, the individual responsible for the administration (including fiscal management) of the overall project, must have his/her primary appointment with the AI/AN applicant organization. Special arrangements of employment, such as inter-organizational personnel agreements, are permissible. The Principal Investigator may be, but is not required to be, the NARCH Program Director or a Research Project Investigator.
The NARCH Program Director is the individual responsible for the day-to-day leadership and management of the research and training programs within the proposed NARCH. The Program Director may be, but is not required to be, the Student and Faculty/Researcher Development Director or a Research Project Investigator.
The NARCH initiative is an institutional developmental grant mechanism that places an emphasis on the continual development of students and faculty/researchers. In order to be included as the Student and Faculty Development Director, the prospective director must have a faculty/researcher appointment at the research-intensive institution or equivalent appointment at the AI/AN organization or other consortium partner, and must demonstrate that he/she has the knowledge, skills, and capabilities to mentor students and faculty/ researchers and to generate and direct development and mentoring programs.
The Student and Faculty Development Director may be the NARCH Program Director. Faculty/researchers and students should be supported in research education activities that improve their skills and abilities to be successful at the next stage of their professional development. To be included as a participant for faculty/researcher development in the proposed NARCH, the individual must have a faculty/researcher appointment at the research-intensive institution or equivalent appointment at the AI/AN organization or other consortium partner.
The NARCH initiative is an institutional developmental grant mechanism that places an emphasis on continual improvement of the research competitiveness of the research investigators. In order to be included as a research project investigator in the proposed NARCH, a prospective investigator must have a faculty appointment at the research-intensive institution or equivalent appointment at the AI/AN organization or other consortium partner, and must show that he/she has the need, based on institutional, departmental, and professional development plans, to enhance his/her research knowledge, skills, and capabilities by engaging in the proposed research program and associated activities.
It is the policy of the IHS that all research involving AI/AN Tribes be approved by the Tribal governments with jurisdiction. Therefore, the following documentation is required as part of the application:
• For a federally recognized Indian Tribe—a resolution of support from the Tribal government must be part of the application. Applications that involve more than one Indian Tribe must include resolutions of support from all participating Tribes. For an eligible consortium of Tribes—a resolution of support from each Tribe of the consortium must be included.
• For a Tribally sanctioned non-profit Tribal organization—specific Tribal resolution(s) of support will not be required if the current Tribal resolution(s) under which the organization operates encompasses the proposed application. (A copy of the current operational resolution(s) must be submitted with the application.)
An official signed resolution must be received by the Division of Grants Operations, IHS, at the Reyes Building, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP 100, Rockville, MD 20852. A grant will not be awarded unless the signed resolution is received.
For a Non-profit national or area Indian health board, or a consortium of those eligible Indian health boards—a
Awards under this initiative will be administered using the competing institutional grant mechanism of the IHS, and will be reviewed using the NIH S06 mechanism.
NARCH Program Official, Reyes Building, 801 Thompson Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852. Applicants are strongly encouraged to establish eligibility of their proposed applications prior to submission. Inquiries about eligibility should be addressed to Timothy L. Taylor, Ph.D., at (301) 443-1549. The application package will be posted on the IHS Research Program Web site, at:
The NIH PHS 398 application instructions are available at:
There will be no acknowledgment of receipt of the application.
A. A proposed NARCH may include any or all of the following components: student development projects; faculty/researcher development projects; research projects (including pilot projects); and “core” administrative facility.
B. The content of the application should explain the components of the application, and how they help meet the purposes of the NARCH initiative. A description should be provided of the current state of the research and research training enterprise at the proposed NARCH and its institutional and community partners, including faculty/researcher and student profiles.
A clear statement should be presented of the overall goals, specific measurable objectives, and anticipated milestones. These elements should be presented in the context of needed improvements in the partners' organizational infrastructure and environment for research.
Documentation should be provided to establish that the research-intensive partner is an institution with a record of conducting research into the health of AI/ANs, and that it has a demonstrated commitment to the special encouragement of, and assistance to, AI/AN faculty/researchers, students, investigators, and communities for enhancing their capacity to engage in biomedical, behavioral and health services research. Documentation about the nature of the partnership itself should be included, such as: The process to develop the application and proposed NARCH itself, the past and future efforts to increase the capacity of the partners to improve their partnership, and to contribute to the success of the NARCH.
A plan for assessment of the benefits of the activities by the proposed NARCH on specific, measurable outcomes identified in the application should be provided. IHS and NIGMS recognize that Tribes, Tribally-based organizations, and research-intensive institutions are diverse in their missions, their health and economic status, and their cultures. Such an assessment could include a self-study by the proposed NARCH and its partners, which focuses on fact-finding, program evaluation, and recommendations for improvement in key areas.
Strategies for determining the initial and ongoing success of their efforts for organizational development should also be presented. It is expected that each proposed NARCH will develop its own set of strategies that best match its circumstances. Guidance and suggestions for program evaluation of a proposed NARCH can be obtained from
Applicants are strongly urged to contact NARCH initiative staff at an early stage to request the specific supplementary instructions for the PHS 398 for the NARCH grants. Supplementary instructions may be obtained from the initiative contacts listed under VII. Agency Contacts, and will be posted at:
Applications must be prepared using the PHS 398 research grant application instructions and forms (revised 9/2004). As of October 1, 2003, applications must have a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number as the Universal Identifier when applying for Federal grants or cooperative agreements. The DUNS number can be obtained by calling (866) 705-5711 or through the Web site at
• Organization name.
• Organization address.
• Organization telephone number.
• Name of CEO, Executive Director, President,
• Legal structure of the organization.
• Year organization started.
• Primary business (activity) line.
• Total number of employees.
C. The RFA label available at
D. If Student Development Projects are proposed, the NARCH application should describe new programs, modifications or additions to existing programs of the partners that encourage and facilitate AI/AN students to enter, advance, and remain in research careers. Such projects might include, but are not limited to, providing employment as research assistants in research projects of research-active mentors with an explicit mentoring plan, providing other mentoring with an explicit mentoring plan, providing workshops to improve technical or communication skills, providing motivating seminars or journal clubs highlighting problems of interest to students, providing contact with role models, and providing opportunities to travel to present results at national scientific meetings. If research mentorships or apprenticeships are proposed, the application should
The application should describe how the development plans for the student will meet both the individual's professional development goals, and one purpose of the NARCH initiative: To develop a cadre of AI/AN scientists and health professionals. The application must have an evaluation plan for the project(s) that indicates the anticipated outcomes relative to the current baseline data. For example, one outcome might be the improved retention of students in science majors. The application should indicate the anticipated (quantitative) improvement relative to the current retention rate.
A student in a NARCH Student Development Project must be a full-time or part-time student officially enrolled in an educational program leading to an undergraduate or graduate degree, or in a post-doctoral educational program, or (if well justified) in late high school. A helpful book about mentoring science students is found at
E. If Faculty/Researcher Development Projects are proposed, the NARCH application should describe the need, proposed activity, and anticipated outcomes. Faculty/researcher development projects might include, but are not limited to, short-term mentored research experiences in the lab of an active NIH-extramurally-funded researcher with an explicit mentoring plan, long-term general mentoring under an explicit mentoring plan, or attendance at workshops or courses or national meetings needed for acquiring specific skills or methodologies needed for prospective research. As with student development projects, the application should document the experience, proposed commitment, and quality of the mentors, teachers, or experience in providing guidance and advice to faculty/researchers, and in fostering the development of academic and community-based AI/AN research. The application must also describe the evaluation plan for the faculty/researcher development project. The application must clearly describe how the development plans for faculty/researchers will meet both the individual's professional development goals, and two purposes of the NARCH initiative:
• To develop a cadre of AI/AN scientists and health professionals, and
• To enhance the partnership of the proposed NARCH.
F. NARCH applications may include a maximum of five (5) regular Research Projects and a maximum of five (5) Pilot Research Projects. Unlike regular research projects, a pilot research project is limited in scope and is not expected to have preliminary data. It is also limited to a budget of no more than $50,000 direct costs per year for four years. The pilot research project is intended for faculty/researchers without current Federal research support. Support for faculty/researchers participating in pilot research projects is preparatory to seeking more substantial funding from NIH research grant programs (
Research projects (including pilot research projects) proposed under this initiative must be in research areas normally funded by any of the National Institutes of Health. Research projects addressing health disparities and the health priorities of the AI/AN partner are especially encouraged.
A listing of grants recently funded by NIH may be found at CRISP (Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects), a searchable database of federally funded biomedical research projects conducted at universities, hospitals, and other research institutions. It may be accessed at (
Each research project or pilot research project should follow the instructions provided in PHS 398 (revised 9/2004) for preparing research grant applications. The professional development goals must clearly describe specific objectives and milestones which should include, but are not limited to, improving competitiveness in acquiring grant support. The applicant should describe how successful completion of the proposed research project will improve the research skills, and will help develop the students and faculty/researchers, thus contributing to the overall goals and specific measurable objectives of the proposed NARCH.
Each research project or pilot research project must follow the IHS policy concerning Tribal approval, that all research involving AI/AN Tribes be approved by the Tribal governments with jurisdiction. That is, each grantee must include a resolution of approval from the Tribal government[s], or (if applicable) a letter of support signed by the director of the eligible AI/AN organization, or both (if applicable) for projects that involve people or community[ies] of an AI/AN Tribe, or an eligible non-profit organization.
A. Letter of Intent Deadline: August 1, 2005.
Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the title of the proposed NARCH, the name, address, and telephone number of the Principal Investigator and its Program Director, the identities of the partners and of key personnel, and the number and title of this RFA.
The letter of intent should be received before 6 p.m. EST on May 1, 2005, by Mushtaq A. Khan, D.V.M., Ph.D., Chief, Digestive and Respiratory Sciences IRGs, Center for Scientific Review, MSC 7818, Room 2176; 6701 Rockledge Drive; Bethesda, MD 20892 (20817 for Fed Ex)Phone: (301) 435-1778; Fax (301) 451-2043; E-Mail:
Letters may be submitted by mail, fax or e-mail. Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows the IHS and NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR) staffs to estimate the potential review workload and avoid conflict of interest in the review.
B. Application Deadline: September 14, 2005.
The applications must be received before 6 p.m. EST on September 14, 2005. If an application is received after that date, it will be returned to the applicant without review. To be considered timely, an application must be sent on or before the deadline date. If sent timely (with documented proof of mailing) but received after the deadline, an application will be accepted for review only if it is received in time for orderly processing. Competing applications not meeting the deadline date specified in the announcement are considered late applications and will not be considered for funding under that announcement. The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) will not accept any application in response to this RFA that
This funding opportunity is not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” A State approval is not required.
Grantees are allowed a reasonable period of time in which to submit required financial and performance reports. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in the imposition of special award provisions, or cause other eligible projects or activities involving that grantee organization, or the individual responsible for the delinquency to not be funded. Failure to obtain prior approval for change in Scope, Principal Investigator, Grantee Institutions, Successor in Interest, or Recipient Institute Name, undertaking any activities disapproved or restricted as a condition of the award, may result in fund restrictions.
The administrative personnel, facilities, and programs of the overall NARCH should be described. It is permissible, but not necessary to have a set of core support programs that provide common scientific services to two or more NARCH projects. Submit a typed and signed original application, including the Checklist, and one (1) single-sided photocopy of the entire application (including Appendices and supporting documents) in one package to: Grants Management Branch, Indian Health Service, Reyes Building, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP 100, Rockville, MD 20852-1627 (zip code is unchanged for express/courier services), Telephone: (301) 443-5204.
Also, at the time of submission, send four (4) additional single-sided photocopied and signed applications, including the Checklist, Appendices, and supporting documentation to: Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6160—MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892-7720, Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express or courier service). Telephone: (301) 435-0715.
Upon receipt, IHS and NIH staff will administratively review applications for completeness and responsiveness. Applications that are incomplete, non-responsive to this RFA, or do not follow the guidelines of the PHS form 398 (revised 9/2004) or of the supplementary instructions for NARCH grants, will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. Applications will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria stated below for scientific and technical merit by appropriate peer review groups convened by the CSR. The National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council will conduct the second level of review.
Priorities for funding will be based on the scientific and technical merit of the application, the assessed potential of investigators in the developmental stages of their careers, and the likelihood that the proposed NARCH can further the purposes of the NARCH initiative. Awards will be made only to organizations with financial management systems and management capabilities that are acceptable under PHS policy. Awards will be administered under the PHS Grants Policy Statement.
The anticipated effectiveness of the proposed NARCH in making a difference relative to the current base-line data (based in part on previous experience of the partners) will be assessed. Factors to be considered include:
The appropriateness of the content, phasing, quality, and duration of the student or faculty/researcher development plans in the NARCH application to achieve the scientific development of the faculty/researcher, post-doctoral, pre-doctoral, undergraduate, and (if well justified) high school students; and The experience, proposed commitment, and quality of the mentoring plan and of individual mentors of the partners in providing mentoring, guidance, and advice to candidates (including training in responsible conduct of research and research integrity, teaching, and protection of human subjects), and in fostering the development of academic and community-based AI/AN researchers.
The NIH has announced procedures to be used for the review of research grant applications (NIH Guide, Volume 26, Number 22, June 27, 1997 or see
In the written comments, reviewers will be asked to discuss the following aspects of the application in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these purposes. Each of these criteria will be addressed and considered in assigning the overall score, weighting them as appropriate for each application.
• Significance: Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
• Approach: Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
• Innovation: Is the project original and innovative? For example: Does the project challenge existing paradigms or clinical practice; address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area?
• Investigators: Are the investigators appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers? Does the investigative
• Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?
In addition to the above criteria, in accordance with NIH policy, all applications will also be reviewed with respect to the following:
• The adequacy of plans, if research on human subjects is involved, to include both genders and children as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be evaluated.
• The reasonableness of the proposed budget and duration in relation to the proposed research.
• The adequacy of the proposed protection for humans, animals or the environment, to the extent they may be adversely affected by the project proposed in the application.
• The adequacy of the proposed plan to share data, if appropriate.
In reviewing the overall Center, the initial scientific review group will examine evidence of the partners' commitment to the purposes of the NARCH initiative to develop a cadre of AI/AN scientists and health professionals engaged in biomedical, clinical, behavioral and health services research that is competitive for Federal funding; to increase the capacity of both research-intensive institutions and AI/AN organizations to work in partnership to reduce distrust by AI/AN communities and people toward research; and to encourage competitive research linked to the health priorities of the AI/AN partner and to reducing health disparities.
The evidence will include:
• The quality of the partnership of the institutional and community partners, and the quality of the involvement of the Community and Scientific Advisory Council, as demonstrated by documentation of (for instance): The intellectual and tangible contributions and activities of the partners, and of the Council, in developing the application and the proposed NARCH; the interactions of the partners, and of the members of the Council, in meetings (such as those to develop the application and proposed NARCH); the past activities and future plans to increase the capacity of the partners and of the Council; the plans for future contributions and activities by the partners, and by the Council, in furthering the goals of the proposed NARCH; and the plans for future development of the partnership itself;
• The experience and commitment of the institutional and community partners to recruit, retain, and advance AI/AN faculty/ researcher and students, to support faculty/researcher and student research efforts, and to increase the role of the involved AI/AN communities in the plans of the proposed NARCH;
• The appropriateness of the plan for evaluating the impact of the proposed NARCH, including the quality of baseline data and milestones for accomplishments, and a system to track the future course of program participants; and
• The potential of the proposed NARCH to be a regional and national resource, including: Capacity to provide quality research training and mentoring for integrated promotion and development of AI/AN research careers from undergraduate (or if well justified, high school) through post-doctoral levels; attainment of quality research linked to health priorities of the AI/AN partner and to reducing health disparities; plans for research information dissemination and education activities; and plans for the development of research networks to support the scientific aims of the proposed NARCH.
Anticipated Announcement Date: May 2005.
Earliest Anticipated Award Date: June 1, 2006.
Grants Management will not award a grant without an approved application in conformance with regulatory and policy requirements and which describes the purpose and scope of the project to be funded. When the application is approved for funding, the Grants Management Office will prepare a Notice of Grant Award with special terms and conditions binding upon the award and refer to all general terms applicable to the award.
This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance at:
It is the policy of the NIH that women and members of minority groups and their subpopulations must be included in all NIH supported biomedical, clinical, behavioral and health services research projects involving human subjects, unless a clear and compelling rationale and justification is provided that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research. This policy results from the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Section 492B of Pub. L. 103-43). Because the NARCH initiative targets AI/AN people and communities, a minority population, only the policy of inclusion of women applies to this RFA. The IHS has fully accepted the OHRP policy regarding human subjects. The OHRP Web site is
• All applications or proposals and/or protocols to provide a description of plans to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by
• All investigators to report accrual, and to conduct and report analyses, as appropriate, by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group differences.
It is the policy of NIH that children (
All applications and proposals for NIH funding must be self-contained within specified page limitations. Unless otherwise specified in an NIH solicitation, Internet addresses (URLs) should not be used to provide information necessary to the review because reviewers are under no obligation to view the Internet sites. Reviewers are cautioned that their anonymity may be compromised when they directly access an Internet site.
The OMB Circular A-110 has been revised to provide public access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under some circumstances. Data that are:
• First produced in a project that is supported in whole or in part with Federal funds; and
• Cited publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an action that has the force and effect of law (
It is important for applicants to understand the basic scope of this amendment. NIH has provided guidance at:
Certain administrative costs for managing a comprehensive program are allowable and may vary, depending upon the size and complexity of the program's activities. The costs budgeted for NARCH grants and subcontracts may not duplicate items already budgeted in other cost centers of the AI/AN, research-intensive, and subcontracted organizations and institutions, such as accounts which make up the Facilities and Administration (F&A) cost pool. The grantee organization receiving the award must be prepared to provide documentation showing the direct relationship of proposed costs to the program, and that costs of this type are charged in a uniform manner to all other grants at all institutions and organizations participating in the award.
Salary (up to 25 percent effort, although it should generally be less) for the NARCH Program Director is allowable for that portion of time or effort specifically employed in directing the proposed NARCH. (The 25 percent limit does not include salary for being a research investigator.) Limited salary support for secretarial or clerical help is allowable only when in direct support of the proposed NARCH. For guidance, applicants should refer to the OMB Circular appropriate for them, A-87 (Cost Principles for State, local, and Indian Tribal Governments), at
Costs for evaluation activities are allowable, as are costs for the Community and Scientific Advisory Council. All applications must include costs associated with one annual meeting per year in Rockville, MD, of NARCH directors and their key scientific personnel. Applications should also include costs associated with attendance at the annual IHS Research conference for key personnel and trainees.
Student Development Costs: Student (graduate, undergraduate, and high school if well justified) remuneration through salary/wages for participation in research experiences may be requested, provided all the following conditions are met:
• The student is performing necessary work involved in the research.
• There is an employer-employee relationship between the student and the proposed NARCH or its partners.
• The total compensation is reasonable for the work performed.
• It is the practice of the proposed NARCH or its partners to provide compensation for all students in similar circumstances, regardless of the source of support for the activity.
Graduate students, but not undergraduate students, are allowed tuition costs as part of a compensation package. When requesting support for a graduate student, the NARCH application should provide, in the budget justification section of the application, the basis for the compensation level. The IHS staff will review the requested compensation level and, if it is reasonable and justified, will provide compensation up to a maximum of $45,000 (
Graduate and post-doctoral students cannot concurrently hold another federally-sponsored stipend or fellowship or any other Federal award that duplicates the NARCH support.
Faculty/Researcher Development Costs:
Costs to support faculty/researcher development activities, such as workshops or courses, national meetings, or short-term research experiences in the laboratory of an active NIH-extramurally-funded researcher needed for acquiring specific skills or methodologies needed for prospective research, are allowable. Such costs might include tuition, travel and per diem costs, as well as salary
Research Project Costs:
Direct costs associated with research and pilot research projects are allowable when adequate justification is provided. These include faculty/researcher salaries, reimbursed according to percent effort. Summer salary support can be paid provided the institution's academic schedule permits such release and when the institution approves. The maximum summer-salary support provided by the program cannot exceed the equivalent of three months at 100 percent effort, or time specified by the institution as its policy. Grant funds may not be used to increase or supplement faculty/ researcher academic year salaries. Salary support for technical assistance and costs for consultants, if justified, are allowable. Costs for equipment to be used to carry out the proposed research are allowable.
Costs for Core Scientific Services:
Costs for core scientific services to support two or more projects are allowable. Costs for multi-user research equipment are also allowable. A plan for access to the multi-user equipment, its maintenance, management and use must be included. To aid in the review, it is suggested that a tabular summary show the estimated or actual proportional use of this equipment by each project, and other investigators and students. Justify this core component by discussing ways in which these centralized services improve quality, bring about an economy of effort, and/or save overall costs as compared to their inclusion as part of each research project. Personnel costs to maintain and service the equipment are an allowable cost. Support for very large pieces of equipment, however, may be restricted by the NARCH budget. Plans to maintain the shared core scientific services and facility beyond the grant period should be discussed.
Cost for Supplies:
Costs for supplies, including costs for animals necessary to carry out the proposed research, may be included. Travel costs for the investigator(s) are permitted when direct benefits to the program are expected, and when adequate justification is provided. Alterations and Renovations costs (up to $40,000) are allowable only when essential for conduct of the proposed research. Other permitted costs include animal maintenance (unit care costs and number of care days), donor fees, publication costs, computer charges, rentals and leases, equipment maintenance, and service contracts.
Consortium and Contract Arrangements:
Consortium arrangements that may involve personnel costs, supplies, and other allowable costs, including F&A costs; contractual costs for support services, such as the laboratory testing of biological materials, clinical services, data processing, or core administrative services, are allowable expenses. Consortia and contractual costs with Native health organizations, Tribes and/or research institutions in Canada or Mexico are allowable expenses.
Pilot Research Projects:
The intent of pilot research projects is to lead to regular research projects funded as part of the center grant or as freestanding grants. For pilot research projects, applications may request support for up to $50,000 (direct costs) per year. This support is non-renewable.
Subcontracts:
The grant recipient may issue subcontracts to other organizations (such as the research-intensive institution of the partnership), as long as at least 30 percent of the grant remains with the AI/AN organization; that is, no more than 70 percent may be subcontracted.
Unallowable costs for research projects (including for pilots projects) include costs for student development, textbooks, journals, memberships, and Internet subscription costs, as well as other costs prohibited by OMB Circulars A-87 or A-122 as applicable. Employees of the applicant organization may not serve as paid consultants but may be paid. The pilot research project is intended for faculty/researcher without current Federal research support. Therefore, investigators with significant current support from other mechanisms such as the R01 and research funding from other extramural sources are not eligible, and the costs therefore are not allowable. Release time for preparing proposals or mini-research projects, not submitted as pilot projects, is not allowed.
As leader of the research and research training for the proposed NARCH, the NARCH Program Director is expected to possess certain essential qualifications such as:
• Strong leadership skills, including scientific leadership experience and a strong academic and scientific background, as exemplified, ideally, by scientific publications and a record of peer-reviewed scientific support;
• Knowledge of and personal working relationship with the AI/AN Tribes or communities involved in the NARCH research, and with the partners of the proposed NARCH;
• Strong mentoring and supervision skills, to exercise responsibility for mentoring activities, organization of communicating skills programs, special methods workshops, tracking of student career plans, etc.; and
• Knowledge of IHS and NIH policies, including those concerning human participants in research, human biological material, animals, hazardous materials, and Tribal review and approval of research.
The names and qualifications of the NARCH Program Director, the Student and Faculty/Researcher Development Director and directors of individual projects within the program (where appropriate), and any other key personnel, should be listed in the application under the Key Personnel section. Biographical Sketches of these individuals, including other grant support, should be included.
Federal Regulations (45 CFR Part 46) require that applications and proposals involving human subjects must be evaluated with reference to the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained (
The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of “Healthy People 2010,” a PHS led national activity for setting priority areas. This Request for Application (RFA) announcement is related to one or more of the priority areas. Potential applicants may obtain a copy of Healthy People 2010 at:
The NARCH Program Office and Grants Management have requirements for the progress reports and financial reports based on the terms and conditions of the grant. Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate reporting of the Progress Reports and Financial Status Reports which are generally due annually. Financial Status Reports (SF 269) are due 90 days after each budget period and the final SF 269 must be verified from the grantee records on how the value was derived. Grantees are allowed a reasonable period of time in which to
Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in the imposition of special award provisions, or cause other eligible projects or activities involving that grantee organization, or the individual responsible for the delinquency to not be funded.
Failure to obtain prior approval for change in Scope, Principal Investigator, Grantee Institutions, Successor in Interest, or Recipient Institute Name, undertaking any activities disapproved or restricted as a condition of the award, may result in fund restrictions.
1. Questions on the initiative, regarding IHS NARCH issues and policies, may be directed to: Timothy L. Taylor, Ph.D., Director of Planning, Evaluation and Research, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, TMP, Suite 450, Rockville, MD 20852-1750, Telephone: (301) 443-0222, Fax: (301) 443-1522, e-mail:
2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to: Sylvia Ryan, Division of Grants Operations, Indian Health Service, Reyes Building, 801 Thompson Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852-1627, Telephone: (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 443-9602, e-mail:
3. Questions on NIGMS issues and policies, may be directed to: Clifton A. Poodry, Ph.D., Minority Opportunities in Research Division, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 45 Center Drive, Suite 2AS.37, MSC 6200, Bethesda, MD 20892-6200, Telephone: (301) 594-3900, Fax: (301) 480-2753, e-mail:
4. Questions on the review of Applications may be directed to: Mushtaq A. Khan, D.V.M., Ph.D., Chief, Digestive and Respiratory Sciences IRGs, Center for Scientific Review, MSC 7818, Room 2176; 6701 Rockledge Drive; Bethesda, MD 20892 (20817 for Fed Ex) Telephone: (301) 435-1778; Fax: (301) 451-2043; e-mail:
The IHS and NIH intend to conduct technical assistance and information sharing workshops about this grant initiative in July 2005 at one regional center. Potential grantees wanting to attend one of these workshops will have to provide names and the eligible organization to Ms. Sylvia Ryan, at telephone number (301) 443-5204 or Fax (301) 443-9602, or by e-mail to
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, DHHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: (301) 496-7057; fax: (301) 402-0220. A signed
Available for licensing as a research tool for both internal use or commercial distribution is a test slide for three-dimensional resolution. The U.S. Government has not applied for patent rights on this invention. The resolution of an optical system must be accurately measured in multiple dimensions when acquiring imaging data for biological or materials applications. Such measurements permit quantitative analysis of data obtained from the optical system. The invention is a microscope slide that can be adapted for a variety of microscopy applications (
A long standing problem in skin research has been the difficulty of inducing stem cells such as bone marrow cells, to infiltrate the skin. Such infiltration could be the basis of numerous therapeutic intraventions. The present invention describes a method of using localized inflammation to induce targeted bone marrow cell effects in the skin. Among the conditions treated in the preliminary trials are hair and pigmentation loss.
Alopecia (hair loss) is a common condition that results from diverse causes such as altered physiology, surgical trauma and/or certain drugs. The present invention relates to methods of increasing hair growth and melanocyte proliferation. Such methods include administration of bone marrow cells, an agent that mobilizes bone marrow cells or a combination thereof.
The invention relates to the creation of three (3) cell lines that may be used as models of putative initiated cancer cells. The cell lines can be used in basic research assays and low/high throughput screening assays.
Cell line 308 evolved from a calcium-resistant focus from adult mouse epidermis that was exposed to the carcinogen, 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (DMBA). Cell lines F and D were derived by treating primary newborn mouse epidermal cells in culture with N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG) and DMBA, respectively. These three (3) nontumorigenic cell lines derived from differentiation-resistant, carcinogen-induced foci may be considered to be putative initiated cells.
The creation and characterization of the cell lines was published in Yuspa and Morgan, 1981, “Mouse Skin Cells Resistant to Terminal Differentiation Associated with Initiation of Carcinogenesis,” Nature, vol. 72-74; and Hennings
An immortalized rat cell line with characteristics of undifferentiated kidney blastemal cells has been established (Kidney Int. 60:2075, 2003). Not only can these cells be maintained in culture, but they retain the capacity to differentiate into epithelial-like cells. This cell line may have utility in studying the molecular mechanisms of mesenchymal-epithelial conversion, kidney development, and kidney tumorigenesis. It may also have future application in the development of renal xenographs or other forms of kidney tissue transplantation.
Many human cancers and other skin ailments arise from overexpression of the polypeptide TGFbeta1 growth factor. This growth factor is a growth inhibitor whose function involves cell differentiation and development. It is thought that overexpression of this protein is a contributing factor in many diseases, including certain cancers and dermal fibrosis.
There is a need for mouse models that can exhibit overexpression of TGFbeta1 in a locally specific manner. Such is the technology being made available. The technology relates to a mouse model where the overexpression in epithelial cells is achieved via the bigenic tetracycline regulatory system. Expression of tetO TGFbeta1 occurs when the mice are bred with a second transgenic line expressing the transactivator tTa or rTa. The rTa or tTa have been coupled with keratin 5 promoters, enabling localized activation of tetO TGFbeta1 in the presence or absence of tetracyclines upon successful mating. The potential uses of these models is invaluable and can assist similar research involving different tissue specificity.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Sickle Cell Disease Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NHLBI.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the AIDS Research Advisory Committee, NIAID.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into the building by non-government employees. Persons without a government I.D. will need to show a photo I.D. and sign-in at the security desk upon entering the building.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be close 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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The portions of the meeting devoted to the review and evaluation of journals for potential indexing by the National Library of Medicine will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(9)(B), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. Premature disclosure of the titles of the journals as potential titles to be indexed by the National Library of Medicine, the discussions, and the presence of individuals associated with these publications could significantly frustrate the review and evaluation of individual journal.
Any interested person may file written comments with the Committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this Notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and, when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into the building by non-government employees. Person without a government I.D. will need to show a photo I.D. and sign in at the security desk upon entering the building.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) will use a toolkit to collect data on the Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program (CCP). The CCP provides supplemental funding to states and territories for individual and community crisis intervention services during a federal disaster.
The CCP has provided disaster mental health services to millions of disaster survivors since its inception and, as a result of 30 years of accumulated expertise, it has become an important model for Federal response to a variety of catastrophic events. State CCPs, such as Project HOPE (after Hurricane Floyd in North Carolina), Project Heartland (in Oklahoma City after the Murrah Federal Building bombing), Project Liberty (in New York after 9/11), and Project Outreach for Recovery (after the Rhode Island nightclub fire) have primarily addressed the short-term mental health needs of communities through (a) outreach and public education, (b) individual and group counseling, and (c) referral. Outreach and public education serve primarily to normalize reactions and to engage people who might need further care. Crisis counseling assists survivors to cope with current stress and symptoms in order to return to predisaster functioning. Crisis counseling relies largely on “active listening,” and crisis counselors also provide psycho-education (especially about the nature of responses to trauma) and help clients build coping skills. Crisis counseling typically continues no more than a few times. Because crisis counseling is time-limited, referral is the third important function of CCPs. Counselors are expected to refer clients to formal treatment if the person has developed more serious psychiatric problems.
Data about services delivered and users of services will be collected throughout the program period. The data will be collected via the use of a toolkit that relies on standardized forms. At the program level, the data will be entered quickly and easily into a cumulative database to yield summary tables for quarterly and final reports for the program. CMHS has confirmed the feasibility of using scannable forms for most purposes. Because the data will be collected in a consistent way from all programs, the forms can be uploaded into an ongoing national database that likewise provides CMHS with a way of producing summary reports of services provided across all programs funded.
The components of the tool kit are listed and described below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 7-1044, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20850. Written comments should be received by June 28, 2005.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of organizational change.
The Coast Guard announces the stand-up of Sector Corpus Christi. Sector Corpus Christi is an internal reorganization that combines Group Corpus Christi and Marine Safety Office Corpus Christi into a single command. The Coast Guard has established a continuity of operations whereby all previous practices and procedures will remain in effect until superseded by an authorized Coast Guard official or document.
This notice is effective May 13, 2005.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD08-05-024 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (rpl), Eighth Coast Guard District, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3310 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant Michael Roschel, Eighth District Planning Office at 504-589-6293.
Sector Corpus Christi is located at 8930 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78419-5201 and contains a single Command Center. Sector Corpus Christi is composed of a Response Department, Prevention Department, and Logistics Department. Effective May 13, 2005, all existing missions and functions performed by Group Corpus Christi and Marine Safety Office Corpus Christi will be performed by Sector Corpus Christi. Group Corpus Christi and Marine Safety Office Corpus Christi will no longer exist as organizational entities. Sector Corpus Christi is responsible for all Coast Guard Missions in the following zone: the boundary of Sector Corpus Christi Marine Inspection zone and Captain of the Port zone “Starts at the junction of the sea and the east bank of the Colorado River; thence proceeds northerly along the east bank of the Colorado River to 29°18′ N. latitude, 96°07′ W. longitude; thence northwesterly to the southeast corner of New Mexico at 32°00′ N. latitude; thence westerly along the Texas-New Mexico boundary; thence southeasterly along the Mexican border to the sea. The offshore area includes all waters and islands contained therein of the EEZ that are south and west of a line bearing 140° T from the junction of the sea and the east bank of the Colorado River to the outermost extent of the EEZ.”
Sector Corpus Christi's zone will be modified in the future upon the stand-up of adjoining sectors. Notice will be published in the
The Sector Corpus Christi Commander is vested with all the rights, responsibilities, duties, and authority of a Group Commander and Commanding Officer Marine Safety Office, as provided for in Coast Guard regulations, and is the successor in command to the Commanding Officers of Group Corpus Christi and Marine Safety Office Corpus Christi. The Sector Corpus Christi Commander is designated: (a) Captain of the Port (COTP) for the Corpus Christi COTP zone; (b) Federal Maritime Security Coordinator (FMSC); (c) Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for the Corpus Christi COTP zone, consistent with the National Contingency Plan; (d) Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection (OCMI) for the Corpus Christi Marine Inspection Zone; and (e) Search and Rescue Mission Coordinator (SMC). The Deputy Sector Commander is designated alternate COTP, FMSC, FOSC, SMC, and Acting OCMI. A continuity of operations order has been issued ensuring that all previous Group Corpus Christi and Marine Safety Office Corpus Christi practices and procedures will remain in effect until superseded by Commander, Sector Corpus Christi. This continuity of operations order addresses existing COTP regulations, orders, directives, and policies.
The following information is a list of updated command titles, addresses and points of contact to facilitate requests from the public and assist with entry into security or safety zones:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Arizona (FEMA-1586-DR), dated April 14, 2005, and related determinations.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated April 14, 2005, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Arizona resulting from severe storms and flooding on February 10-15, 2005, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Arizona.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation in the designated areas; and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate. Direct Federal assistance is authorized, if warranted. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act is later requested and warranted, Federal funding under that program will also be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Sandra Coachman, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Arizona to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
The counties of Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Mohave, Pinal, and Yavapai; and the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the San Carlos Apache Tribe; and the portion of the Navajo Tribal Nations within the State of Arizona for Public Assistance.
The counties of Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Mohave, Pinal and Yavapai; and the Gila River Indian Community, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the San Carlos Apache Tribe; and the portion of the Navajo Tribal Nation within the State of Arizona are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of California (FEMA-1585-DR), dated April 14, 2005, and related determinations.
Effective Date: April 22, 2005.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of California is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 14, 2005:
Kern, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties for Public Assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-1585-DR), dated April 14, 2005, and related determinations.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated April 14, 2005, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of California, resulting from severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mud and debris flows on February 16-23, 2005, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of California.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation in the designated areas, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act is later warranted, Federal funding under that program will also be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, David Fukutomi, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of California to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and Ventura Counties for Public Assistance.
Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Counties are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Maine (FEMA-3210-EM), dated April 21, 2005, and related determinations.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated April 21, 2005, the President declared an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the impact in certain areas of the State of Maine, resulting from the record snow on March 11-12, 2005, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency exists in the State of Maine.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes, such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide emergency protective measures under the Public Assistance program to save lives, protect public health and safety, and property. Other forms of assistance under Title V of the Stafford Act may be added at a later date, as you deem appropriate. You are further authorized to provide this emergency assistance in the affected areas for a period of 48 hours. You may extend the period of assistance, as warranted. This assistance excludes regular time costs for sub-grantees' regular employees. Assistance under this emergency is authorized at 75 percent Federal funding for eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Maine to have been affected adversely by this declared emergency:
Androscoggin, Cumberland, and Oxford Counties for emergency protective measures (Category B) under the Public Assistance program for a period of 48 hours.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-1588-DR), dated April 19, 2005, and related determinations.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated April
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of New Jersey, resulting from severe storms and flooding on April 1-3, 2005, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of New Jersey.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas; Hazard Mitigation throughout the State; and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and the Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Public Assistance is later warranted, Federal funds provided under that program will also be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Peter J. Martinasco, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of New Jersey to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Bergen Essex, Gloucester, Hunterdon, Mercer, Morris, Passaic, Sussex, and Warren Counties for Individual Assistance.
All counties in the State of New Jersey are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New York (FEMA-1589-DR), dated April 19, 2005, and related determinations.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated April 19, 2005, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of New York, resulting from severe storms and flooding on April 2-4, 2005, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of New York.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public Assistance in the designated areas; and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and the Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Marianne C. Jackson, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of New York to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Orange, Rensselaer, Schenectady, Schoharie, Sullivan, Tioga, and Ulster Counties for Individual Assistance.
Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Greene, Montgomery, Orange, Rensselaer, Schoharie, Sullivan, Tioga, and Ulster Counties for Public Assistance.
All counties in the State of New York are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (FEMA-1587-DR), dated April 14, 2005, and related determinations.
Effective Date: April 14, 2005.
Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated April 14, 2005, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, resulting from severe storms and flooding, beginning on April 2, 2005 and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas; Hazard Mitigation throughout the Commonwealth; and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act you may deem appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and the Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. If Public Assistance is later requested and warranted, Federal funds provided under that program will also be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas Davies, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
I do hereby determine the following areas of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:
Bradford, Bucks, Columbia, Luzerne, Monroe, Northampton, Pike, Wayne, and Wyoming Counties for Individual Assistance.
All counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
30-day notice of information collection under review: Medical Examination of Aliens Seeking Adjustment of Status, Form I-693.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 31, 2005. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please contact Richard A. Sloan, Director, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20529; 202-272-8377.
30-day notice of information collection under review: Immigration User Fee, File No. OMB-01.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection quest to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 31, 2005. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, please contact Richard A. Sloan, Director, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20529; 202-272-8377.
30-day notice of information collection under review: Employment Authorization Document; Form I-765.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 31, 2005. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the following will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please contact Richard A. Sloan, Director, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20529.
30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition; Form I-730.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 31, 2005. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, please contact Richard A. Sloan, Director, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20529; 202-272-8377.
Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Comment Request
30-Day Notice of Information Collection under Review: Document Verification Request and Document Verification Request Supplement; Forms G-845 and G-845 Supplement.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until May 31, 2005. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, please contact Richard A. Sloan, Director, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20529; 202-272-8377.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Kathy Ezzell, room 7266, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to John Hicks, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Mark Johnston at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
Under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) for public lands and resources administered by the BLM's Dillon Field Office. The PRMP/FEIS provides direction and guidance for the management of approximately
BLM Planning Regulations (43 CFR 1610.5-2) state that any person who participated in the planning process, and has an interest that may be adversely affected, may protest. The protest must be filed within 30 days of the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes this notice in the
Documents pertinent to the PRMP/FEIS will be available for public inspection at the Dillon Field Office, 1005 Selway Drive, Dillon, Montana during regular business hours, 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Interested persons may also review the PRMP/FEIS on the Internet at
Protests must be submitted in writing and sent by regular mail to: Director (210), Bureau of Land Management, Attention: Brenda Williams, P.O. Box 66538, Washington, DC 20035, or by overnight mail (
Renee Johnson, RMP Project Manager, 1005 Selway Drive, Dillon, Montana, 59725, telephone (406-683-8016), fax (406-683-2970), or e-mail (
The Dillon Field Office planning area is located in the southwestern portion of Montana in Beaverhead and Madison Counties. The area addressed in the plan contains 901,226 acres of public surface estate and 1,354,710 acres of Federal mineral estate administered by the BLM Dillon Field Office. The PRMP/FEIS focuses on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield as prescribed by Section 202 of the FLPMA. Beaverhead and Madison Counties participated in development of the plan as cooperating agencies with special expertise.
The Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/EIS) made available for review on April 9, 2004, addressed four alternatives: Alternative A (No Action/Continuation of Current Management), Alternative B (Agency Preferred), and two other alternatives (Alternatives C and D) that provide for variable levels of resource protection, commodity production, and land and resource allocations and uses. These alternatives were developed based on extensive public input and internal BLM discussions. The public involvement and collaboration process implemented for this planning effort began with a situation assessment conducted prior to scoping to identify public involvement strategies, and continued with five open houses in September and October 2001, an Information Fair in April 2002 to discuss and gather data to be used in the plan, release of reports on Wild and Scenic River and Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) findings in 2002 and 2003, respectively, release of an RMP Digest document in January 2003 describing the current situation followed by nine alternative development workshops in February 2003, incorporation of recommendations from three Western Montana RAC subgroups, five open houses in May 2004 after release of the DRMP/EIS, two oral comment meetings, and additional RAC review.
The major issues addressed in the alternatives include upland and riparian management, forest and woodland management, noxious weeds, sage grouse and westslope cutthroat trout conservation, commercial uses (including livestock grazing, mineral development, oil and gas leasing, right-of-ways and communication use areas), Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), Wild and Scenic Rivers, and travel management.
Adjustments and clarifications have been made to Alternative B, the Preferred Alternative in the DRMP/EIS, after careful consideration of both public and internal comments received on the draft. As modified, Alternative B is now the Proposed Plan as presented in the PRMP/FEIS, providing a balance of resource uses and protections. These adjustments did not result in any significant change to the plan outside the range of alternatives detailed in the draft. The Proposed Plan will help BLM meet its mandate of multiple use and sustained yield, and recommends the designation of eight new ACECs. Restrictions on uses or activities in ACECs will only occur to the degree necessary to prevent degradation of relevant and important values for which an area is designated.
Documents pertinent to the PRMP/FEIS are available for public inspection at the Dillon Field Office, 1005 Selway Drive, Dillon, Montana during regular business hours, 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Copies of the PRMP/FEIS have been sent to individuals, agencies, and groups as requested or as required by regulation or policy. Interested persons may also view the PRMP/FEIS on the Internet at
The resource management planning process provides an opportunity for public, administrative review of proposed land use plan decisions contained in the PRMP/FEIS during a 30-day protest period. Any person who participated in the planning process for this PRMP/FEIS that has an interest which is or may be adversely affected may protest approval of the land use plan decisions contained within the PRMP/FEIS during this 30-day period. Instructions for filing a protest with the Director of the BLM regarding the PRMP/FEIS may be found at 43 CFR 1610.5. A protest may only raise those issues that were submitted for the record during the planning process. E-mail and faxed protests will not be accepted as valid protests unless the protesting party also provides the original letter by either regular or overnight mail postmarked by the close of the protest period. Under these conditions, BLM will consider the e-
(1) Name, mailing address, telephone number and the affected interest of the person filing the protest(s);
(2) A statement of the issue or issues being protested;
(3) A statement of the part or parts of the proposed plan being protested. To the extent possible, reference specific pages, paragraphs, and sections of the document;
(4) A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that were submitted during the planning process or an indication of the date the issue or issues were discussed with the BLM for the record;
(5) A concise statement explaining why the proposed decision is believed to be incorrect. This is a critical part of your protest. Document all relevant facts, as much as possible. A protest merely expressing disagreement with the State Director's proposed decision without providing any supporting data will not be considered a valid protest. All protests must be in writing and mailed to the following address: Regular Mail: Director (210), Bureau of Land Management, Attn: Brenda Williams, P.O. Box 66538, Washington DC, 20035. Overnight Mail: Director (210), Bureau of Land Management, Attn: Brenda Williams, 1620 L Street, NW., Suite 1075, Washington, DC 20036. To be considered timely, your protest must be postmarked no later than the last day of the protest period. The date ending the protest period will be announced through public notices, media news releases, newsletter mailings, and on the Dillon RMP Web site at
The Director will promptly render a decision on the protest. This decision will be in writing and will be sent to the protesting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. The decision of the Director shall be the final decision of the Department of the Interior. An Approved Plan/Record of Decision will be made available to the public following the resolution of any protests. Approval will be withheld on any portion of the PRMP/FEIS under protest until final action has been completed on such protest.
Please note that protests and comments, including names and street addresses, are available for public review and/or release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Individual respondents may request confidentiality. Respondents who wish to withhold name and/or street address from public review or from disclosure under FOIA must state this prominently at the beginning of the written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or official organizations or business, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) management policies, a Draft East Alaska Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EARMP/EIS) has been prepared for public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management's Glennallen Field Office. The public is invited to review and comment on the range and adequacy of the draft alternatives and associated environmental effects. For comments to be most helpful, they should relate to specific concerns or conflicts that are within the legal responsibilities of the BLM and can be resolved in this planning process. The Draft EARMP/EIS will provide the management guidance for resource decisions on 7.1 million acres of BLM-administered lands in East Alaska. The EARMP/EIS will replace the Southcentral Management Framework Plan approved in 1980.
Written comments should be addressed or hand delivered to the BLM Glennallen Field Office, EARMP, P.O. Box 147, Mile 186.5 Glenn Highway, Glennallen, AK 99588. Comments can also be sent via e-mail to
Comments on the Draft EARMP/EIS will be accepted for 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes this Notice of Availability in the
Bruce Rogers (
The East Alaska RMP planning area covers 7.1 million acres of BLM-administered lands. The Draft EARMP/EIS focuses on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield as prescribed by Section 202 of the FLPMA. The Draft EARMP/EIS considers and analyzes four alternatives, including a No Action and a Preferred Alternative. The alternatives provide for an array of variable levels of commodity production and resource protection and restoration. The alternatives were developed based on extensive public scoping and involvement.
There are seven main issues addressed through this planning process. Issue 1, Travel Management, addresses management of access, roads, and the use of off-highway vehicles for various purposes, including recreation, commercial uses, subsistence activities, and the general enjoyment of public lands while protecting natural and cultural resources. Issue 2, Recreation, examines how recreation should be managed to provide a diversity of experiences on BLM-managed lands. The document analyzes what measures are necessary to ensure that a diversity of recreational opportunities is maintained and what level of commercial recreational use is appropriate to maintain a diversity of recreational opportunities. Issue 3, Special Resource Values, focuses on those unique, special values located within the planning area that were identified by resource specialists and the public, and includes discussions on wildlife, fisheries, soil, water, air, and vegetation. Issue 4, Lands and Realty, addresses the need to determine the appropriate mix of lands and realty actions needed to provide a balance between land use and resource protection. Special attention is paid to the Slana Settlement area, and the establishment of conditions that would make the area available for disposal while considering the effects of disposal on the social and environmental conditions of the area. Issue 5, Vegetation Management, examines management to provide for forest health, personal and commercial wood products, and fish and wildlife habitat. The role of fire is also explored. Issue 6, Leasable and Locatable Minerals, addresses the need to determine which areas should be made available for mineral exploration and development. Issue 7, Subsistence/Social and Economic Conditions, examines the need to maintain and protect subsistence opportunities and resources, as well as how the management actions, guidelines, and allowable uses described under the other issues will affect subsistence opportunities and resources. Social and economic effects are also addressed as part of this discussion.
The public involvement and collaboration process implemented for this effort included 30 public scoping meetings, 17 alternative development meetings, and meetings with Native and Village Corporations. The State of Alaska is participating in the planning effort as an informal cooperator.
After comments on the Draft EARMP/EIS are reviewed and any adjustments to the document are made, a Proposed RMP and Final Environmental Impact Statement are expected to be available in the fall of 2005.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (1972), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG) Socioeconomic Task Group (subcommittee) will meet in Pinedale, Wyoming, for a business meeting. Task Group meetings are open to the public.
The PAWG Socioeconomic Task Group will meet May 26, 2005, June 28, 2005 and July 28, 2005. All meetings are from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m.
The May 26 and June 28 meetings of the PAWG Socioeconomic Task Group will be held in the Lovatt room of the Pinedale Library at 155 S. Tyler Ave., Pinedale, WY. The July 28 meeting will be held at the BLM Pinedale Field Office at 432 E. Mill St.
Roy Allen, BLM/Socioeconomic TG Liaison, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Rd., Cheyenne, WY, 82009 or P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, WY 82003; 307-775-6031.
The Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG) was authorized and established with release of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project on July 27, 2000. The PAWG's charter is to advise the BLM on development and implementation of monitoring plans and adaptive management decisions for the life of the Pinedale Anticline natural gas field. The PAWG subsequently established seven resource- or activity-specific Task Groups, including one for Socioeconomics.
The agenda for these meetings will include information gathering and discussion related to implementation and funding of the socioeconomic monitoring plan to assess impacts of development in the Pinedale Anticline gas field. At a minimum, public comments will be heard just prior to adjournment of the meeting.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (1972), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG) Air Quality Task Group (subcommittee) will meet in Pinedale, Wyoming, for a
A PAWG Air Quality Task Group meeting is scheduled for June 16, 2005 from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Forest Service office at 29 E. Fremont Lake Rd., Pinedale, WY.
Susan Caplan, BLM/Air Quality TG Liaison, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Rd., Cheyenne, WY 82009, or P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, WY 82003; 307-775-6031.
The Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG) was authorized and established with release of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project on July 27, 2000. The PAWG's charter is to advise the BLM on development and implementation of monitoring plans and adaptive management decisions for the life of the Pinedale Anticline natural gas field. The PAWG subsequently established seven resource- or activity-specific Task Groups, including one for Air Quality.
The agenda for this meeting will include information gathering and discussion related to implementation and funding of the air quality monitoring plan for the Pinedale Anticline gas field. At a minimum, public comments will be heard just prior to adjournment of the meeting.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (the Commission) will be held on Wednesday, May 11, 2005, at 1:30 p.m., at the National Building Museum, Room 312, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss currently authorized and proposed memorials in the District of Columbia and its environs. In addition to discussing general matters and conducting routine business, the Commission will review the status of legislative proposals introduced in the 108th Congress to establish memorials in the District of Columbia and its environs, as follows:
(1) Site Selection Study, Vietnam Veterans Memorial Education Center (continued from March 15, 2005).
(2) Legislation currently under consideration by the 109th Congress.
(1) Congressional actions taken on bills previously reviewed by the Commission.
(1) General matters and routine business.
The meeting will be open to the public. Any person may file with the Commission a written statement concerning the matters to be discussed. Persons who wish to file a written statement or testify at the meeting or who want further information concerning the meeting may contact Ms. Nancy Young, Secretary to the Commission, at (202) 619-7097.
May 11, 2005, at 1:30 p.m.
National Building Museum, Room 312, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001.
Ms. Nancy Young, Secretary to the Commission, 202-619-7097.
The Commission was established by Public Law 99-652, the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. Chapter 89
The Commission examines each memorial proposal for conformance to the Commemorative Works Act, and makes recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator and to Members and Committees of Congress. The Commission also serves as a source of information for persons seeking to establish memorials in Washington, DC, and its environs.
The members of the Commission are as follows:
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of proposed Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Eastern and Western divisions, Project Use Power Rate Adjustment.
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is proposing a rate adjustment (proposed rate) for Project Use Power for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program (P-SMBP), Eastern and Western Division. The proposed rate for Project Use Power is to recover all annual operating, maintenance, and replacement expenses. The analysis of the proposed Project Use Rate is included in a booklet available upon request. The proposed rate for Project Use Power will become effective August 1, 2005.
This notice provides the opportunity for public comment. After review of comments received, Reclamation will consider them, revise the rates if necessary, and recommend a proposed rate for approval to the Secretary of the Interior's Office.
The comment period will begin with publication of this notice in the
Written comments should be sent to Kerry McCalman, GP-2020, Power O&M Administrator, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 36900, Billings, MT 59107-6900.
All booklets, studies, comments, letters, memoranda, and other documents made or kept by Reclamation for the purpose of developing the proposed rate for Project Use Power will be made available for inspection and copying at the Great Plains Regional Office, located at 316
Kerry McCalman, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Regional Office, at (406) 247-7705 or by e-mail at
Power rates for the P-SMBP are established pursuant to the Reclamation Act of 1902 (43 U.S.C. 371
Beginning August 1, 2005, Reclamation proposes to:
(a) Increase the energy charge from 10.76 mills/kWh to 12.55 mills/kWh.
(b) The monthly demand charge will remain at zero.
The Project Use Power rate will be reviewed each time Western Area Power Administration (Western) adjusts the P-SMBP Firm power rate. Western will conduct the necessary studies and use the methodology identified in this rate proposal to determine a new rate.
The existing rate schedule MRB-P11 placed into effect on March 22, 2002, will be replaced by rate schedule MRB-P12. The new rate schedule will include a penalty for exceeding the contract rate of delivery (CROD). Energy usage in excess of the CROD will be billed at a rate 10 times the project use power rate. This will be calculated on a prorated basis. The customer will also be billed for any increased capacity and transmission charges incurred as a result of exceeding the CROD.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Darrin King on (202) 693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail:
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB 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,
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail:
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB 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,
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail:
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB 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,
The regulation at 29 CFR 2520.104-49 provides relief to sponsors of certain SEPs from ERISA's Title I reporting and disclosure requirements by prescribing an alternative method of compliance. These SEPs are, for purposes of this information collection, referred to as “non-model SEPs” because they exclude those SEPs which are created through use of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 5305-SEP, and those SEPs in which the employer influences the employees as to their choice of IRAs to which employer contributions will be made, and that also prohibits withdrawals by participants. The alternative disclosure arrangement provided through this regulation relieves sponsors of non-model SEPs of most of the reporting and disclosure requirements under Title I of ERISA. Also, the disclosure requirements set forth in the regulation ensure that administrators of non-model SEPs provide participants with specific written information concerning SEPs. This information collection requirement generally requires timely written disclosure to employees eligible to participate in non-model SEPs, including specific information concerning: participation requirements; allocation formulas for employer contributions; designated contact persons for further information; and, for employer recommended IRAs, specific terms of the IRAs such as rates of return and any restrictions on withdrawals. Moreover, general information is required that provides a clear explanation of: the operation of the non-model SEP; participation requirements and any withdrawal restrictions; and the tax treatment of the SEP-related IRA. Furthermore, statements must be provided that inform participants of: any other IRAs under the non-model SEP other than that to which employer contributions are made; any options regarding rollovers and contributions to other IRAs; descriptions of IRS disclosure requirements to participants and information regarding social security integration (if applicable); and timely notification of any amendments to the terms of the non-model SEP.
General wage determination decisions of the Secretary of Labor are issued in accordance with applicable law and are based on the information obtained by the Department of Labor from its study of local wage conditions and data made available from other sources. They specify the basic hourly wage rates and fringe benefits which are determined to be prevailing for the described classes of laborers and mechanics employed on construction projects of a similar character and in the localities specified therein.
The determinations in these decisions of prevailing rates and fringe benefits have been made in accordance with 29 CFR Part 1, by authority of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal statutes referred to in 29 CFR Part 1, Appendix, as well as such additional statutes as may from time to time be enacted containing provisions for the payment of wages determined to be prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The prevailing rates and fringe benefits determined in these decisions shall, in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing statutes, constitute the minimum wages payable on Federal and federally assisted construction projects to laborers and mechanics of the specified classes engaged on contract work of the character and in the localities described therein.
Good cause is hereby found for not utilizing notice and public comment procedure thereon prior to the issuance of these determinations as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay in the effective date as prescribed in that seciton, because the necessity to issue current construction industry wage determinations frequently and in large volume causes procedures to be impractical and contrary to the public interest.
General wage determination decisions, and modifications and supersede as decisions thereto, contain no expiration dates and are effective from the date of notice in the
Any person, organization, or governmental agency having an interest in the rates determined as prevailing is encouraged to submit wage rate and fringe benefit information for consideration be the Department. Further information and self-explanatory forms for the purpose of Submitting this data may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Division of Wage Determination, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-3014, Washington, DC 20210.
The number of decisions enlisted to the Government Printing Office document entitled “General Wage Determination Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts” being modified are listed by Volume and State. Dates of publication in the
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, including those noted above, may be found in the Government Printing Office (GPO) document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under The Davis-Bacon And Related Acts”. This publication is available at each of the 50 Regional Government Depository Libraries and many of the 1,400 Government Depository Libraries across the country.
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts are available electronically at no cost on the Government Printing Office site at
Hard-copy subscriptions may be purchased from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512-1800.
When ordering hard-copy subscription(s), be sure to specify the State(s) of interest, since subscriptions may be ordered for any or all of the six separate volumes, arranged by State. Subscriptions include an annual edition (issued in January or February) which includes all current general wage determinations for the States covered by each volume. Throughout the remainder of the year, regular weekly updates will be distributed to subscribers.
The following parties have filed petitions to modify the application of existing safety standards under section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
Spartan Mining Company, HC78 Box 1800, Madison, West Virginia 25130 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1002 (Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility) to its Scotch Pine Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 46-09095) and Midway Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 46-09045) located in Boone County, West Virginia. The petitioner proposes to use a 2400-volt power center to power a continuous miner with high-voltage trailing cables inby the last open crosscut and within 150 feet of pillar workings. The petitioner has outlined in this petition specific procedures that will be followed when the proposed alternative method is implemented. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Aracoma Coal Company, P.O. Box 1120, Holden, West Virginia 25625 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1909(b)(6) (Nonpermissible diesel-powered equipment; design and performance requirements) to its Alma #1 Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 46-08801) located in Logan County, West Virginia. The petitioner proposes to operate the one (1) six-wheel Getman Roadbuilder grader, model RDG-1504A, serial number 6782, as it was originally designed without front brakes. The petitioner states that the Getman Roadbuilder has dual brake systems on the four (4) rear wheels and is designed to prevent loss of braking due to a single component failure. The petitioner will provide training for the grader operators to lower the moldboard for additional stopping capability in emergency situations; to recognize the appropriate speeds to use on different roadway conditions; and to limit the maximum speed of the grader to 10 miles per hour. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method will not result in a diminution of safety to the miners.
Genesis, Inc., P.O. Box 552, Somerset, Pennsylvania 15501-0552 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1100-2(e)(2) (Quantity and location of firefighting equipment) to its Genesis #17 Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 36-08980) located in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit the use of an alternative method of compliance for firefighting equipment at temporary electrical installations. The petitioner proposes to use two (2) fire extinguishers or one fire extinguisher of twice the required capacity at all temporary electrical installations in lieu of one fire extinguisher and 240 pounds of rock dust. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Parkwood Resources, Inc., P.O. Box 552, Somerset, Pennsylvania 15501-0552 has filed a petition to modify the
FMC Corporation, Box 872, Green River, Wyoming 82935 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 57.22305 (Approved equipment (III mines)) to its FMC Trona Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 48-00152) located in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit the use of a portable Leica DISTO laser distance meter inby the last open bread or face areas of the mine. The petitioner requests the use of an alternative method so that the equipment in areas covered by 30 CFR 57.22305 can be used safely. The petitioner states that examinations for methane in the mine atmosphere will be conducted prior to utilizing the laser distance meter and at a minimum every ten minutes during use; employees will complete a training form and will be instructed in the requirements for using the equipment; and that the equipment will not be operated in 1.0% or more methane. The petitioner asserts that the safety of the miners will not be reduced because ergonomic safety will be increased since the surveys will be better able to determine mining distances to the face that cannot safely be measured due to the roof being unbolted.
Persons interested in these petitions are encouraged to submit comments via Federal eRulemaking Portal:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. (the licensee) to withdraw its June 7, 2004, application for proposed amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-53 and No. DPR-69, for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Lusby, MD.
The proposed amendment would have revised Technical Specification 3.9.4, “Shutdown Cooling and Coolant Circulation-High Water Level,” to incorporate the use of an alternate cooling method to function as a path for decay heat removal when in Mode 6 with the refueling pool fully flooded.
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated June 7, 2004, and the licensee's letter dated March 30, 2005, which withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License Amendment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) has issued Amendment 2 to Materials License SNM-2510 held by Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) for the receipt, possession, transfer, and storage of spent fuel at the Rancho Seco Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), located on the site of the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station located in Sacramento County, California. The amendment is effective as of the date of issuance.
James R. Hall, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-1336; fax number: (301) 415-8555; email:
By application dated July 29, 2004, SMUD submitted a request to the NRC, in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 72.56, “Application for amendment of license,” to amend the License for the Rancho Seco ISFSI to allow for the storage of Greater than Class C (GTCC) waste. This requested change does not affect the design, operation, or surveillance of the ISFSI.
This amendment complies with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in
In accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(2), a determination has been made that the amendment does not present a genuine issue as to whether public health and safety will be significantly affected. Therefore, the publication of a notice of proposed action and an opportunity for hearing or a notice of hearing is not warranted. Notice is hereby given of the right of interested persons to request a hearing on whether the action should be rescinded or modified.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the environment. For this action, an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact was prepared and published in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Request for comments.
The Advisory Committee is soliciting public comment on a summary of its proposed Committee Agenda. The Committee Agenda sets forth the specific issues that the Committee proposes to address in connection with its evaluation of the current securities regulatory system for smaller public companies, including the impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 on areas under consideration.
Comments should be received on or before May 31, 2005.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet submission form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Committee Management Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number 265-23. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
Questions about this release should be referred to Kevin M. O'Neill, Special Counsel, at (202) 551-3260, or William A. Hines, Special Counsel, at (202) 551-3320, Office of Small Business Policy, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0310.
At the request of the SEC Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies, the Commission is publishing this release soliciting public comments on the issues that the Committee proposes to address. The Commission announced the establishment of the Advisory Committee on December 16, 2004.
The Committee was officially established on March 23, 2005, with the filing of its Charter with Congress. The Charter provides that the Committee's objective is to assess the current regulatory system for smaller public companies under the securities laws and make recommendations for changes. The Charter directs the Committee to consider the following areas of inquiry, including the impact in each area of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745 (July 30, 2002): (1) Frameworks for internal control over financial reporting applicable to smaller public companies, methods for management's assessment of such internal control, and standards for auditing such internal control; (2) corporate disclosure and reporting requirements and federally-imposed corporate governance requirements for smaller public companies; (3) accounting standards and financial reporting requirements applicable to smaller public companies; and (4) the process, requirements and exemptions relating to offerings of securities by smaller public companies, particularly public offerings.
In accordance with these Charter directives, the Committee approved a proposed Committee Agenda at a public meeting held on April 12, 2005. A summary of the Committee Agenda is set forth below. The full text of the Committee Agenda may be found on the Committee's Web page at
The Committee is interested in receiving comments identifying problems, but is most interested in receiving comments proposing solutions to problems.
1.1. Develop preliminary observations to be used for analysis of each substantive area under items 2 through 7 below.
1.2. Examine appropriateness of existing definitions.
1.3. How do existing definitions work? Are they meaningful and effective? Are they practical? Is it possible to develop risk-based or other definitions? Seek economic analysis.
2.1. Evaluate first quarter 2005 reports.
2.1.1. Effective control.
• Size/characteristics of company.
2.1.2. Ineffective control.
• Size/characteristics of company.
• Reasons for failure.
• Materiality of failure.
2.2. Evaluate benefits and costs/burdens for smaller public companies, including disproportionate costs/burdens, competitive disadvantages and effectiveness in preventing fraud.
2.2.1. Seek economic input.
2.2.2. Consider impact on “tone at the top.”
2.2.3. Versus private companies and foreign companies.
2.3. Evaluate procedures used in first quarter reports.
2.3.1. Company procedures.
2.3.2. Auditor procedures.
2.3.3. What worked well.
2.3.4. What worked less well or did not work.
2.4. Mechanisms to evaluate.
2.4.1. Questionnaires prepared by FEI, NASDAQ and others.
2.4.2. One or more roundtables held by SEC and PCAOB.
2.4.3. Other written or oral input.
3.1. Review and catalog.
3.2. Evaluate impact of requiring independent directors for smaller public companies.
3.2.1. Boards themselves and Committees.
3.2.2. Impact on controlling families or other controlling shareholders.
3.2.3. Impact on other stakeholders.
3.2.4. Impact of stakeholders on effectiveness of independent directors.
3.2.5. Loss of market and company knowledge and experience.
3.3. Evaluate impact of independence definitions.
3.3.1. Boards themselves and Committee.
3.3.2. Adequate supply of competent directors.
3.3.3. How are boards/committees performing?
3.3.4. Cost of board operation.
3.3.5. Other.
3.4. Evaluate impact of special requirements on audit committee make-up and operation.
3.4.1. Special independence requirements.
3.4.2. Financial expertise requirements and disclosure requirements.
3.4.3. Loss of operational knowledge, experience and depth.
3.5. Recommendations.
4.1. Officers' certifications.
4.2. Auditing firm's standards and requirements.
4.3. Prohibition of loans to executive officers and directors.
4.4. Other.
4.5. Recommendations.
5.1. How do disclosure requirements affect smaller public companies?
5.2. Analyze Regulation S-B (including seeking economic input).
5.3. Analyze forms and requirements.
5.3.1. Exchange Act periodic reporting forms (10-K, 10-KSB, 10-Q, 10-QSB).
5.3.2. Special Securities Act forms (SB-1, SB-2).
5.3.3. Are S-B forms helpful, beneficial, effective or negative, both for the issuer and the investor market?
5.4. Identify other aspects of disclosure regime that might be modified for smaller public companies.
5.5. Identify other possible scaling standards.
5.5.1. Is size the most appropriate standard or is risk?
5.5.2. Are revenues a better scaling standard for some disclosure rules and other regulations?
5.5.3. Should other alternatives be considered?
5.6. Liability concerns.
5.7. Consider issues of delinquent and deficient micro-cap disclosure.
5.8. Evaluate the balance of disclosure to protect investors with the competitive needs of smaller public companies.
5.9. Recommendations.
6.1. Evaluate “one size fits all” vs. “Big GAAP-Little GAAP.”
6.2. Identify priority accounting principles, if any, where modifications might be considered for smaller public companies.
6.3. Emphasize importance of cash in many smaller companies.
6.4. Analyze overlay and impact of other regulatory schemes (financial institutions, insurance, government contractors,
6.5. Analyze role of outside audit firms with respect to smaller companies,
6.6. Analyze whether extended effective dates for smaller companies are appropriate for future accounting principles.
6.7. Recommend changes, if any.
7.1. Analyze existing structure.
7.2. Analyze selected exemptions from registration and subsequent reporting.
7.3. Evaluate Regulation A.
7.4. Analyze investment banker roles.
7.5. Analyze analysts' coverage.
7.6. Costs and timing to get access to markets.
7.6.1. Broader access to capital, including foreign markets.
7.6.2. Possible roles of capital formation specialists, including brokers and “finders.”
7.7. Cost of and ability to exit the markets.
7.8. Possible improvements in interaction and interplay between federal law or SEC, state laws or state regulators, and self-regulatory organizations and rules (
7.9. Liability issues.
7.10. Recommendations.
8.1. Analyze recommendations from recent SEC Small Business Forums.
8.2. Review small business statutes (Regulatory Flexibility Act and 1980 Small Business Investment Incentive Act).
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of May 2, 2005:
A Closed Meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 at 2 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session that no earlier notice thereof was possible.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 3, 2005, will be: Formal orders of investigations; Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and Settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.
In the Matter of Active Link Communications, Inc., Affinity International Travel Systems, Inc., BIFS Technologies Corp., Brandmakers, Inc., Consolidated General Corp., ePhone Telecom, Inc., E-Rex, Inc., IEMI, MPTV, Inc., National Institute Companies of America, Inc., Read-Rite Corp., and Upgrade International Corp.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Active Link Communications, Inc., because it is delinquent in its periodic filing obligations under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, having not filed a periodic report since the period ending June 30, 2003.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Affinity International Travel Systems, Inc., because it is delinquent in its periodic filing obligations under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, having not filed a periodic report since the period ending March 31, 2001.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of BIFS Technologies Corp., because it is delinquent in its periodic filing obligations under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, having not filed a periodic report since the period ending September 30, 2002.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Brandmakers, Inc., because it is delinquent in its periodic filing obligations under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, having not filed a periodic report since the period ending March 31, 2003.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Consolidated General Corp. (f/k/a Java Group, Inc.), because it is delinquent in its periodic filing obligations under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, having not filed a periodic report since the period ending December 31, 1996.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of ePhone Telecom, Inc., because it is delinquent in its periodic filing obligations under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, having not filed a periodic report since the period ending June 30, 2003.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of E-Rex, Inc., because it is delinquent in its periodic filing obligations under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, having not filed a periodic report since the period ending September 30, 2002.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of IEMI, because it is delinquent in its periodic filing obligations under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, having not filed a periodic report since the period ending September 30, 2002.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of MPTV, Inc., because it is delinquent in its periodic filing obligations under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, having not filed a periodic report since the period ending September 30, 2002.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of National Institute Companies of America, Inc., because it is delinquent in its periodic filing obligations under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, having never filed a periodic report since its June 23, 2000 initial registration.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Read-Rite Corp., because it is delinquent in its periodic filing obligations under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, having not filed a periodic report since the period ending March 30, 2003.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Upgrade International Corp., because it is
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Phlx proposes to amend its schedule of fees to provide a rebate for certain trades executed pursuant to a merger spread strategy.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt a fee cap on equity option transaction and comparison charges on both dividend spread transactions
The proposed fee cap will be in effect as a pilot program that will expire on September 1, 2005.
The Exchange also proposes to delete a reference from its Summary of Equity Option Charges to the Exchange's Specialist Unit Fixed Monthly Fee (“fixed monthly fee”), as that fee is no longer in effect.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Phlx's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx 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 Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change, as amended, is to adopt a rebate for contracts executed in trades occurring as part of a merger spread strategy to create a cost effective environment for these types of transactions to be executed.
The Exchange provides a rebate for certain contracts executed in trades occurring as part of a dividend spread strategy. Specifically, for those options contracts executed pursuant to a dividend spread strategy, the Exchange rebates $0.08 per contract side for ROTs executions and $0.07 per side for specialist executions on the business day before the underlying stock's ex-date.
Similar to the dividend spread strategy rebate process, the Exchange's billing system is unable at this time to distinguish between merger spread transactions and other types of trades. The Exchange has therefore developed a manual procedure to implement the
The purpose of capping the ROT and specialist transaction and comparison fees for merger spread and dividend spread transactions at $1,750 is to attract additional liquidity to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of fees is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended, will impose any inappropriate burden on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing proposed rule change, as amended, has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an E-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-19. 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.
The U.S. Small Business Administration, Region IV Small Business Regulatory Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a public hearing on Thursday, May 26, 2005, at 8:30 a.m., at the Mobile Chamber of Commerce, McGowin Room, 451 Government Street, Mobile AL 36602-2319, phone (251) 433-6951, to receive comments and testimony from small business owners, small government entities, and small non-profit organizations concerning regulatory enforcement and compliance actions taken by Federal agencies.
Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact L.D. Ralph in writing or by fax, in order to be put on the agenda. L.D. Ralph, Loan Specialist, SBA Alabama District Office, 801 Tom Martin Drive, Suite 201, Birmingham, AL 35211, phone (205) 290-7101, Ext. 237, fax (202) 481-4009, e-mail:
For more information, please see our Web site at
Office of Canadian Affairs, Department of State.
Notice.
The proposed action is to issue a Presidential Permit to the State of Maine to authorize it to construct, connect, operate and maintain an international bridge between the City of Calais, Maine, and Canada. The Department of State (the “Department”) has reviewed the potential environmental impacts and determined that the proposal will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the Department of State has issued its Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.
The Department of Transportation of the State of Maine has filed with the Office of Canadian Affairs of the Department of State an application for a Presidential permit to permit the construction of a new international bridge across the St. Croix River and a new international border crossing facility between the city of Calais, Maine (ME), and the town of St. Stephen, New Brunswick (NB). That application was accompanied by a draft environmental assessment dated December 2001 (2001 Draft EA), submitted by the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Maine Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the General Services Administration, and in conjunction with the New Brunswick Department of Transportation.
Notice of the application was published in the
Comments were received from the Federal and State agencies concerning the application and were either responded to directly, or are addressed in the analysis contained in this review set forth below. In addition to inclusion in the analyses of impacts and risks, the comments received were used to develop measures to be undertaken by the Sponsor as commitments to prevent or mitigate potentially adverse environmental impacts.
This summary environmental assessment, the comments submitted by the Federal and State agencies, any responses to those comments, and the 2001 Draft EA submitted by the project sponsor together constitute the Final Environmental Assessment of the proposed action by the Department of State.
The U.S. Department of State (the “Department”) is charged with the issuance of Presidential permits for the certain cross-border facilities under Executive Order 11423 of August 16, 1968, 33 FR 11741, as amended by Executive Order 12847 of May 17, 1993 (58 FR 29511), Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2002 (68 FR 4075), and Executive Order 13337 of April 30, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 25299), as well as under the International Bridge Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 535,
The Department of Transportation of the State of Maine (“MDOT,” the “Sponsor”) has filed an application (“the application”) for a Presidential Permit to permit the construction of a new international bridge across the St. Croix River and a new international border crossing facility between the city of Calais, ME, and the town of St. Stephen, NB, to supplement two small existing crossings: The “Ferry Point Crossing,” which connects the downtown areas of both Calais and St. Stephen; and the “Milltown Crossing,” which connects Calais and St. Stephen about
In January 2001, the Sponsor, in cooperation with the United States General Services Administration and the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and with the assistance of Gannett Fleming, Inc., initiated preparation of an environmental assessment of the potential environmental effects of the proposed International Bridge. The “Draft Environmental Assessment Calais-St. Stephen Area International Border Crossing Study” (2001 Draft EA) was completed in December 2001. The 2001 Draft EA was reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration, which issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on July 31, 2002. That FONSI, and its supporting documentation, are herein incorporated by reference.
The Department has engaged in follow-up inquiries concerning various issues raised with respect to a “Calais-St. Stephen Area International Border Crossing Study,” conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation in conjunction with the New Brunswick Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the U.S. General Services Administration (the study can be found on the Internet at
• U.S. Government: The Department of State; the Department of Defense; the Department of Transportation; the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Department of Justice; the Department of Agriculture, including the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Office of Veterinary Services; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Food and Drug Administration; the Department of Commerce; the Council on Environmental Quality; the General Services Administration; the U.S. Office of the International Boundary Commission; the U.S. Office of the International Joint Commission; and, within the Department of Homeland Security: The Federal Emergency Management Agency; the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection; the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and the U.S. Coast Guard.
• State of Maine: The Department of Transportation, the City of Calais.
Based on the 2001 Draft EA, information developed by the Department during its review of the Sponsor's application and all comments received, and its own review of this information, the Department has completed its Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA). On the basis of the Final EA, the Department has concluded that the issuance of the permit will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment within the United States. Therefore, an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) need not be prepared.
Over the last ten-plus years, a number of studies have been made of traffic flow in the vicinity of the Ferry Point crossing, which is located in and connects the central business districts of Calais, ME, and St. Stephen, NB. Those studies, including one completed in August 1999, revealed that the Ferry Point crossing is characterized by: poor
A second border bridge, at Milltown, is also undersized and is used primarily by non-commercial, local traffic. Both the Milltown and the Ferry Point crossings were built in the 1930s. The traffic load statistics gathered in the 1999 traffic count do not clearly distinguish between the two crossings, and general references herein to “Calais-St. Stephen” should be construed as referring to both the Milltown and Ferry Point crossings.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Calais-St. Stephen is the eighth busiest northern border crossing in the United States for commercial vehicles (trucks) and the fifth busiest for passenger vehicles.
Traffic crossing the current, two-lane Ferry Point bridge has overwhelmed the processing capacity at the border station. Congestion has deteriorated quality of life and commercial activity for nearby homes and businesses. Oversized trucks must be re-routed around the commercial vehicle area, for which they are too big, and into the oncoming traffic lane to navigate the inspection facility. Inspections of such loads must be undertaken while the trucks are parked in the travel lane, leading to significant delays and traffic jams, as well as unsafe working conditions for the inspection staffs. Secondary inspections are carried out in the public streets. In similar vein, outbound inspections are also carried out in the travel lane, limiting the number of such inspections that can be conducted.
A 1999 traffic survey conducted by the Sponsor found that about 6,700 vehicles per day were using the Ferry Point Crossing, with another 2,500 or so using the Milltown Crossing. According to information provided by the Province of New Brunswick, the St. Stephen/Milltown border crossings combined ranked as the ninth busiest in Canada in 2002, with 6,000 vehicles a day, including close to 600 trucks. Whether using the 1999 U.S., or the 2002 Canadian figures, it appears that a substantial amount of traffic uses the St. Croix River crossings, and traffic congestion in the downtown areas of both communities is serious.
The General Services Administration contracted for an extensive study of potential traffic volumes with and without a new crossing in the Spring of 2004. The study was based on actual incoming traffic data provided by the office of the Port Director for the region. The data showed that traffic volumes through the existing crossings at Ferry Point and Milltown have been in flux over the last ten years, and that the busiest months could see at least 50%—in some years as much as 70%—greater than average traffic volumes, leading the GSA contractor to conclude that a simple projection of past growth figures would not be an adequate basis for assessing the effectiveness of the proposed design for the inspection facility or the impacts of a new crossing on the existing entry points. GSA's contractor therefore ran a number of simulations at a substantially higher rate of growth than studies done previously, using both a low range of 7% annual growth over a period of ten years, and a high range of doubling current traffic volumes over the same ten-year period.
GSA's study determined that there is a slight tendency for more commercial vehicles and fewer passenger vehicles to use the Ferry Point crossing, while the reverse is the case at Milltown. Despite this readjustment, however, delays at both crossings are significant. At certain times of the day, commercial vehicles at Milltown may wait as long as 70 minutes to cross the border, while passenger vehicles can wait longer than 60 minutes. At Ferry Point, the wait time for commercial vehicles regularly exceeds 80 minutes at certain times (morning rush) of the day, while passenger vehicles may wait as long as 60 minutes or more at the same times.
Delays and traffic congestion affect the economic and physical environments locally, and increase safety risks as well. Also, a number of trucks carry hazardous materials, and local residents are concerned about the possibility of a hazardous materials spill.
U.S. and Canadian traffic surveys from 1999 and 2000 also indicated that between 27% and 32% of passenger vehicles and approximately 77% of truck traffic at the Ferry Point and Milltown crossings are non-local.
Calais serves as the primary coastal-area crossing point; traffic moves between northeastern Maine and the Maritime Provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland-Labrador. The nearest alternate border crossing facility for commercial vehicles is located at Houlton, ME, approximately 75 miles distant.
A new crossing would improve traffic flow in the immediate area, reduce traffic congestion, and speed through-travel time. It is also clear that a new crossing would furnish greater flexibility for handling traffic flows and greatly improve border security by expanding the capacity of inspection services to carry out their work. According to project documents, the new crossing is also intended to create a gateway between Maine and the Maritime Provinces as part of an overall east-west transportation corridor. The route through Calais is the shortest between Bangor and points in eastern New Brunswick, the Bay of Fundy, and Nova Scotia.
1. Transportation System Management. This would involve small changes such as signal timing improvements and/or minor traffic flow reconstruction at principal intersections in downtown Calais. The restricted space on the ground limits the ability to make substantial improvements. This alternative was rejected by the study committee.
2. Travel Demand Management. This consists of a number of strategies to reduce demand through such mechanisms as rideshare and transit networks to remove vehicles or to encourage local employers to offer flextime hours to shift the times that vehicles would be on the roads. Success depends on a high proportion of commuter traffic versus recreational or commercial traffic, which is not the case at Calais. This alternative was rejected by the study committee.
3. Intelligent Transportation Systems(ITS)/Commercial Vehicle Operations. ITS uses traffic monitoring technology and signage to apprise vehicle operators and inspection agencies of conditions at the border crossing, with the idea that operators can decide whether/how to proceed and inspectors can increase staffing to meet increased demand. This alternative was not considered by the study committee, because there is no flexibility to expand operations at the existing crossing, nor are there workable alternatives for vehicle operators to avoid the delays.
4. No-Build Alternative. This alternative would not address the problems that exist at the current border crossing facilities, while those conditions would worsen over time. This alternative was rejected by the study committee.
5. Alternative 1—Upgrades at the Ferry Point Crossing. Upgrades would include reconstruction of a portion of Union Street and the intersection with Main Street and North Street, reconstruction of the intersection with U.S. Route 1 east of the Milltown Bridge to define a right-turn lane, and
6. Alternatives 2 and 2A—Baileyville Crossing, Connection to Maine Route 9. A new bridge would be built at a site approximately eight miles from Calais' city center near the intersection between U.S. Route 1 and Maine Route 9. This location is favored by some international truckers and by some officials and residents of Baileyville, who believe this route would cut down travel time and/or bring more economic options to Baileyville itself. According to the 2001 Draft EA, this routing would disturb more wetlands, undeveloped lands, and good agricultural soil than the Calais Industrial Park site. The design was altered slightly (creating Alternative 2A) to move a connecting road further away from residences than originally proposed. This route would also remove a substantial amount of traffic from Route 1 as it passes through the Moosehorn NWR, thus reducing the risk of accidents or hazardous material (hazmat) spills in the Refuge. Alternative 2A was one of the two proactive alternatives placed before the public and the agencies reviewing the project. However, it was not ultimately selected as the preferred alternative.
7. Alternative 3—Calais Industrial Park. This alternative was selected as the preferred alternative. See fuller discussion below, at item III B.
8. Alternative 4, 4A—Bypass East of Calais. This alternative envisioned construction of a new bridge over the St. Croix River and Route 1 east of Calais center, between a church and a golf course. The area available for inspection services was only 21.4 hectares, well below the area needed by the U.S. Government for border inspection facilities. This alternative was rejected because it failed to meet the needs for system linkage and safety and because it did not satisfy system linkage needs on the New Brunswick side. In addition, there would be greater impacts to water resources.
9. Stud Mill Road Alternative. Stud Mill Road is a private logging road, used by paper companies, that runs from near the study area (Princeton, north of Baileyville) to the Old Town area just north of Bangor. Using this road would necessitate upgrading approximately 56 miles (90 km) and the construction of a new crossing of the Penobscot River north of Bangor and a new interchange to connect it with Interstate 95. This alternative was rejected because it failed to meet the needs for system linkage and safety and because of expense.
10. Foley Road Alternative. This alternative is similar to Alternative 2, albeit longer, located slightly north of the intersection of Routes 1 and 9. This alternative was rejected because Alternative 2A would accomplish the identified Purpose and Needs at a lower cost and with fewer adverse environmental impacts.
11. Calais Branch Alternative. This alternative, suggested at public meeting, would involve the rehabilitation of the existing rail bridge and the substitution of rail traffic for truck traffic. This alternative was rejected as providing insufficient freight movement capacity, and as failing to meet security requirements.
The project Sponsor studied a number of alternative sites and approaches, in addition to the no-action alternative, as outlined above. Finding that the other alternatives either did not satisfy the Purpose and Needs identified in the study, the 2001 Draft EA focused its analysis on two of the alternatives: Alternative 2A at Baileyville (featuring a connection between shared U.S. Routes 1 and 9 and New Brunswick Routes 1 and 3); and Alternative 3, in the Calais Industrial Park, with access to U.S. Route 1.
From among these, the Sponsor, New Brunswick, and several of the commenting agencies have all concurred in recommending adoption of Alternative 3, which is located in an undeveloped portion of the Calais Industrial Park and situated approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the Ferry Point Crossing in close proximity to U.S. Route 1 between the Town of Baring and the City of Calais.
The selection of Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative was made primarily because the Calais Industrial Park site is already zoned commercial, whereas the Baileyville site (Alternative 2A) is zoned rural and economic impacts will be less if the crossing is closer to the Calais business district. On the other hand, construction at the Baileyville site would disturb less wildlife habitat (10.8 hectares, versus 16.7 ha at the Calais site) but the same amount of wetlands and floodplain areas (2.6 acres in both locations).
The Governments of Canada and New Brunswick announced on November 20, 2003, that funding for the Canadian portion of the project—a connector route to NB Routes 1 and 3 and the Canadian portion of the bridge—had been secured. Road construction has begun to connect the proposed new bridge to existing roads on the Canadian side.
Some concerns have been raised with respect to the potential environmental impact on the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, and in particular, with continued or potential expansion of truck traffic passing through the Refuge to or from a crossing at Calais Industrial Park. Both during the public outreach process conducted by Sponsor and subsequent to release of the 2001 Draft EA, some commenters suggested that the new crossing should be built at the intersection of Routes 9 and 1, in the vicinity of Baileyville, Maine (
Traffic volume along Route 1 from Calais to the junction with Route 9, including through Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge, will be higher under Alternative 3 than it would be under Alternative 2A at Baileyville and as compared to the No-Build Alternative. (Information on traffic growth projections is provided below.) The new crossing is also expected to attract higher traffic volumes than the No-Build Alternative, as it will offer greater transportation efficiency for destinations along the coastal areas of New Brunswick and Maine. However, as discussed in more detail below, these traffic increases are not expected to have a significant impact on the environment of the Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge or its surrounding area. Furthermore, Alternative 3 will better safeguard the economic health of Calais businesses and improve the ambient air quality in the business district of Calais without appreciably altering the economic well-being of Baileyville businesses. Alternative 3 also attracted overwhelming public support.
In response to a request from the U.S. Department of Transportation, MDOT has developed updated traffic projections for the new crossing and for Route 1 between the junction with Route 9 in Baileyville and Calais, including the section passing through Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), that reflect an estimated traffic growth of approximately 20 percent over twenty years. Current traffic volumes, according to figures obtained
The majority of commercial vehicles now crossing at Ferry Point are expected to move to the new crossing; this switch is most likely for non-local truck traffic. Given the distance between Calais and the nearest alternative crossing point at Houlton, we conclude it is unlikely that substantial traffic will divert from Houlton to Calais and therefore overall traffic volumes are unlikely to diverge significantly from current growth projections of between 1.5 and 2 percent per year. However, the GSA traffic study team considered a possible shift to Calais of from one-quarter to one-third of combined passenger and commercial vehicle traffic that presently uses the border crossing at Houlton, Maine. In the absolute worst-case scenario (
According to MDOT, this number is well within the design hourly volume for Route 1 in its current configuration and would not be expected to have a significant impact on the local environment.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requested information regarding the possible widening of Route 1 to accommodate larger traffic volumes in future, and cautioned that its acceptance of the project was predicated on no disturbance of a bald eagle nesting platform near Route 1. Two raised platforms were installed to provide nesting sites for osprey. One is occupied by ospreys, the other by bald eagles. MDOT has stated that it does not currently foresee the need to expand Route 1 to four lanes from the present two. MDOT's two-, six-, and twenty-year plans do not include a widening or expansion of Route 1 at this location. MDOT also has committed to not disturb the two existing bald eagle nesting platforms, which are located approximately 100 yards south of—but within sight of—Route 1. EPA has requested that should the State of Maine change its plans, it notify and work with the EPA to address any agency concerns at that time.
There is a 100-foot wide right-of-way for U.S. Route 1 as it traverses the northwest corner of the Baring Division of Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge. The length of Route 1 through the NWR is approximately 7,000 feet. The total right-of-way area occupied by Route 1 is therefore 700,000 square feet or about 16 acres. Widening the road to four lanes (two in each direction) would not require widening the right-of-way or take any additional land from the Refuge. However, there are no current plans to widen the road, as noted above.
1. The U.S. Coast Guard stated it has no objection to the proposed project. A Coast Guard permit will be required before construction may commence.
2. The Environmental Protection Agency, as noted above, expressed a concern with the potential for widening Route 1 through the Moosehorn NWR, referring to a draft of the environmental assessment prepared in December 2001, and requested clarification from MDOT regarding potential future expansion plans for Route 1. MDOT has responded by noting there are no plans to widen Route 1 in the 2, 6, or 20-year Maine transportation plan. The Environmental Protection Agency has accepted this statement as responsive to its concerns, and has no further objection to the project.
3. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment noted no objections to the proposed project, subject to the issuance of a permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The issuance of such a permit is not a prerequisite to issuance of a Presidential Permit; however, it is a prerequisite to construction of the project.
4. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security requested that the Sponsor provide a study of the hydraulic and hydrologic impacts of the project to the St. Croix River. FEMA also requires verification that the project will meet the requirements of 44 CFR 60.3(d)(3) (2003) with respect to flood plain protection and flood prevention measures. Sponsor has responded that these matters will be addressed during the design phase. FEMA has not approved the project pending receipt of the verification. FEMA approval is not a prerequisite for issuance of a Presidential Permit; however, FEMA approval is a prerequisite for construction.
5. The General Services Administration (GSA) raised the following environmental issues:
a. GSA requested that responsibilities regarding storm water management, a spill response plan, and groundwater monitoring be made clear. GSA and the Sponsor have agreed to work together to apportion responsibilities appropriately.
b. Noise levels on the site will exceed highway noise abatement criteria during construction. GSA seeks assurance from the Sponsor that GSA will not have to deal with noise reduction in the geometry and grading of the proposed border crossing facility. The issue was addressed in the Federal Highway Administration's NEPA process, which determined that noise abatement is not feasible and therefore no commitments on noise abatement exist. GSA has indicated to the Department of State that it is satisfied with this conclusion. No agency expressed environmental concerns about the anticipated level of noise.
6. The Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration raised the following issues:
a. FHWA expressed a concern that a substantial period of time had elapsed since the last MDOT traffic survey of the area was performed in 1999 and, along with the Department of Homeland Security, requested that updated traffic statistics and projections be provided. Working with the Department of Homeland Security and MDOT, the GSA conducted a new study in Spring 2004, the results of which are summarized above. FHWA has accepted this measure as satisfying its concerns and has no further concerns about the project.
7. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security requested:
a. Updated traffic statistics and projections. This information has been provided as noted above.
b. Provision for special lanes for bi-national programs (
c. Information on flood plain, utilities, easements, rights-of-way, and aerial photographs of the construction site. MDOT has agreed to provide this information.
d. Information on the location of Calais City water wells, which adjoin the proposed site, and about the mitigation plans to ensure that the wells will not be contaminated during construction or operation of the border crossing and inspection facilities. GSA has assured the project sponsor it will address storm water runoff concerns throughout design development and construction of the inspection facilities. GSA has also pledged in a letter to the Department of State to design for spill containment and remedial or mitigation action as it relates to the port and port
The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security has accepted these measures as satisfying its environmental concerns.
8. The U.S. Section of the U.S.-Canada International Joint Commission (IJC) noted that IJC permission is required to build a new bridge. IJC permission is not a prerequisite for issuance of a Presidential permit; however it is a prerequisite to construction.
9. The following agencies noted no objection to the proposed project: The Food and Drug Administration, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of Interior, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Commerce, the Food and Drug Administration, and, within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and that portion of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service under DHS jurisdiction.
Economic impacts were an overriding concern to many residents of the Calais-Baileyville region. A small survey of area businesses and customers indicated that most expected that economic losses stemming from a decline in traffic volume in downtown Calais would likely be higher for the Baileyville crossing site (Alternative 2A) than for the Calais Industrial Park site (Alternative 3). Most business owners believed that it would be quite difficult to attract potential customers to drive the six miles from Baileyville into Calais in order to shop.
In accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, as amended by E.O. 12948 of February 1, 1995, on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, the Department has examined whether the selection by the Sponsor of Alternative 3 will have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority or low-income populations. After examination of information provided by the Sponsor in its submission as to the population and income demographics of the proposed site and its environs, the Department is satisfied that any impacts attendant on the project will not disproportionately affect any minority or low-income populations.
At a public hearing held in Calais on February 8, 2002, several other points were made. Putting the crossing at the Calais Industrial Park would help control unconstrained growth, as the Industrial Park itself provides plenty of appropriately zoned space for businesses and services. Many business owners believe that a crossing at Baileyville will discourage tourists from visiting downtown Calais due to the greater distance they would have to drive. One commenter pointed out that with the selection of Alternative 3, the Moosehorn NWR could receive more visitors as well.
The sponsor, Maine Department of Transportation, has undertaken the following commitments in response to issues identified during the interagency project review:
A. Sponsor will adopt Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative. Sponsor will work with the General Services Administration and other bodies to ensure that adequate space for the GSA-owned inspection facility will be provided and made available (approximately 40 acres) to GSA and the Federal inspection agencies, under terms agreed between the GSA and Sponsor.
B. Sponsor will perform hydrologic and hydraulic analyses and prepare a report based on those analyses in relation to the design of the bridge in order to verify that the project complies with the requirements of 44 CFR 60.3(d)(3) (2003). A copy of the report, containing said analyses, shall be supplied to the Department of State and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the Department of Homeland Security.
C. There will be no disturbance of bald eagle nests in the adjacent Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and all reasonable efforts will be made to avoid disturbance of other wildlife or migratory bird species and their nests. The Department notes that there are no proposed construction activities within the Refuge.
The Department will condition issuance of the permit on the following measures in order to minimize negative environmental impacts:
A. The sponsor would be required to apply for and obtain a permit from the International Joint Commission and the International Boundary Commission for construction and operation of the bridge.
B. The following environmental provisions would also apply to the Presidential permit:
1. All reasonable efforts will be made to minimize particulate matter, lighting and noise that might affect wildlife.
2. A biologist will do a pre-construction survey to identify and protect any wildlife in the project area. Construction activities should be conducted in such a way as to avoid as much as reasonably possible migratory bird species and their nests.
3. Injured wildlife will be reported and/or taken to the proper authorities for rehabilitation.
4. In the event of unexpected discovery of archaeological or historical cultural resources, all activity shall cease in the area of discovery. Immediate telephone notification of the discovery shall be made to an appropriate responsible state or federal official, as provided in the Section 105.9 of the State of Maine Department of Transportation General Conditions, Supplemental Specifications, and Supplemental Standard Details for Construction, dated February 1, 2002, and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. In addition, reasonable efforts to protect the cultural resources discovered shall be made. The activity may resume only after the appropriate federal and state agency officials have authorized a continuance.
5. Reasonable measures will be taken to prevent conveyed materials, including soil and rock, from being dropped into the river or other bodies of water in order to avoid adverse effects on the current water quality.
6. Petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POL) will be properly contained. Waste POLs and other articles, such as batteries, will not be burned, dumped in trash containers, deposited in landfills, buried, left on the ground or dumped in ditches. All materials brought on site will be disposed of in a proper manner.
7. Spills of POLs or hazardous wastes will be properly contained and the contamination cleaned up and disposed of in accordance with current applicable regulations. Spills of hazardous materials will be immediately reported to the appropriate state and federal authorities.
8. The area will be watered during construction and site operations as needed to protect plants and wildlife and minimize blowing dust.
9. There will be a short-term increase in noise levels during construction. All personnel working in the area will use proper ear protection.
10. A berm and fence shall be erected along the property line separating any aggregate receiving/distribution site from the St. Croix River or other watercourses. Fencing material should be such as will act as a dust transport barrier.
11. Herbicides used in landscape maintenance will be properly approved and applied in accordance with all regulations.
Based on the Department's independent review of the Final Environmental Assessment, comments received by the Department from Federal, and state and local agencies in response to the Notice of Application, published in the
The Final Environmental Assessment addressing this action is incorporated by reference and is on file and may be reviewed by interested parties at the Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Room 3917, Washington DC 20520 (attention: Ms. Evelyn Wheeler, Tel 202-647-3135).
For the Department of State.
Office of the Secretary.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Department of Transportation's (DOT) intention to request extension of a previously approved information collection.
Comments on this notice must be received June 28, 2005.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. OST-2005-21074 by any of the following methods.
• Web site:
• Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
Ms. Torlanda Archer, Office of the Secretary, Office of International Aviation, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-1037.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of issuance of policy statement.
This notice announces the issuance of a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policy to provide some guidelines for certifying secondary structures made from composite materials. This notice is necessary to advise the public, especially manufacturers of normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes, and commuter category airplanes and their suppliers, that the FAA has adopted a policy on composite applications that range from secondary structures to non-structural parts such as interiors.
Policy statement PS-ACE100-2004-10030 was issued by the Manager of the Small Airplane Directorate on April 19, 2005.
Lester Cheng, Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Regulations & Policy, ACE-111, 901 Locust Street, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (316) 946-4111; fax: 816-329-4090; e-mail:
We announced the availability of the policy statement on August 16, 2004 (69 FR 50438). No comments were received, and the policy has been adopted as proposed.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement will be prepared for a proposed highway project in the City of San Diego, California.
Cesar Perez, Team Leader South Region, Federal Highway Administration, 650 Capitol Mall Suite 4-100, Sacramento, California 95815, Telephone (916) 498-5065, or Jason A. Reynolds, Chief—Environmental Analysis Branch A, California Department of Transportation District 11, 2829 Juan Street, MS 46, San Diego, California 92110, Telephone (858) 616-6609.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation and the City of San Diego, will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposal to provide connection between southbound U.S. Interstate 5 to eastbound State Route 56, and between westbound State Route 56 to northbound U.S. Interstate 5. The project may include new connector ramps, interchange improvements, surface street improvements, and/or auxiliary lanes on State Route 56 between Interstate 5 and Carmel Country Road. One auxiliary lane in each direction on Interstate 5 may also be added from State Route 56 to Del Mar Heights Road. Truck bypass lanes may be extended to Del Mar Heights Road on each side of Interstate 5.
Improvements to the corridor are considered necessary to provide for projected traffic demand. Alternatives under consideration include (1) taking no action (2) direct freeway-to-freeway connector ramps; (3) freeway-to-freeway connector ramps with loop; (4) local street improvements; and (5) local street improvements with west to north direct freeway-to-freeway connector ramp.
Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal. State and local interests have already been involved with initiation of the project and coordination is already being conducted. At least one new scoping meeting is anticipated with the specific date, time, and location to be determined. In addition, a public hearing will be held after publication of the draft EIS. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the hearing. The draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Research, Planning, and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.)
10 a.m., May 3, 2005.
The Board's Hearing Room, Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423.
The Board will meet to discuss among themselves the following agenda items. Although the conference is open for public observation, no public participation is permitted.
STB Finance Docket No. 34662,
STB Finance Docket No. 34391,
STB Finance Docket No. 34509,
STB Docket No. AB-55 (Sub-No. 631X),
Embraced Case: STB Docket No. 42086,
STB Docket No. 42057,
STB Docket No. AB-33 (Sub-No. 132X),
STB Finance Docket No. 34376,
STB Docket No. AB-290 (Sub-No. 168X),
STB Finance Docket No. 34609,
A. Dennis Watson, Office of Congressional and Public Services, Telephone: (202) 565-1596 FIRS: 1-800-877-8339.
Dakota, Missouri Valley & Western Railroad, Inc. (DMVW) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F—
DMVW has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic can be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Board or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on May 31, 2005, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to DMVW's representative: Janie Sheng, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP, 1800 Massachusetts Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20036.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
DMVW has filed an environmental and historic report which addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by May 6, 2005. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA, at (202) 565-1539. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.] Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), DMVW shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by DMVW's filing of a notice of consummation by April 29, 2006, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Notice of reporting requirements.
By this Notice, the Department of the Treasury is informing the public that it is conducting a mandatory survey of foreign ownership of U.S. securities as of June 30, 2005. This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, this survey. Additional copies of the reporting forms SHLA (2005) and instructions may be printed from the Internet at:
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information used by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 28, 2005.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Ann Bickoff, Veterans Health Administration (193E1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail:
Ann Bickoff at (202) 273-8310.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 31, 2005.
Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005E3), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., or e-mail
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would set forth the hospice wage index for fiscal year 2006 and identifies the revised labor market and metropolitan statistical areas. This proposed rule would also codify provisions of sections 408 and 946 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on June 28, 2005.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-1286-P. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of three ways (no duplicates, please):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201; or 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
(Because access to the interior of the HHH Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Terri Deutsch, (410) 786-9462.
Hospice care is an approach to treatment that recognizes that the impending death of an individual warrants a change in the focus from curative care to palliative care for relief of pain and for symptom management. The goal of hospice care is to help terminally ill individuals continue life with minimal disruption to normal activities while remaining primarily in the home environment. A hospice uses an interdisciplinary approach to deliver medical, social, psychological, emotional, and spiritual services through use of a broad spectrum of professional and other caregivers, with the goal of making the individual as physically and emotionally comfortable as possible. Counseling services and inpatient respite services are available to the family of the hospice patient. Hospice programs consider both the patient and the family as a unit of care.
Section 1861(dd) of the Social Security Act (the Act) provides for coverage of hospice care for terminally ill Medicare beneficiaries who elect to receive care from a participating hospice. Section 1824(i) of the Act provides payment for Medicare-participating hospices.
Our regulations at 42 CFR part 418 establish eligibility requirements, payment standards and procedures, define covered services, and delineate the conditions a hospice must meet to be approved for participation in the Medicare program. Part 418 subpart G provides for payment in one of four prospectively-determined rate categories (routine home care, continuous home care, inpatient respite care, and general inpatient care) to hospices based on each day a qualified Medicare beneficiary is under a hospice election.
The hospice wage index is used to adjust payment rates for hospice agencies under the Medicare program to reflect local differences in area wage levels. The original hospice wage index was based on the 1981 Bureau of Labor Statistics hospital data and had not been updated since 1983. In 1994, because of disparity in wages from one geographical location to another, a committee was formulated to negotiate a wage index methodology that could be accepted by the industry and the government. This committee, functioning under a process established by the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, was comprised of national hospice associations; rural, urban, large, and small hospices; multisite hospices; consumer groups; and a government representative. On April 13, 1995, the Hospice Wage Index Negotiated
In the August 8, 1997
The annual update to the hospice wage index is published in the
Raw wage index values below 0.8 are adjusted by the greater of: (1) The hospice budget neutrality adjustment factor; or (2) the hospice wage index floor (a 15 percent increase) subject to a maximum wage index value of 0.8.
On December 8, 2003, the Congress enacted the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173). This legislation provided for the following provisions affecting hospice services:
• Section 408, Recognition of Attending Nurse Practitioners as Attending Physicians to Serve Hospice Patients.
• Section 512, Coverage of Hospice Consultation Services.
• Section 946, Authorizing Use of Arrangements to Provide Core Hospice Services in Certain Circumstances.
Section 408 of the MMA amended sections 1861(dd)(3)(B) and 1814(a)(7) of the Act to add nurse practitioners (NPs) to the definition of an attending physician for beneficiaries who have elected the hospice benefit. In other words, if a beneficiary's primary care provider before the determination of the terminal illness and election of the hospice benefit is an NP, the NP can remain as the attending physician, if the beneficiary chooses, after a hospice election. If the beneficiary does not have an attending physician or NP at the time of the terminal diagnosis, the beneficiary may choose to designate either a physician or an NP as his or her attending physician when electing the hospice benefit. Section 408 of the MMA was implemented through an administrative issuance (Change Request (CR) 3226, Transmittals 22 and 304, September 24, 2004).
Section 512 of the MMA provides for a one-time evaluation and consultation to Medicare beneficiaries who have been determined to have a 6-month prognosis if the disease runs its normal course, and who require the expertise of the medical director or physician employed by a hospice in order to be able to make end-of-life decisions. This provision was implemented in the CY 2005 Physician Fee Schedule final rule published in the November 15, 2004
Section 946(a) of the MMA allows a hospice program “in extraordinary, exigent, or other non-routine circumstances, such as unanticipated period of high patient loads, staffing shortages due to illness or other events, or temporary travel of a patient outside a hospice program's service area, * * * “ to enter into arrangements with another hospice program to provide services to beneficiaries. Section 946(b) of the MMA provides that “in the case of hospice care provided by a hospice program under arrangement under section 1861(dd)(5)(D) made by another hospice program, the hospice program that made the arrangements shall bill and be paid for the hospice care.” In section II.B.2 of this proposed rule, we discuss our proposal to revise the regulations to implement payment for hospice services made under arrangements. We will address the implementation of section 946(a) of the MMA in a future rulemaking document.
As required by § 418.306(c), each hospice's labor market is established using the MSA definitions issued by OMB. In the September 4, 1996 hospice wage index proposed rule (61 FR 46579), we explained that the MSA definitions were issued by OMB on December 28, 1992, based on the 1990 census, and updated by OMB based on the decennial census. In accordance with our regulations, changes to the MSA definitions are announced in a
In the August 27, 2004
In general, OMB defines an urban area as a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or New England County Metropolitan Area (NECMA). A rural area is defined
Under the hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS), the wage index is calculated and assigned to hospitals on the basis of the labor market area in which the hospital is located or geographically reclassified under sections 1886(d)(8) and (d)(10) of the Act. In accordance with our regulations for hospice payment, we also use MSAs to define labor market areas, but the application differs from IPPS. Section 1814(i)(2)(D) of the Act requires Medicare to pay for hospice services based on the geographic location where the service is furnished. The wage index value used is based upon the location of the beneficiary's home for routine home care and continuous home care and the location of the hospice agency for general inpatient and respite care.
In this proposed rule, we will address the new OMB definitions and their application to the hospice wage index. Since our regulations require the use of the IPPS wage data as the basis for determining the hospice wage index, we are providing the following summary of the revised geographical statistical areas adopted in the FY 2005 IPPS final rule. (For a more detailed discussion of the changes in the hospital wage index based on the new OMB definitions see the FY 2005 IPPS proposed and final rules published May 18, 2004 (69 FR 28196) and August 11, 2004 (69 FR 48916).)
As discussed in the FY 2005 IPPS final rule, “the [hospital] wage index is calculated and assigned to hospitals on the basis of the labor market area in which the hospital is located.” In addition, the IPPS final rule (69 FR 49026) defined hospital labor markets as follows:
We currently define hospital labor market areas based on the definitions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), Primary MSAs (PMSAs), and New England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs) issued by OMB. OMB also designates Consolidated MSAs (CMSAs). A CMSA is a metropolitan area with a population of one million or more, comprising two or more PMSAs (identified by their separate economic and social character). For purposes of the hospital wage index, we use the PMSAs rather than CMSAs because they allow a more precise breakdown of labor costs. If a metropolitan area is not designated as part of a PMSA, we use the applicable MSA.
These different designations use counties as the building blocks upon which they are based. Therefore, hospitals are assigned to either an MSA, PMSA, or NECMA based on whether the county in which the hospital is located is part of that area. For purposes of the IPPS wage index, we combine all of the counties in a State outside a designated MSA, PMSA, or NECMA together to calculate a statewide rural wage index.
In the December 27, 2000
According to OMB, MSAs are based on urbanized areas of 50,000 or more population, and Micropolitan Statistical Areas (referred to in further discussion as Micropolitan Areas) are based on urban clusters of at least 10,000 population but less than 50,000 population. Counties that do not fall within CBSA (either MSA or Micropolitan Areas) are deemed “Outside CBSAs.” In the past, OMB defined MSAs around areas with a minimum core population of 50,000, and smaller areas were “Outside MSAs.”
In its June 6, 2003 bulletin, OMB announced the new CBSAs, comprised of MSAs and the new Micropolitan Areas based on Census 2000 data. The new CBSA designations recognize 49 new (urban) MSAs and 565 new Micropolitan Areas, and revised the composition of many of the existing (urban) MSAs. There are 1,090 counties in MSAs under these new CBSA designations compared with 848 counties in the previous MSAs. Of these 1,090 counties, 737 are in the same MSA as they were before the changes, 65 are in different MSAs, and 288 were not previously designated to any MSA. There are 674 counties in Micropolitan Areas. Of these, 41 were previously in an MSA, while 633 were not previously designated to an MSA.
As discussed in the FY 2005 IPPS final rule (69 FR 49027), alternatives to the use of MSAs for the purpose of establishing labor market areas for the Medicare wage index were examined. In the May 27, 1994, IPPS proposed rule (59 FR 27724), the latest research concerning possible future refinements to the labor market areas was presented. Public comments received on the May 27, 1994 proposed rule were described in the June 2, 1995 proposed rule (60 FR 29219). In that rule, it was noted that there was no consensus among commenters on the choice for new labor market areas. Consequently, MSAs have continued to be used to define labor market areas for purposes of the wage index by many Medicare payment systems as noted in previous discussion.
NECMAs are currently used to define labor markets areas in New England, “* * * because these are county-based designations rather than the 1990 MSA definitions for New England which used minor civil divisions such as cities and towns.” Under the CBSA definition, “OMB has defined the MSAs and Micropolitan Areas in New England on the basis of counties. OMB also established New England City and Town Areas, which are similar to the previous New England MSAs.” Therefore, to maintain consistency in the definition of labor market areas between New England and the rest of the country, IPPS decided to use the New England MSAs under the new CBSA definition.
Under OMB's new CBSA designations, a Metropolitan Division is a county or group of counties within a CBSA that contains a core population of at least 2.5 million, representing an employment center, plus adjacent counties associated with the main county or counties through commuting lines. For the hospital wage index the PMSAs are used rather than CMSA to define labor market areas “because they comprise a smaller geographic area with potentially varying labor costs due to different local economies.”
The IPPS final rule noted the following regarding the use of Micropolitan Areas to define labor markets (69 FR 49029):
One of the major issues with respect to the new definitions is whether to use Micropolitan Areas to define labor market areas for the purpose of the IPPS wage index. Because the new Micropolitan Areas are essentially a third area definition made up mostly of currently rural areas, but also some or all of current MSAs, how these areas are treated will have significant impacts on the calculation and application of the wage index. Treating Micropolitan Areas as separate and distinct labor market areas would affect both the wage indexes of the hospitals in the Micropolitan Areas and the
Because we currently use MSAs to define urban labor market areas and we group all the hospitals in counties within each State that are not assigned to an MSA together into a statewide rural labor market area, we have used the terms “urban” and “rural” wage indexes in the past for ease of reference. However, the introduction of Micropolitan Areas complicates this terminology because these areas include so many hospitals that are currently included in the statewide rural labor market areas. In order to facilitate the discussion below, we use the term “rural” hospitals to describe hospitals in counties that are not assigned to either an MSA or a Micropolitan Area. This should not be taken to indicate that hospitals in Micropolitan Areas are no longer “rural” hospitals. In fact, we proposed that hospitals in Micropolitan Areas are included in the statewide rural labor market areas, for the reasons outlined below.
Section 418.306(c) requires that we issue annually in the
Section 4441(a) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) amended section 1814(i)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act to establish updates to hospice rates for FYs 1998 through 2002. Hospice rates were to be updated by a factor equal to the hospital market basket index, minus 1 percentage point. However, neither the BBA nor subsequent legislation specified the hospital market basket adjustment to be used to compute payment for FY 2006. Therefore, payment rates for FY 2006 will be updated according to section 1814(i)(1)(C)(ii)(VII) of the Act, which specifies that the update to the payment rates after FY 2002 will be the hospital market basket percentage increase for the fiscal year. This rate update is implemented via administrative issuance to be published July 2005 to provide adequate time to implement system change requirements and is not part of this proposed rule.
The hospice wage index presented in this proposed rule would be effective October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006. We note that we are not proposing any modifications to the hospice wage index methodology. In accordance with the our regulations and the agreement signed with other members of the Hospice Wage Index Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, we will continue to use the most current hospital data available to adjust for area wage differences. For this proposed rule, the FY 2005 hospital wage index was the most current hospital wage data available when the FY 2006 wage index values were calculated. We continue to use the pre-reclassified and prefloor hospital area wage index data. Payment rates for each of the four levels of care (routine home care, continuous home care, respite care, and general inpatient care) are adjusted annually based upon the hospital market basket for that year and are promulgated administratively to allow for sufficient time for system changes and provider notification. Due to the need to ensure appropriate time for implementing changes, we have not incorporated these payment rates into this proposed rule.
The payment rates are divided into the labor and nonlabor portions. The appropriate wage index value is applied to the labor portion of the hospice rate based on the geographic area in which the beneficiary resides when receiving routine home care or continuous home care. The appropriate wage index value is applied to the labor portion of the hospice rate based on the geographic area of the hospice agency for beneficiaries receiving general inpatient or respite level of care.
We use the previous fiscal year's hospital wage index data to calculate the hospice wage index values. For FY 2006 proposed hospice wage index, we use the FY 2005 hospital prefloor and pre-reclassified hospital wage data. This means that the hospital wage data used for the hospice wage index is not adjusted to take into account the geographic reclassification of hospitals in accordance with sections 1886(d)(8)(B) and 1886 (D)(10) of the Act. All wage index values for FY 2006 would be adjusted by either by the proposed FY 2006 budget neutrality adjustment factor, 1.063479, or the wage index floor adjustment. This means, that for wage index values 0.8 or greater, the value is multiplied by the budget neutrality adjustment factor. For wage index values that are below 0.8, either the budget neutrality adjustment factor or the wage index floor, not to exceed 0.8, is applied. In other words, the floor adjustment is the greater of the raw wage index value multiplied by the proposed budget neutrality adjustment factor (1.063479 for FY 2006) or the raw wage index value for that area is multiplied by 15 percent subject to a maximum value of 0.8. Budget neutrality means that, in a given year, estimated aggregate payments for Medicare hospice services using the updated wage index will equal estimated payments that would have been made for the same services if the wage index adopted for hospices in 1983 had remained in effect. (For a detailed discussion of the methodology used to compute the hospice wage index see the September 4, 1996 proposed rule (61 FR 46579) and the August 8, 1997 final rule (62 FR 42860)). The proposed FY 2006 hospice wage indexes for urban and rural areas are listed in Tables A and B of the Addendum.
(If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “Implementation of Revised Labor Market Designations” at the beginning of your comments)
For the hospice payment system, § 418.306(c) requires that the hospice wage index be “based on the most current available CMS hospital wage index, including any changes to the definitions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas.” We continue to believe MSAs are a reasonable and appropriate proxy for developing geographic areas for purposes of adjusting for wage differences in hospice. We also note that MSAs are used to define labor market areas for purposes of the wage index for many of the other Medicare payment systems (for example, long term care hospital (LTCH) prospective payment system (PPS), inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) PPS, home health agency (HHA) PPS, skilled nursing facility (SNF) PPS, Outpatient PPS and inpatient psychiatric facility (IPF) PPS.
First, historically, Medicare prospective payment systems have used metropolitan area (MA) definitions developed by OMB. For example, in adopting the MSA designation for the IPPS area labor adjustment, the Secretary stated:
[i]n administering a national payment system, we must have a national classification system built on clear, objective standards. Otherwise the program becomes increasingly difficult to administer because the distinction between rural and urban hospitals is blurred. We believe that the MSA system is the only one that currently meets the requirements for use as a classification system in a national payment program. The MSA classification system is a statistical standard developed for use by Federal agencies in the production, analysis, and publication of data on metropolitan areas. The standards have been developed with the aim of producing definitions that will be consistent as possible for all MSAs nationwide.” (49 FR 27426).
In addition, in numerous instances, the Congress has recognized that the areas developed by OMB may be used for differentiating among geographic areas for Medicare payment purposes. For example, in the IPPS statutory section, section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Act, the Congress defines an “urban area” as “an area within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget) or within such similar area as the Secretary has recognized.” Similarly, in the sections of the statute governing the guidelines to be used by the Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board for purposes of reclassification, sections 1886(d)(10)(A) and (D)(i)(II) of the Act, the Congress directed the Secretary to create guidelines for “determining whether the county in which the hospital is located should be treated as being part of a particular [MSA].” Thus, the Congress has accepted and ratified the use of MSAs as an inherently rational manner of dividing up labor-market areas for purposes of Medicare payments.
The process used by OMB to develop the MSAs creates geographic areas that are based upon characteristics we believe also generally reflect the characteristics of unified labor market areas. For example, the CBSAs reflect a core population plus an adjacent territory that reflects a high degree of social and economic integration. This integration is measured by commuting ties, thus demonstrating that these areas may draw workers from the same general areas. In addition, the most recent CBSAs reflect the most up to date information. OMB reviews its MA definitions preceding each decennial census to reflect recent population changes, and the CBSAs are based on the Census 2000 data. Finally, in the context of the inpatient prospective payment system, we have reviewed alternative methods for determining geographic areas for purposes of the wage index, and in each case, have determined to remain with the OMB designations rather than replace these designations with alternatives.
As stated previously, § 418.306(c) requires the hospice wage index to reflect changes to the definitions of MSA. Therefore, we are proposing to adopt the revised labor market area designations based on OMB's CBSA designations.
For the proposed FY 2006 hospice wage index, we would adopt the CBSA designations as finalized in the FY 2005 IPPS. We believe that OMB's CBSA designations, based on Census 2000 data reflect the most recent available geographic classifications (MA definitions). We are not proposing to change at this time, the methodology derived as a result of the negotiated rulemaking committee. We believe that there are factors which require evaluation to determine if the hospice methodology supports the cost of providing hospice services and if the methodology requires modification.
As discussed in the IPPS final rule (69 FR 49032), when the IPPS adopted the revised labor market areas based on OMB's new CBSA designations on October 1, 2004, IPPS established a transition to the new designations to mitigate the resulting adverse impact on certain hospitals. Section 1814(i)(1)(A) of the Act requires hospice payment to be based on “costs which are reasonable and related to the cost of providing hospice care or which are based on such other tests of reasonableness the Secretary may prescribe in regulations * * *.” Our regulations at § 418.306(c) require us to issue annually in the
In adopting the CBSA designations, we identified that there were no IPPS hospitals and thus no hospital wage index data on which to base the calculation of the FY 2006 hospice wage index for rural Massachusetts. Because there is no reasonable proxy for more recent rural data within Massachusetts, we are proposing to use the prefloor, preclassified hospital wage index data for FY 2005 and apply the FY 2006 proposed budget neutrality factor of 1.063479. In the event that future rural areas do not have hospital wage index data to derive a hospice wage index, we propose to use a comparable methodology to derive a wage index. Similarly, if there urban areas without hospital wage index data, we propose to use all of the urban areas within the State as a reasonable proxy. We are soliciting comment on these approaches to calculating the wage index value for areas without hospital wage data for FY 2006 and subsequent years.
To facilitate an understanding of the policies related to the proposed changes in the hospice wage index discussed in section II.A of this proposed rule, we are providing the following tables in the Addendum to this proposed rule:
• Table A—Proposed Hospice Wage Index for Urban Areas by CBSA.
• Table B—Proposed Hospice Wage Index for Rural Areas by CBSA.
• Table C—Comparison of Hospice Wage Index for Urban Areas by MSA and CBSA. This table lists the counties by MSA designation and the wage index if we had retained the use of MSAs. It also presents the CBSA designation for these counties and the corresponding wage index using the CBSA designations. The MSA designations include those counties that were classified as rural and indicated the State rural MSA code and the corresponding CBSA for these counties which under the CBSA designation are now urban. We note that some counties that are classified as rural under the MSA designation would become rural under the new CBSA designation and vice versa.
• Table D—Comparison of the Hospice Wage Index for Rural Areas by MSA and CBSA. This table compares
• Table E—Rural Counties Converting to Urban Counties by State. This table presents the rural counties that under the CBSA designations convert to urban counties. The list includes the county name, State county code, MSA designation, MSA name, CBSA name, and CBSA designation. Please note that these conversions are based on the OMB designations.
• Table F—Crosswalk of Counties by State from MSA to CBSA. This table crosswalks all counties in each State from MSA to CBSA and includes the State, State county code, MSA designation, MSA name, CBSA designation, and CBSA name. These tables will assist providers in identifying their location and their catchment area(s) by their previous designations and their CBSA designation as well as the wage indices for those areas based upon the previous MSA designations as well as the CBSA designations.
We have discovered an error in the labeling of the wage index tables that we have been publishing in the annual hospice wage index update. That labeling error is the listing of Stanly County, North Carolina as one of the areas under MSA 1520 when, in fact, we consider Stanly County, NC to be a rural area in North Carolina. Stanly County wage data have always been correctly treated as rural in the actual creation of the hospice wage index values, and it has only been the listing of Stanly County under MSA 1520 that was in error. Consequently, we are correcting our labeling error from past notices for the hospice and have removed Stanly County from the list of areas that fall under the MSA 1520 wage index. Since this is strictly a ministerial correction that does not affect the actual computation of the wage index values, hospice providers in and beneficiaries who reside in Stanly County and receive routine home and continuous home care in Stanly County will continue to fall under, and use, the wage index for rural North Carolina.
(If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “MMA Provisions” at the beginning of your comments)
In section I.C of this proposed rule, we note that section 408 of the MMA was effective upon enactment and initially implemented through administrative issuances. This proposed rule would incorporate the provisions in regulation.
Section 408 of the MMA amended sections 1861(dd)(3)(B) and 1814(a)(7) of the Act to add nurse practitioners (NPs) to the definition of an attending physician, for beneficiaries who have elected the hospice benefit. In other words, if a beneficiary's primary care provider is an NP, before the determination of the terminal illness and election of the hospice benefit, the NP can remain as the attending physician, if chosen by the beneficiary. If the beneficiary does not have an attending physician or NP, the beneficiary must be provided with an option of either a physician or an NP (if available and if allowed by State law) to serve as the attending physician. An NP is defined as a registered nurse who performs such services as he or she is legally authorized to perform (in the State in which the services are performed) in accordance with State law (or State regulatory mechanism provided by State law) and who meets the training, education, and experience requirements as the Secretary may prescribe.
As discussed in Change Request 3226 (Transmittals 22 and 304, September 24, 2004), beginning December 8, 2003, Medicare pays for medically reasonable and necessary services provided by NPs to Medicare beneficiaries who have elected the hospice benefit and who have selected a nurse practitioner as their attending physician. Nurse practitioners are paid 85 percent of the fee schedule amount for their services as attending physicians. Services for the terminal and related conditions provided by an NP—
• Serving as the attending physician that are medical in nature must be reasonable and necessary and must be services that, in the absence of an NP, would be performed by a physician; and
• May not be separately billed if the—
++ Services would not be reasonable and necessary if provided by an attending physician;
++ NP is not the patient's attending physician; or
++ Services would be performed by a registered or licensed nurse in the absence of a physician or nurse practitioner.
Since NPs are not physicians, as defined in 1861(r)(1) of the Act, they may not act as medical directors or physicians of the hospice or certify the beneficiary's terminal illness and hospices may not contract for their attending physician services as described in 1861(dd)(2)(B)(i)(III) of the Act. All of these provisions apply to NPs without regard to whether they are hospice employees.
We are proposing to revise § 418.3, 418.22(c)(1)(ii), and § 418.304 to implement the provisions of section 408 of the MMA.
Section 946(a) of the MMA amended section 1861(dd)(5) of the Act by adding the following: “(D) In extraordinary, exigent, or other non-routine circumstances, such as unanticipated periods of high patient loads, staffing shortages due to illness or other events, or temporary travel of a patient outside a hospice program's service area, a hospice program may enter into arrangements with another hospice program for the provision by that other program of services described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii)(I).” Section 946(a) of the MMA is discussed in this proposed rule to assist the reader in understanding how hospices will be reimbursed for these types of arrangements. We will issue more specific regulations regarding section 946(a) of the MMA in future rulemaking.
Section 946(b) of the MMA amended section 1814(i) of the Act to add the following: “(5) In the case of hospice care provided by a hospice program under arrangements under section 1861(dd)(5)(D) made by another hospice program, the hospice program that made the arrangements shall bill and be paid for the hospice care.” This means that the hospice that establishes the contractual arrangement with the hospice that will be providing services to the beneficiary, continues to bill for and receive payment during the hospice election.
Section 4442 of the BBA amended section 1814(i)(2) of the Act, effective for services furnished on or after October 1, 1997, to require hospice agencies to submit claims for payment for hospice services furnished in an individual's home on the basis of the geographic location at which the service is furnished. Therefore, the methodology for applying the wage index to the labor portion of the payment rates remains the same. This means that the wage index for routine and continuous home care would reflect the place where the service is provided,
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are required to provide 30-day notice in the
• The need for the information collection and its usefulness in carrying out the proper functions of our agency.
• The accuracy of our estimate of the information collection burden.
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Recommendations to minimize the information collection burden on the affected public, including automated collection techniques.
Section 418.22(c)(1) requires for the initial 90-day period, the hospice must obtain written certification statements (and oral certification statements if required under paragraph (a)(3) of this section) from the individual's attending physician, if the individual has an attending physician, that meets the definition of physician specified in § 410.20 of this subchapter.
While this requirement is subject to the PRA it is currently approved by OMB under control number 0938-0302, “ICRs in Hospice Care Regulation and Supporting Regulations”, with a current expiration date of September 30, 2006.
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
We have examined the impacts of this proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132. We estimated the impact on hospices, as a result of the proposed changes to the FY 2006 hospice wage index. As discussed previously, the methodology for computing the wage index was determined through a negotiated rulemaking committee and implemented in the August 8, 1997 final rule (62 FR 42860). This proposed rule updates the hospice wage index in accordance with our regulation and that methodology, incorporating the adoption of the CBSA designations used in the hospital wage index data. Table I reflects the proposed hospice wage index impact using the CBSA designations. Table II indicates the proposed wage index impact using the hospice wage indices under the MSA designations as well as the CBSA designations.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside an MSA and has fewer than 100 beds. We have determined that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure in any 1 year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $110 million or more. This proposed rule would have no substantial effect on State, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. We have reviewed this proposed rule under the threshold criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it would not have an impact on the rights, roles, and responsibilities of State, local, or tribal governments.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The impact of hospice wage index changes have been analyzed according to type of hospice, geographic location, type of ownership, hospice base, and hospice size. Hospice size was determined by the number of routine home care days (RHC). Since routine home care days account for over 70 percent of the services provided by a hospice, we used RHC days as a proxy for the size of the hospice agency. In the past, we had, designated the size by four categories: (1) 0 to 1,754 RHC days representing small agencies; (2) 1,754 to 4,373 RHC days or (3) 4,373 to 9,681 RHC days representing medium-sized agencies; and (4) 9,681 RHC days or more representing large agencies.
To determine the statistical distribution of RHC days, based upon the total number of hospice agencies and their respective RHC days using FY 2003 claims processed through March 2004, were used. In determining the statistical distribution, we deleted data for four hospice agencies with RHC days that greatly exceeded the total number of RHC days of other agencies. However, these data have been included in the impact analysis since we recognize that the skewness existed in the “large” agency size distribution using four size categories and does not change with the use of three size categories.
Based upon this analysis, we are using only three size designations to present the impact analyses. We believe that these three designations better describe the size of the hospice. The three categories are: Small agencies having 0 to 3,499 RHC days; medium agencies having 3,500 to 19,999 RHC days; and large agencies having 20,000 or more RHC days.
Our discussions for this proposed rule will focus on the impact of adopting the
Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 13258, which merely reassigns responsibility of duties) directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). We have determined that this proposed rule is not an economically significant rule under this Executive Order.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies. Most hospices and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $6 million to $29 million in any 1 year (for details, see the Small Business Administration's regulation at 65 FR 69432, that sets forth size standards for health care industries). For purposes of the RFA, most hospices are small entities. As indicated in Table I below, there are 2,435 hospices. Approximately 70 percent of Medicare certified hospices are identified as voluntary, government, or other agencies and, therefore, are considered small entities. Because the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization estimates that approximately 79 percent of hospice patients are Medicare beneficiaries, we have not considered other sources of revenue in this analysis. Furthermore, the wage index methodology was previously determined by consensus, through a negotiated rulemaking committee that included representatives of national hospice associations; rural, urban, large, and small hospices; multisite hospices; and consumer groups. Based on all of the options considered, the committee agreed on the methodology described in the committee statement, and it was adopted into regulation in the August 8, 1997 final rule. In developing the process for updating the wage index in the 1997 final rule, we considered the impact of this methodology on small entities and attempted to mitigate any potential negative effects.
As stated previously, the following discussions are limited to demonstrating trends rather than projected dollars if the subsequent final rule to this proposed rule were implemented for FY 2006. We used the CBSA designations and wage indices as well as the data from FY 2003 claims processed through June 2004 in developing the impact analysis. We will recalculate the impacts for the final rule using the FY 2004 claims file. We will discuss the estimated payments for FY 2006 at that time. Since the impact tables are intended to reflect the implementation of the CBSA in contrast with the current MSA designations, the introduction of the wage indices is the only variable used in the computation. It is important to note that the payment rates used reflect the FY 2005 rates. The FY 2006 payment rates will be adjusted to reflect the full FY 2006 hospital market basket, as required by section 1814(i)(1)(C) (ii)(VII) of the Act. As previously noted, we publish these rates through administrative issuances. As discussed in section II.A.1.a. of this proposed rule, hospice agencies may various wage indices to compute their payments based on the geographic location of the beneficiary for routine and continuous home care or the MSA (CBSA) or the location of the hospice agency for respite and general inpatient care. Therefore, we analyze the impact on hospices using the following parameters: geographic location; hospice size; type of ownership; and hospice base).
Our analysis demonstrates that, under this proposed rule, rural hospices would experience an increase in payment that is greater than that of urban hospices. Rural hospices are anticipated to experience a modest increase of 0.8 percent and urban hospices a slight decrease of 0.2 percent. However, the impact overall is anticipated to remain unchanged if the CBSA designations are adopted. This flat trend is also evident when contrasting the findings with projections using the MSA designations. However, the projections using the MSA designations remain flat for urban areas and decrease slightly by 0.1 percent for rural areas.
Of the urban hospices, we anticipate that most of the regions would experience decreases ranging from a 1.4 for the urban New England region to 0.1 decrease for the South Atlantic. A slight increase is anticipated for the West North Central, West South Central, and Pacific urban regions of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.1, respectively. In contrast, the rural regions are expected to receive an increase for all regions ranging from a substantial increase of 21.7 percent for rural Puerto Rico to a 1 percent increase for East North Central. We believe that that aberration for Puerto Rico can be attributed to the increase in the hospital wage indices in the region as well as the large number of rural counties under the MSA designations in Puerto Rico that have been designated as urban counties under the CBSA designations. Rural New England and West North Central regions are expected to remain flat. Only one rural region, the Mid-Atlantic, is anticipated to experience a decrease of 1.5 percent. The anticipated increase for the rural regions using the MSA designations is in contrast, more modest with increases ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 and decreases anticipated for the rural South Atlantic, East North Central, East South Central, and Middle Atlantic of 0.2, 0.3, 0.6, and 0.7, respectively.
As discussed previously, we have designated three hospice sizes based on routine home care days. Under the Medicare hospice benefit, hospices can provide four different levels of care days. The majority of the days provided by a hospice are routine home care days. Therefore, the number of routine home care days can be used as a proxy for the size of the hospice, that is, the more days of care provided, the larger the hospice. Using routine home care days as a proxy for size, our analysis indicates that the impact of the wage index update on small hospices (those
Urban Puerto Rico region with 30 hospice agencies with 428,000 routine home care days, representing the lowest number of urban agencies and routine home care days, is anticipated to experience a decrease of 0.5 percent using the CBSA designations in contrast to a 0.2 percent increase using the MSA designation. Urban East North Central with 244 hospice agencies representing the largest number of urban hospice agencies with 5,275,000 routine home care days is anticipated to experience a decrease of 0.3 percent using the CBSA designation and would remain unchanged using the MSA designation. Urban West South Central with the largest number of routine home care days of 5,765,000 is anticipated to experience a 0.2 percent increase using the CBSA designations and 0.4 percent increase using the MSA designations. Based upon these comparisons, the urban regions would expect a slightly larger increase in payment using the MSA designations while the rural areas are anticipated to experience a substantially larger increase using the CBSA designations. However, as indicated above, in the aggregate, hospice agencies overall are anticipated to remain unchanged using either the CBSA or MSA designations.
By type of ownership, proprietary hospice agencies are anticipated to increase by 0.2 percent while voluntary agencies with the largest number of agencies and routine home care days of 1,309 and 23,696,000, respectively, are anticipated to decrease by 0.2 percent and government by 0.3. Since we are unable to determine the ownership type for the unknown category, we are unable to determine the impact of the anticipated decrease of 1.1 percent. By MSA designation, in contrast, voluntary and proprietary hospice agencies are anticipated to remain unchanged with government agencies anticipated to decrease by 0.1 percent.
Freestanding hospice agencies with the largest number of agencies of 1,188 and routine home care days of 29,277,000 are anticipated to remain unchanged when using MSA as well as CBSA designations. Home health-based hospice agencies are anticipated to remain unchanged with the MSA designations but are anticipated to increase by 0.2 percent with CBSA designation. Hospital-based hospice agencies are anticipated to decrease slightly with both MSA and CBSA designations at 0.1 and 0.3 respectively. SNF-based hospice agencies with the lowest number of agencies and routine home care days of 15 and 174,000, respectively, are also anticipated to experience a decrease with both MSA and CBSA designations of 0.6 and 0.9, respectively.
As discussed above, the overall impact for hospice agencies remain unchanged using the CBSA designations with a slight decrease in urban and an increase in rural hospice agencies. While there are more decreases in urban hospice agencies, there is overall increase in the rural agencies. Hospice size remains virtually unchanged when comparing MSA to CBSA designations. Type of ownership and hospice base appear similar between the two designations. As a result, there is no compelling reason to maintain the use of the MSA designations as opposed to the CBSA designations based upon overall hospice agency impact.
We have compared estimated payments using the FY 1983 hospice wage index to estimated payments using the proposed FY 2006 wage index and determined the current hospice wage index to be budget neutral. This impact analysis compares hospice payments using the FY 2005 hospice wage index to the estimated payments using the proposed FY 2006 wage index. The data used in developing the quantitative analysis for this proposed rule were obtained from the June 2004 update of the national claims history file of all FY 2003 claims processed through June 2004. We deleted bills from hospices that have since closed. As discussed above, for the purposes of this proposed rule, this file is adequate to demonstrate the impact of using the MSA and proposed CBSA designations and is not intended to project the anticipated expenditures for FY 2006. We will be using an updated file for the final rule which will more accurately indicate the expected expenditures for FY 2006.
Table I demonstrates the results of our analysis. In column 2 of Table I, we indicate the number of routine home care days that were included in our analysis, although the analysis was performed on all types of hospice care. Column 3 indicates payments that were made using the FY 2005 wage index. Column 4 is based on claims (for hospices in business during that time period) and estimates payments (with the caveat as discussed above) to be made to hospices using proposed CBSA designations and FY 2006 wage index. The final column, which compares columns 3 and 4, shows the percent change in estimated hospice payments made based on the category of the hospice.
Table I categorizes hospices by various geographic and provider characteristics. The first row displays the results of the impact analysis for all Medicare-certified hospices. The second and third rows of the table categorize hospices according to their geographic location (urban and rural). Our analysis indicted that there are 1,494 hospices located in urban areas and 941 hospices located in rural areas. The next two groupings in the table indicate the number of hospices by census region, also broken down by urban and rural hospices. The sixth grouping shows the impact on hospices based on the size of the hospice's program. We determined that the majority of hospice payments are made at the routine home care rate. Therefore, we based the size of each individual hospice's program on the number of routine home care days provided in 2004. The next grouping shows the impact on hospices by type of ownership. The final grouping shows the impact on hospices defined by whether they are provider-based or freestanding.
Table II demonstrates the estimated payments using the CBSA and MSA designations. The groupings as well as columns 1 and 2 are the same as in
Our analysis shows that the majority of hospices are in urban areas and provide the vast majority of routine home care days. However, rural hospices are anticipated to receive a larger percent increase in payment of 0.8 percent in contrast to a decrease of 0.2 percent for urban hospices if CBSA designations were used in the proposed FY 2006 wage index. However, overall, there is no anticipated change using the CBSA designations.
Since the impact tables are intended to reflect the implementation of the CBSA as opposed to the current MSA designations, the introduction of the wage indices is the only variable used in the computation. It is important to note that the payment rates used reflect the FY2005 rates. The FY 2006 payment rates would be adjusted to reflect the full FY 2006 hospital market basket, as required by section 1814(i)(1)(C)(ii)(VII) of the Act. We publish these rates through administrative issuances.
Health facilities, Hospice care, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would amend 42 CFR part 418 as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 418 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
2. Section 418.3 is amended by revising the definition of
(ii) Nurse practitioner who meets the training, education, and experience requirements as the Secretary may prescribe; and
(2) Is identified by the individual, at the time he or she elects to receive hospice care, as having the most significant role in the determination and delivery of the individual's medical care.
3. Section 418.22 is amended by—
A. Republishing the heading of paragraph (c) and paragraph (c)(1).
B. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii).
The republication and revisions read as follows:
(c)
(i) * * *
(ii) The individual's attending physician, if the individual has an attending physician. The attending physician must meet the definition of physician specified in § 410.20 of this subchapter.
4. Section 418.302 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(d)(1) The intermediary reimburses the hospice its appropriate payment amount for each day for which an eligible Medicare beneficiary is under the hospice's care.
(2) Effective December 8, 2003, if a hospice makes arrangements with another hospice to provide services under the circumstances specified in section 1861(dd)(5)(D) of the Act, the intermediary reimburses the hospice for which the beneficiary has made an election as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
5. Section 418.304 is amended by—
A. Revising the section heading.
B. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a).
C. Adding a new paragraph (e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) The following services performed by hospice physicians and nurse practitioners are included in the rates described in § 418.302:
(e)(1) Effective December 8, 2003, Medicare pays for attending physician services provided by nurse practitioners to Medicare beneficiaries who have elected the hospice benefit and who have selected a nurse practitioner as their attending physician. This applies to nurse practitioners without regard to whether they are hospice employees.
(2) Nurse practitioners may bill and receive payment for services only if the—
(i) Nurse practitioner is the beneficiary's attending physician as defined in § 418.3;
(ii) Services are medically reasonable and necessary; and
(iii) Services are performed by a physician in the absence of the nurse practitioner; and
(iv) Services are not related to the certification of terminal illness specified in § 418.22.
(3) Payment for nurse practitioner services are made at 85 percent of the physician fee schedule amount.
Postal Service.
Final rule.
This rule amends the Postal Service regulations on the release of information and privacy of information.
This rule is effective April 29, 2005.
Jane Eyre at (202) 268-2608.
The Postal Service
Release of information.
Privacy of information.
5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. App. 3; 39 U.S.C. 401, 403, 410, 1001, 2601.
(d) * * *
(3)
(4)
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section, the boxholder applicant name and address from PS Form 1093 will be provided only in those circumstances stated in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) through (d)(5)(iii) of this section.
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(4)(iii) of this section, the names of persons listed as receiving mail, other than the boxholder applicant, will be furnished from PS Form 1093 only in those circumstances stated in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) and (d)(5)(iii) of this section.
(iii) When a copy of a protective order has been filed with the postmaster, information from PS Form 1093 will not be disclosed except pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(5)
(i) To a federal, state or local government agency upon prior written certification that the information is required for the performance of its duties. The Postal Service requires government agencies to use the format appearing at the end of this section when requesting the verification of a customer's current address or a customer's new mailing address. If the request lacks any of the required information or a proper signature, the postmaster will return the request to the agency, specifying the deficiency in the space marked ‘OTHER’. A copy of PS Form 1093 may be provided.
(ii) To a person empowered by law to serve legal process, or the attorney for a party in whose behalf service will be made, or a party who is acting
The Postal Service suggests use of the standard format appearing at the end of this section when requesting information under this paragraph. When using the standard format on the submitter's own letterhead, the standard format must be used in its entirety. The warning statement and certification specifically must be included immediately before the signature block. If the request lacks any of the required information or a proper signature, the postmaster will return it to the requester specifying the deficiency.
The term
(iii) In compliance with a subpoena or court order, except that change of address or boxholder information which is not otherwise subject to disclosure under these regulations may be disclosed only pursuant to a court order.
(iv) To a law enforcement agency, for oral requests made through the Inspection Service, but only after the Inspection Service has confirmed that the information is needed in the course of a criminal investigation. (All other requests from law enforcement agencies should be submitted in writing to the postmaster as in paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section.)
(9)
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(9)(iii) of this section, information from PS Form 1583 will be provided only in the circumstance stated in paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section.
(ii) To the public only for the purpose of identifying a particular address as an address of an agent to whom mail is delivered on behalf of other persons. No other information, including, but not limited to, the identities of persons on whose behalf agents receive mail, may be disclosed to the public from PS Form 1583.
(iii) Information concerning an individual who has filed a protective court order with the postmaster will not be disclosed except pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
39 U.S.C. 401; 5 U.S.C. 552a.
(a) Subsections 552a(j) and (k) of 5 U.S.C. 552a empower the Postmaster General to exempt systems of records meeting certain criteria from various other subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a. With respect to systems of records so exempted, nothing in this part shall require compliance with provisions hereof implementing any subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a from which those systems have been exempted.
(b) Paragraph (b)(1) of this section contains a summary of provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a for which exemption is claimed for some systems of records pursuant to, and to the extent permitted by, subsections 552a(j) and (k) of 5 U.S.C. 552a. Paragraphs (b)(2) through (5) of this section identify the exempted systems of records, the exemptions applied to each, and the reasons for the exemptions:
(1)
(i) Subsection (c)(3) requires an agency to make available to the individual named in the records an accounting of each disclosure of records.
(ii) Subsection (c)(4) requires an agency to inform any person or other agency to which a record has been disclosed of any correction or notation of dispute the agency has made to the record in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(d).
(iii) Subsections (d)(1) through (4) require an agency to permit an individual to gain access to records about the individual, to request amendment of such records, to request a review of an agency decision not to amend such records, and to provide a statement of disagreement about a disputed record to be filed and disclosed with the disputed record.
(iv) Subsection (e)(1) requires an agency to maintain in its records only such information about an individual that is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose required by statute or executive order of the President.
(v) Subsection (e)(2) requires an agency to collect information to the greatest extent practicable directly from the subject individual when the information may result in adverse determinations about an individual's rights, benefits, and privileges under federal programs.
(vi) Subsection (e)(3) requires an agency to inform each person whom it asks to supply information of the authority under which the information is sought, the purposes for which the information will be used, the routine uses that may be made of the information, whether disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, and the effects of not providing the information.
(vii) Subsection (e)(4)(G) and (H) requires an agency to publish a
(viii) Subsection (e)(5) requires an agency to maintain its records with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to ensure fairness to the individual in making any determination about the individual.
(ix) Subsection (e)(8) requires an agency to make reasonable efforts to serve notice on an individual when any record on such individual is made available to any person under compulsory legal process when such process becomes a matter of public record.
(x) Subsection (f) requires an agency to establish procedures whereby an individual can be notified upon request if any system of records named by the individual contains a record pertaining to the individual, obtain access to the record, and request amendment.
(xi) Subsection (g) provides for civil remedies if an agency fails to comply with the access and amendment provisions of subsections (d)(1) and (d)(3), and with other provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a, or any rule promulgated thereunder, in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individual.
(xii) Subsection (m) requires an agency to cause the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a to be applied to a contractor operating a system of records to accomplish an agency function.
(2) Pursuant to subsection 552a(j)(2),
(i) Disclosure to the record subject pursuant to subsections (c)(3), (c)(4), or (d)(1)-(4) could:
(A) Alert subjects that they are targets of an investigation or mail cover by the Postal Inspection Service or an investigation by the Office of Inspector General;
(B) Alert subjects of the nature and scope of the investigation and of evidence obtained;
(C) Enable the subject of an investigation to avoid detection or apprehension;
(D) Subject confidential sources, witnesses, and law enforcement personnel to harassment or intimidation if their identities were released to the target of an investigation;
(E) Constitute unwarranted invasions of the personal privacy of third parties who are involved in a certain investigation;
(F) Intimidate potential witnesses and cause them to be reluctant to offer information;
(G) Lead to the improper influencing of witnesses, the destruction or alteration of evidence yet to be discovered, the fabrication of testimony, or the compromising of classified material; and
(H) Seriously impede or compromise law enforcement, mail cover, or background investigations that might involve law enforcement aspects as a result of the above.
(ii) Application of subsections (e)(1) and (e)(5) is impractical because the relevance, necessity, or correctness of specific information might be established only after considerable analysis and as the investigation progresses. As to relevance (subsection (e)(1)), effective law enforcement requires the keeping of information not relevant to a specific Postal Inspection Service investigation or Office of Inspector General investigation. Such information may be kept to provide leads for appropriate law enforcement and to establish patterns of activity that might relate to the jurisdiction of the Office of Inspector General, Postal Inspection Service, and/or other agencies. As to accuracy (subsection (e)(5)), the correctness of records
(iii) Application of subsections (e)(2) and (e)(3) would require collection of information directly from the subject of a potential or ongoing investigation. The subject would be put on alert that he or she is a target of an investigation by the Office of Inspector General, or an investigation or mail cover by the Postal Inspection Service, enabling avoidance of detection or apprehension, thereby seriously compromising law enforcement, mail cover, or background investigations involving law enforcement aspects. Moreover, in certain circumstances the subject of an investigation is not required to provide information to investigators, and information must be collected from other sources.
(iv) The requirements of subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) do not apply because this system is exempt from the provisions of subsection (d). Nevertheless, the Postal Service has published notice of its notification, access, and contest procedures because access is appropriate in some cases.
(v) Application of subsection (e)(8) could prematurely reveal an ongoing criminal investigation to the subject of the investigation.
(vi) The provisions of subsection (g) do not apply because exemption from the provisions of subsection (d) renders the provisions on suits to enforce subsection (d) inapplicable.
(vii) If one of these systems of records is operated in whole or in part by a contractor, the exemptions claimed herein shall remain applicable to it (subsection (m)).
(3) Pursuant to subsection 552a(k)(2),
(i)
(ii)
(A) Application of the requirements at subsections (d)(1)-(4) would cause disruption of enforcement of the laws relating to equal employment opportunity (EEO). It is essential to the integrity of the EEO complaint system that information collected in the investigative process not be prematurely disclosed and that witnesses be free from restraint, interference, coercion, or reprisal.
(B) The requirements of subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) do not apply for the same reasons described in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section.
(iii)
(A) Disclosure to the record subject pursuant to subsections (c)(3) and (d)(1)-(4) would violate the non-notification provision of the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. 5318(g)(2), under which the Postal Service is prohibited from notifying a transaction participant that a suspicious transaction report has been made. In addition, the access provisions of subsections (c)(3) and (d)(1)-(4) would alert individuals that they have been identified as suspects or possible subjects of investigation and thus seriously hinder the law enforcement purposes underlying the suspicious transaction reports.
(B) This system is in compliance with subsection (e)(1) because maintenance of the records is required by law. Strict application of the relevance and necessity requirements of subsection (e)(1) to suspicious transactions would be impractical, however, because the relevance or necessity of specific information can often be established only after considerable analysis and as an investigation progresses.
(C) The requirements of subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) do not apply because this system is exempt from the provisions of subsection (d). Nevertheless, the Postal Service has published notice of its notification, access, and contest procedures because access is appropriate in some cases.
(4) Pursuant to subsection 552a(k)(5),
(i)
(A) During its investigation and evaluation of an applicant for a position, the Postal Service contacts individuals who, without an assurance of anonymity, would refuse to provide information concerning the subject of the investigation. If a record subject were given access pursuant to subsection (d)(1)-(4), the promised confidentiality would be breached and the confidential source would be identified. The result would be restriction of the free flow of information vital to a determination of an individual's qualifications and suitability for appointment to or continued occupancy of his or her position.
(B) In collecting information for investigative and evaluative purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information might be of assistance in determining the qualifications and suitability of an individual for appointment. Information that seems irrelevant, when linked with other information, can sometimes provide a composite picture of an individual that assists in determining whether that individual should be appointed to or retained in a position. For this reason, exemption from subsection (e)(1) is claimed.
(C) The requirements of subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) do not apply because this system is exempt from the provisions of subsection (d). Nevertheless, the Postal Service has published notice of its notification, access, and contest procedures because access is appropriate in some cases.
(ii)
(A) Application of the provisions at subsection (d)(1)-(4) would reveal to the EEO complainant the identity of individuals who supplied information under a promise of anonymity. It is essential to the integrity of the EEO complaint system that information collected in the investigative process not be prematurely disclosed and that witnesses be free from restraint, interference, coercion, or reprisal.
(B) The requirements of subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) do not apply because this system is exempt from the provisions of subsection (d). Nevertheless, the Postal Service has published notice of its notification,
(iii)
(5) Pursuant to subsection 552a(k)(6),
(i) These systems contain questions and answers to standard testing materials, the disclosure of which would compromise the fairness of the future use of these materials. It is not feasible to develop entirely new examinations after each administration as would be necessary if questions or answers were available for inspection and copying. Consequently, exemption from subsection (d) is claimed.
(ii) The requirements of subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) do not apply because this system is exempt from the provisions of subsection (d). Nevertheless, the Postal Service has published notice of its notification, access, and contest procedures because access is appropriate in some cases.
Postal Service.
Notice of new and deleted systems of records.
The United States Postal Service® (USPS®) is publishing this notice in accordance with subsection (e)(4) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), which requires an agency to issue notice of the existence and character of its systems of records upon establishment or revision. In this notice, the USPS is revising and publishing its Privacy Act systems of records in their entirety. The revised systems of records are better organized and are written with clarity as a goal. The systems of records incorporate Privacy Act and USPS privacy policies, and reflect USPS emphasis on industry best practices to protect privacy. Routine uses have been revised to more clearly communicate circumstances under which personal information might be disclosed.
Any interested party may submit written comments about this proposed action. Sections B through E will become effective without further notice June 8, 2005, unless comments received on or before that date result in a contrary determination.
Please address your comments to the Privacy Office, United States Postal Service, 475 L' Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 10433, Washington, DC 20260-2200. Copies of all written comments will be available at this address for public inspection and photocopying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Privacy Office, United States Postal Service, Room 10433, Washington, DC 20260-2200, Telephone: 202-268-5959.
For over two centuries, the USPS has valued privacy and built a brand that customers trust. Part of the USPS privacy framework is compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974, when the USPS maintains information about customers, employees, and other individuals in a system of records. A system of records is a file, database, or program from which personal information is retrieved by name or other personal identifier.
In this notice, the USPS is publishing and revising the complete set of its Privacy Act systems of records. The USPS systems of records is divided into two categories: general systems and customer systems. General systems cover all employee systems, as well as those related to finance, contractors, property, investigations, litigation, and administration. Customer systems relate to customers who register for and use postal products and services, or are otherwise covered by the Privacy Act.
The complete text of all USPS systems was last published on October 26, 1989 (54 FR 43652-43715). The general systems were last systematically evaluated and revised on February 23, 1999 (64 FR 8876-8892). Customer systems were overhauled and published in their entirety in the
As a general rule, most revisions described in this notice concern USPS general systems of records. The revisions have been made to reflect current management and storage of personal information. In undertaking this effort, the USPS used a methodology similar to that employed to reorganize customer systems of records on December 16, 2002 (67 FR 77086-77104). General systems have been reorganized and reduced in number from 73 to 28. The systems are organized around major employee and other activities, where activities are logically grouped and practices have been standardized. This provides for more consistent practices and ease of use for covered individuals and Postal Service
In addition, revisions have been made to the existing 17 customer systems. These revisions involve updates that have occurred since the 2002
A single set of standard routine uses for general and customer systems has been created. The standard routine uses show which apply to general systems and which apply to customer systems. The standard routine uses have also been integrated to show where a routine use is the same for both general and customer systems. Unnecessary or redundant routine uses have been eliminated.
The revised systems of records provide a more concise, accurate, and understandable picture to employees and to the public of the personal information collected and maintained. The improved organization of records will also assist USPS staff in the performance of records cataloging and searches. The ultimate effect is an improvement in the privacy of individuals covered by USPS systems of records.
This notice publishes the following:
Described below are (I) changes impacting all general systems of records; (II) changes to specific systems of records (both general and customer systems); (III) explanation of the new system for emergency management records; (IV) changes to routine uses; and (V) table of deleted systems and the revised systems into which records have been incorporated. The revised systems of records then follow in their entirety.
All general systems of records have been revised and reorganized from 73 to 28 systems. General systems contain all non-customer records covered by the Privacy Act, including records relating to employees, finance, contractors, property, investigations, litigation, and other administrative matters. The reorganization culminating in this notice used methods similar to those employed earlier to reorganize customer records which were published in the
Existing general systems contained many outdated features. These systems have been corrected to reflect current practices. The titles of general systems are now more indicative of their content and scope, and will be more readily apparent to the reader. Management practices and system language has been updated and standardized. This includes all aspects of records systems, such as regarding covered individuals, records categories, records sources, safeguards, retention, routine uses, disposal, and exemptions to disclosure. Standardized terminology has been used to describe safeguards, retention, and disposal methods. Outdated facility nomenclature has been corrected under system location. Outdated system manager designations have been corrected to reflect current
The following describes substantive changes that have been made to specific general and customer systems of records.
USPS 100.000 General Personnel Records, which includes the employee official personnel folder (OPF) as a records category, was corrected to comply with a union agreement promulgated since the system was last revised regarding the maintenance of bargaining unit employees' discipline and adverse action records.
USPS 100.100 Recruiting, Examining, and Placement Records was revised to clearly distinguish as separate records categories the preemployment investigative records compiled directly by USPS and investigative records compiled by the Office of Personnel Management at the request of USPS.
USPS 100.700 Medical Records was made compatible with USPS management instructions by aligning the description of records categories, including alcohol/drug testing records. The system was revised to correctly describe records collected by the Headquarters Health and Fitness Center as being USPS records.
USPS 100.800 Employee Accident Reports was corrected to comply with a union agreement promulgated since the system of records was last revised regarding disclosures.
USPS 100.950 Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Records was updated to indicate that EAP records, with the exception of two USPS facilities still operating internal EAP offices, are now under the control of the Federal Occupational Health Service and as such are not records under the control of USPS.
USPS 700.300 Inspector General Investigative Records has been amended to limit disclosures to other Federal offices of Inspectors General or to the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency. Records originating from any other USPS system, which might be duplicated in or incorporated into this system, must first be redacted of all personally identifiable information.
USPS 840.000 Customer Mailing and Delivery Instructions. This system has been amended to include name and address records related to rural route customers that are maintained on Postal Service (PS) Form 4232-A. These records had been addressed in the general system USPS 010.080, Rural Carrier Route Records. Because these records relate to customers, it is more appropriate for them to be covered by a customer system.
850.000 Auction Files. References to online auctions have been eliminated to reflect current USPS auction practices.
860.000 Financial Transactions. This system has been corrected to link the exemptions paragraph to the appropriate system. When last published on December 31, 2002 (67 FR 79858-79858), the exemption improperly referenced an obsolete system name and number.
880.000 Post Office and Retail Services. The special routine uses were amended to more clearly describe the limitations on information that may be disclosed from PS Form 1093,
USPS 800.000 Address Change, Mail Forwarding, and Related Services; USPS 810.300 Offline Registration, Payment, and Fulfillment; USPS 820.200 Mail Management and Tracking Activity; and USPS 830.000 Customer Service and Correspondence. The record sources for these four systems have been amended to include commercially available source(s) of names, addresses, and telephone numbers for use by USPS call centers. The USPS is at the forefront of providing customer services and transactions via all channels, including by phone. As a consequence, the USPS performs Privacy Act-covered transactions in a call center environment. As an example, a customer may request by telephone that his or her mail be held at the local Post Office
The USPS has carefully considered and incorporated privacy features regarding use of commercial source(s) for call centers as follows. The USPS has limited the type and amount of data acquired from the commercial source(s) to include only telephone numbers, names, and addresses. Strict limitations have also been placed around use of the data by USPS call center operations, as well as how data is shared with the commercial source(s).
When customers call 1-800-ASK-USPS or other USPS call center numbers for a transaction or inquiry covered by the Privacy Act, they will be informed their information is Privacy Act-protected. They will be offered the opportunity to hear the USPS privacy statement prior to the automated system or call center operator requesting their telephone number. Customers will be told that their phone number is requested to help locate their street address. They may decline to provide their number and still be able to access the desired service. When customers provide their phone number, USPS uses the commercial source(s) to return a name and address, in the proper USPS format, associated with the phone number. The automated system or operator will ask the customers to confirm that the address is correct. If confirmed, the system or operator will use the address to complete the transaction, rather than asking customers to provide it and entering it into the USPS system. This allows the transaction to be faster, avoids keying errors, and increases the rate of properly formatted addresses. If the name and/or address returned by the commercial source(s) are/is not those/that of the customer, the correct information is obtained from the customer via the current practice without use of commercial source(s).
After the transaction is complete, the USPS may retain the name and address provided by the commercial source(s). The information will be managed in accordance with the applicable system of records. The commercial source(s) will not obtain any new information about the customer from the USPS. It already possessed the phone number, and any corrections or other information supplied by the customer will not be shared with the commercial source(s).
A new system of records, USPS 500.300 Emergency Management Records, is being established in support of a USPS emergency management program. This system includes records generated as a result of USPS obligations to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, or recover from any natural disaster, man-made hazard, or other emergency event. The system includes records relating to emergency management personnel, as well as
The USPS divides its routine uses into standard routine uses and special routine uses. Standard routine uses, listed in Section D, apply to multiple systems of records. Each system of records described in Section E will indicate which standard routine uses apply, along with applicable special routine use(s), if any. Described below are changes made to standard and special routine uses.
Previously, USPS maintained separate sets of standard routine uses for general and customer systems. This notice integrates the two sets into a single set of 11 standard routine uses:
Following is a description of the 11 revised standard routine uses, and the two standard routine uses that have been eliminated.
Disclosure Incident to Legal Proceedings. This routine use was formerly titled Disclosure Incident to Litigation as it applied to general systems and Disclosure Incident to Legal Proceedings as it applied to customer systems. The two routine uses have been integrated into one routine use applicable to both systems. Disclosure of records to former USPS employees or contractors has been added to conform to a litigation routine use recommended by the Department of Justice. Disclosure to a bar association or similar authority has also been removed from certain systems as a special routine use and added as part of this standard routine use, since the disclosure is related to litigation and may be applicable to all systems.
Disclosure for Law Enforcement Purposes. This routine use has been revised to place all standard law enforcement disclosures together for ease of reference. The routine use differentiates the conditions of such disclosures applicable to general and customer systems.
Disclosure to Congressional Office. This routine use had been two separate routine uses for customers and general systems which were almost identical. This has been made an integrated routine use applicable to both systems, with minor editorial changes to existing language.
Disclosure to Agents or Contractors. This routine use integrates disclosures applicable to customer and general systems. The word ‘partners’ which had been included in the title of the customer routine use has been eliminated because it is considered redundant. The new form of this routine use has been supplemented to include the potential for disclosing records to an agent or contractor relating to investigations or performance of their employee(s).
Disclosure to Auditors. This routine use existed in slightly different forms for customer and general systems. These routine uses have been integrated into one, preserving the customer system version to account for disclosures related to audits by government agencies and other entities, instead of solely by certified public accountants.
Disclosure to Labor Organizations. This routine use is revised to cover legally required disclosures made pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement enforced through the Postal Reorganization Act and not solely through the National Labor Relations Act.
Disclosure to Government Agencies. This routine use was formerly two standard routine uses for general systems, which were named Disclosure Incident to Requesting Information and Disclosure to Requesting Agency. In its notice of December 16, 2002 (67 FR 77086-77104), the USPS merged these two routine uses as they related to customer systems into one routine use to account for disclosures to and from other agencies. The combined form now applies to all systems.
Disclosure to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This routine use has been preserved as is.
Disclosure to the Merit Systems Protection Board or Office of the Special Counsel. This routine use has been preserved as is.
Disclosure to Agencies and Entities for Financial Matters. This routine use is slightly re-titled and expanded to cover disclosures to the Judicial Officer in response to Debt Collection Act petitions by employees.
Disclosure for Customer Service Purposes. This routine use is preserved with minor edits to improve clarity.
Storage. This routine use existed previously as a routine use applicable to general systems. It is deleted because OMB guidance provides that the regular transfer of records to a Federal records center for safekeeping or storage is not deemed a disclosure outside the agency.
Disclosure to Office of Management and Budget. This routine use is deleted because USPS does not experience a demand for this disclosure within the context of private relief legislation.
Unnecessary or redundant special routine uses were eliminated in general systems. This reduces the number and type of disclosures. It also makes the description of potential disclosures more understandable for individuals whose information is protected by the Privacy Act, as well as Postal Service personnel responsible for disclosing records in compliance with the Act. The prior 73 general systems contained a total of 225 special routine uses. The 28 general systems now contain a total of only 36 special routine uses. Special routine uses were eliminated for several reasons, including improvements made in this notice to the standard routine uses; the special use described a disclosure already permissible by statute or implementing agency rules; or the special use had been made obsolete by changes in law or agency practice. As a general principle, USPS eliminated special routine uses from a system where the records in question could have derived from other USPS systems (a practice known as data recompilation). These disclosures belong more properly as a standard routine use, since applicable to more than one system. Furthermore, this approach ensures that an individual is advised of the disclosure in the Privacy Act notice when data is collected, which data recompilation could circumvent. Special routine uses have only been retained to describe a unique kind of disclosure that applies to that particular system.
Records from deleted systems of records are incorporated in systems as follows:
020.010 Biographical Summaries of Management Personnel for Press Release; 100.050 Localized Employee Administration Records; 120.036 Discipline, Grievance, and Appeals Records for Nonbargaining Unit Employees; 120.040 Employee Job Bidding Records; 120.070 General Personnel Folders (Official Personnel Folders and Records Related Thereto);
120.110 Preemployment Investigation Records; 120.130 Postmaster Selection Program Records; and 120.151 Recruiting, Examining, and Appointment Records are incorporated into 100.100 Recruiting, Examining, and Placement Records.
120.100 Performance Awards System Records; 120.153 Individual Performance Evaluation/Measurement; 120.154 Employee Survey Process System Records; and 120.170 Safe Driver Awards Records are incorporated into 100.200 Employee Performance Records.
120.152 Career Development and Training Records and 120.180 Skills Bank are incorporated into 100.300 Employee Development and Training Records.
050.020 Payroll System; 050.040 Uniform Allowance Program; 120.050 Employee Ideas Program Records; 120.099 Injury Compensation Payment Validation Records; 120.240 Garnishment Case Files; and 200.020 Monetary Claims for Personal Property Loss or Damage Involving Present or Former Employees are incorporated into 100.400 Personnel Compensation and Payroll Records.
170.010 Operations Data Collection System-Workload/Productivity Management Records and 170.020 Resource Management/Productivity Records-Resource Management Database are incorporated into 100.500 Personnel Resource Management Records.
120.120 Personnel Research and Test Validation Records and 120.121 Applicant Race, Sex, National Origin, and Disability Status are incorporated into 100.600 Personnel Research Records.
120.020 Blood Donor Records System; 120.090 Medical Records; and 120.091 Vehicle Operators Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing are incorporated into 100.700 Medical Records.
120.035 Employee Accident Records is amended and renumbered as 100.800 Employee Accident Records.
120.098 Office of Workers' Compensation Program (OWCP) Record Copies is amended and renumbered as 100.850 Office of Workers' Compensation Program (OWCP) Record Copies.
070.040 Employee Inquiry, Complaint, and Investigative Records is amended and renumbered as 100.900 Employee Inquiry, Complaint, and Investigative Records.
120.140 Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Records is amended and renumbered as 100.950 Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Records.
030.010 EEO Discrimination Complaint Files; 030.020 EEO Staff Selection Records; 030.040 Roster of Alternative Dispute Resolution Providers; and 120.220 Personnel Records-Arbitration Case Files are incorporated into 200.000 Labor Relations Records.
050.005 Accounts Receivable Files and 050.060 Accounts Payable Files are incorporated into 300.000 Finance Records.
200.010 Relocation Assistance Claims; 210.010 Architect-Engineers Selection Records; 210.020 Driver Screening System Assignment Records; 210.030 Contractor Employee Fingerprint Records; and 210.040 Supplier and Contractor Records are incorporated into 400.000 Supplier and Tenant Records.
100.010 Carpool Coordination/Parking Services Records; 110.010 Accountable Property Records; and 150.030 Computer Access Records are incorporated into 500.000 Property Management Records.
010.030 Carrier Drive-Out Agreements; 010.040 City Carrier Route Records; 010.080 Rural Carrier Route Records; and 120.210 Vehicle Maintenance Personnel and Operator Records are incorporated into 500.100 Carrier and Vehicle Operator Records.
070.010 Correspondence Files of the Postmaster General; 070.020 Government Officials' Inquiry System; 150.010 Information Disclosure Accounting Records (Freedom of Information Act); and 150.020 Information Disclosure Accounting Records (Privacy Act) are incorporated into 500.200 Controlled Correspondence, FOIA, and Privacy Act Disclosure Records.
500.300 Emergency Management Records is established as a new system of records.
060.010 Consumer Protection Records-Fraud, False Representation, Lottery, and Nonmailability Case Record; 060.020 Consumer Protection Records-Pandering Act Prohibitory Orders; 060.030 Consumer Protection Records-Appeals Involving Mail Withheld from Delivery; and 060.040 Consumer Protection Records-Appeals from Termination of Post Office Box or Caller Service are incorporated into 600.000 Legal Records Related to Mail.
110.020 Possible Infringement of Postal Service Intellectual Property Rights; 190.010 Litigation Records-Miscellaneous Civil Action and Administrative Proceeding Case Files; 190.020 Litigation Records-National Labor Relations Board Administrative Litigation Case Files; 190.030 Litigation Records-Employee and Labor Relations Court Litigation Case Files; and 200.030 Nonmail Monetary Claims-Tort Claims Records are incorporated into 600.100 General Legal Records.
150.015 Freedom of Information Act Appeals and Litigation Records and 150.025 Privacy Act Appeals and Litigation Records are incorporated into 600.200 Privacy Act and FOIA Appeal and Litigation Records.
120.060 Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports and 120.061 Public Financial Disclosure Reports for Executive Branch Personnel are incorporated into 600.300 Public and Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports.
030.030 Equal Employment Opportunity-EEO Administrative Litigation Case File and 120.230 Personnel Records-Adverse Action Appeals (Administrative Litigation Case Files) are incorporated into 600.400 Administrative Litigation Records. 080.010 Inspection Requirements-Investigative File System is amended and renumbered as 700.000 Inspection Service Investigative File System.
080.020 Mail Cover Program Records is amended and renumbered as 700.100 Mail Cover Program Records.
080.030 Vehicular Violations Records System is amended and renumbered as 700.200 Vehicular Violations Records System.
300.010 Office of Inspector General-Investigative File System is amended and renumbered as 700.300 Inspector General Investigative Records.
The following systems are renumbered and amended with respect to their routine uses and to correct minor errors.
500.000 Address Change, Mail Forwarding, and Related Services is amended and renumbered as 800.000 Address Change, Mail Forwarding, and Related Services.
500.100 Address Matching for Mail Processing is amended and renumbered as 800.100 Address Matching for Mail Processing.
510.100 www.usps.com Registration is amended and renumbered as 810.100 www.usps.com Registration.
510.200 www.usps.com Ordering, Payment, and Fulfillment is amended and renumbered as 810.200 www.usps.com Ordering, Payment, and Fulfillment.
510.300 Offline Registration, Payment, and Fulfillment is amended and renumbered as 810.300 Offline Registration, Payment, and Fulfillment.
520.100 Mailer Services-Applications and Approvals is amended
520.200 Mail Management and Tracking Activity is amended and renumbered as 820.200 Mail Management and Tracking Activity.
530.000 Customer Service and Correspondence is amended and renumbered as 830.000 Customer Service and Correspondence.
540.000 Customer Mailing and Delivery Instructions is amended and renumbered as 840.000 Customer Mailing and Delivery Instructions.
550.000 Auction Files is amended and renumbered as 850.000 Auction Files.
560.000 Financial Transactions is amended and renumbered as 860.000 Financial Transactions.
570.100 Trust Funds and Transaction Records is amended and renumbered as 870.100 Trust Funds and Transaction Records.
570.200 Meter Postage and PC Postage Customer Data and Transaction Records is amended and renumbered as 870.200 Meter Postage and PC Postage Customer Data and Transaction Records.
580.000 Post Office and Retail Services is amended and renumbered as 880.000 Post Office and Retail Services.
590.000 Sales, Marketing, Events, and Publications is amended and renumbered as 890.000 Sales, Marketing, Events, and Publications.
600.000 International Services is amended and renumbered as 900.000 International Services.
610.000 Identity and Document Verification Services is amended and renumbered as 910.000 Identity and Document Verification Services.
The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, applies to Federal agencies, including the Postal Service. The Privacy Act provides protections for personal information that an agency maintains in a system of records. A system of records describes a file, database, or program from which information is retrieved about an individual by name or other personal identifier.
The Privacy Act establishes recordkeeping, access, and nondisclosure requirements for information maintained in a system of records. The Privacy Act requires agencies to publish a description of each system of records to provide full information on how personal information within the system of records is treated. This description includes how information is collected, used, disclosed, stored, and disposed of. It also includes how individuals can obtain access to, correct, and amend information about them that is included in the system of records.
The Privacy Act places limitations and requirements on how information from within a system of records can be disclosed, as described in Section D.
Under the Privacy Act, information can only be disclosed from a system of records, internally or externally, under one of two conditions:
• The individual has authorized the disclosure in writing.
• The disclosure fits within one of twelve specified categories.
The following is a description of disclosures, including those authorized by the Privacy Act and USPS regulations and routine uses.
The Privacy Act authorizes disclosures in the following twelve circumstances:
1. To agency employees who need the information to perform their job.
2. As required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
3. For routine uses for which the agency has provided proper notice.
4. To the Bureau of the Census for purposes related to census and survey activities.
5. To a recipient who provides advance written assurance that the information will only be used for statistical research or reporting, and the information provided does not identify individuals.
6. To the National Archives and Records Administration for historic preservation purposes.
7. To other domestic government agencies for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law. In such cases, the agency head must specify in writing both the law enforcement activity and the particular information needed.
8. To a person upon a showing of compelling circumstances affecting an
9. To Congress, or to the extent the matter is within their jurisdiction, to any of its committees or subcommittees.
10. To the Comptroller General in the performance of duties of the Government Accountability Office.
11. Pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
12. To a consumer reporting agency in order to collect claims owed to the Government.
The Privacy Act allows agencies to disclose information from a system of records if they establish a routine use describing the disclosure (see #3 above). Under the Privacy Act, routine uses are defined as disclosures that are compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected—in other words, disclosures that are appropriate and necessary for the efficient conduct of government business. Routine uses for each system of records are established by publishing them in a
The following standard routine uses apply to USPS systems of records. In general, standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply to general systems—systems relating to employees, finance, investigations, litigation, and other systems not primarily related to USPS customers. General systems are listed in Section C, Part I. In general, standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply to customer systems of records. These systems, which contain information related to USPS customers, are listed in Section C, Part II. The specific standard routine uses applicable to each system of records, as well as any special routine uses, are described in each system of records in Section E.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
General Personnel Records.
All USPS facilities and personnel offices; National Personnel Records Center; Human Resources Information Systems, Headquarters; Computer Operations Service Centers; National Test Administration Center; and contractor sites.
Current and former USPS employees, their family members, and former spouses who apply and qualify for federal employee benefits under public law.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
39 U.S.C. 401, 410, 1001, 1005, and 1206.
1. To perform routine personnel functions.
2. To have a source of readily available information on employees for local administrative purposes.
3. To administer the grievance and appeal procedure for nonbargaining unit employees.
4. To match a vacant position to the most qualified candidate in bids for preferred assignment.
5. To provide public relations information on USPS management personnel.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply. In addition:
a. Job bidding records may be disclosed on official bulletin boards in Postal Service facilities and to supervisory and other managerial organizations recognized by USPS.
b. Records pertaining to financial institutions and to nonfederal insurance carriers and benefits providers elected by an employee may be disclosed for the purposes of salary payment or allotments, eligibility determination, claims, and payment of benefits.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper. Duplicates of records in the OPF and automated employee data may be maintained for localized employee administration or supervision. Records may be filed at offices other than where the OPF is, or may be duplicated at a site closer to where the employee works.
By name, Social Security Number, Employee Identification Number, or duty or pay location.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Nonbargaining unit employee discipline, grievance, and appeals records maintained outside the OPF are kept in locked filing cabinets or secured record storage rooms; and related automated records are protected with password security. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
1. OPF records maintained on the right side of the folder are permanently retained. Temporary OPF records maintained on the left side of the folder are retained 2 years, upon separation, or upon transfer of the employee (if the temporary record is not relevant to the gaining USPS facility), whichever is sooner.
2. Original or copies of discipline or adverse actions are maintained on the left side of the OPF up to 2 years, or, if an additional or more recent disciplinary action has been taken, for a longer period. After 2 years, or lesser time specified in the decision, the employee may request the disciplinary record be purged from the OPF provided no subsequent discipline was issued. Records that support a PS Form 50,
3. Reference copies of discipline or adverse actions. These records are kept for historical purposes and are not to be used for decisions about the employee. The retention of these records may not exceed ten years beyond the employee's separation date. The records are maintained longer if the employee is rehired during the 10-year period. They may not be maintained in the employee's OPF but must be maintained in a separate file by Labor Relations.
4. Grievance and appeal records of nonbargaining unit employees are retained 7 years.
5. Job bidding records are retained 2 years.
6. Biographical summaries are retained for the duration of employment.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President, Employee Resource Management, United States Postal
Vice President, Labor Relations, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Employees wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system must address inquiries to the facility head where currently or last employed. Headquarters employees must submit inquiries to Corporate Personnel Management, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 1831, Washington, DC 20260. Inquiries must include full name, Social Security Number or Employee Identification Number, name and address of facility where last employed, and the dates of USPS employment.
Former Post Office Department employees (prior to July 1971) having no USPS employment must submit the inquiry to: Assistant Director for Workforce Information, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415-6000.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Employees; employees' supervisors; USPS customers; law enforcement agencies; individuals who are personal references; former employers; and other systems of records.
Records in this system that have been compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding are exempt from individual access as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5). The USPS has also claimed exemption from certain provisions of the Act for several of its other systems of records at 39 CFR 266.9. To the extent that copies of exempted records from those other systems are incorporated into this system, the exemptions applicable to the original primary system continue to apply to the incorporated records.
Recruiting, Examining, and Placement Records.
Preemployment investigation records are located at USPS personnel offices and contractor locations, except for drug screening and medical examination records, which are maintained in USPS medical facilities and designee offices.
Recruiting, examining, and placement records are located at USPS personnel offices, National Test Administration Center, Computer Operations Service Centers, and contractor locations.
Current and former USPS employees and applicants for employment.
1.
2.
3.
4.
39 U.S.C. 401, 410, 1001, 1005, and 1206.
1. To determine suitability for employment.
2. To provide managers, personnel officials, and medical officers with information for recruiting and recommending appointment of qualified individuals.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By applicant or employee name, Social Security Number, Employee Identification Number, duty or pay location, or location where application was made.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
1. Preemployment investigation records are retained 10 years from the date the individual is initially found suitable for employment, or 10 years from the date action was taken to deny or terminate employment.
2. Employment applications are disposed of on expiration of eligibility, unless extended for an additional year at the request of the eligible individual. Employment registers are retained 10 years. Certain forms related to a successful applicant are filed in the Official Personnel Folder as permanent records; and remaining records are retained 6 months. Applications for master instructor positions are retained 3 years after date of selection. Postmaster selection records are retained 2 years.
3. Paper examining answer sheets are retained 6 months; and computer media copies are retained 30 years. Scanned Maintenance Selection System forms are retained 20 years; and related hiring worksheets are retained 5 years.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President, Employee Resource Management, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system must address inquiries to the facility head where currently or last employed, or where job application was made. Headquarters employees must submit inquiries to Corporate Personnel Management, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 1831, Washington, DC 20260. Inquiries must include full name, Social Security Number or Employee Identification Number, name and address of facility where last employed, and dates of USPS employment or date of application.
For investigative records compiled by OPM, individuals must apply as instructed by OPM.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Applicants; OPM; police, driving, and military records; former employers and named references; medical service providers; school officials; other federal agencies; and state divisions of vocational rehabilitation counselors.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), USPS has established regulations at 39 CFR 266.9 that exempt records in this system depending on their purpose.
Employee Performance Records.
USPS facilities where employee performance is evaluated or measured.
Current and former USPS employees, including supervisors and managers who are rated under an employee survey process or are responsible for a rated work location.
1.
2.
39 U.S.C. 401, 410, 1001, 1005, and 1206.
1. To provide managers and supervisors with decision-making information for training needs, promotion, assignment considerations, or other job-related actions.
2. To administer achievement award programs and pay for performance.
3. To improve relations and communication between managers and employees by soliciting employee feedback, and to improve management and supervisor leadership skills.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply. In addition:
a. When records about the receipt of an award by an employee, including driver safety records, are of news interest and consistent with the public's right to know, the records may be disclosed to the news media or the National Safety Council.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By employee name, Social Security Number, Employee Identification Number, or duty or pay location.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
1. Merit performance evaluation records are retained 5 years. Individual performance evaluation and measurement records are retained 10 years or upon separation of the employee, whichever comes first.
2. Incentive award records are retained 4 years. Length of service award records are retained 1 year. Non-USPS awards are retained 2 years. Letters of commendation and appreciation (excluding permanent copies filed on the right side of the OPF) are retained 2 years.
3. Employee survey process records are retained 20 years.
4. Safe Driver Award records are retained 4 years from date of separation, expiration of license, rescission of authorization, transfer of driver into a nondriving status, or other transfer, whichever comes first.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President, Employee Resource Management, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system must address inquiries to the facility head where currently or last employed. Headquarters employees must submit inquiries to Corporate Personnel Management, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 1831, Washington, DC 20260. Inquiries must include full name, Social Security Number or Employee Identification Number, name and address of facility where last employed, and dates of USPS employment.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Employees and employees' supervisor or manager.
Employee Development and Training Records.
Management training centers and other USPS facilities where career development and training, skills bank, and curriculum evaluation activities are performed.
Current and former USPS employees.
1.
2.
39 U.S.C. 401, 410, 1001, 1005, and 1206.
1. To provide managers, supervisors, and training and development professionals with decisionmaking information for employee career development, training, and assignment.
2. To make and track employee job assignments, to place employees in new positions, and to assist in career planning and training in general.
3. To provide statistics for personnel and workload management.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By employee name, Social Security Number, or Employee Identification Number.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
1. Training records are retained 5 years. Training-related travel records are retained 1 year.
2. Records of nomination for executive leadership are retained 1 year.
3. Examination records are retained 1 year after employee separation.
4. Skills bank records are retained up to 2 years.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President, Employee Resource Management, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Employees wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the facility head where currently, or last, employed. Headquarters employees must submit inquiries to Corporate Personnel Management, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 1831, Washington, DC 20260. Inquiries must include full name, Social Security Number or Employee Identification Number, name and address of facility where last employed, and dates of USPS employment.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Employees; employees' supervisor or manager; and other systems of records.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), USPS has established regulations at 39 CFR 266.9 that exempt records in this system depending on their purpose. The USPS has also claimed exemption from certain provisions of the Act for several of its other systems of records at 39 CFR 266.9. To the extent that copies of exempted records from those other systems are incorporated into this system, the exemptions applicable to the original primary system continue to apply to the incorporated records.
Personnel Compensation and Payroll Records.
USPS personnel offices, Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers (IBSSC), Computer Operations Services Centers, Accounting Services Centers, area and district facilities, Headquarters, contractor sites, and all organizational units.
1. Current and former USPS employees and postmaster relief/replacement employees.
2. Current and former employees' family members, beneficiaries, and former spouses who apply and qualify for benefits.
3. An agent or survivor of an employee who makes a claim for loss or damage to personal property.
1.
2.
39 U.S.C. 401, 409, 410, 1001, 1003, 1004, 1005, and 1206; and 29 U.S.C. 2601
1. To support all necessary compensation and payroll activities and related management functions.
2. To generate lists of employee information for home mailings, dues membership, and other personnel support functions.
3. To generate retirement eligibility information and analysis of employees in various salary ranges.
4. To administer the purchase of uniforms.
5. To administer monetary awards programs.
6. To detect improper payment related to injury compensation claims.
7. To adjudicate employee claims for loss or damage to their personal property in connection with or incident to their postal duties.
8. To process garnishment of employee wages.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply. In addition:
a. Records pertaining to financial institutions and to nonfederal insurance carriers and benefits providers elected by an employee may be disclosed for the purposes of salary payment or allotments, eligibility determination, claims, and payment of benefits.
b. Records pertaining to supervisors and postmasters may be disclosed to supervisory and other managerial organizations recognized by USPS.
c. Records pertaining to recipients of monetary awards may be disclosed to the news media when the information is of news interest and consistent with the public's right to know.
d. Disclosure of records about current or former Postal Service employees may be made to requesting states under an approved computer matching program to determine employee participation in, and eligibility under, unemployment insurance programs administered by the states (and by those states to local governments), to improve program integrity, and to collect debts and overpayments owed to those governments and their components.
e. Disclosure of records about current or former Postal Service employees may be made to requesting federal agencies or nonfederal entities under approved computer matching programs to make a determination of employee participation in, and eligibility under, particular benefit programs administered by those agencies or entities or by USPS; to improve program integrity; to collect debts and overpayments owed under those programs and to provide employees with due process rights prior to initiating any salary offset; and to identify those employees who are absent parents owing child support obligations and to collect debts owed as a result.
f. Disclosure of records about current or former Postal Service employees may be made, upon request, to the Department of Defense (DoD) under approved computer matching programs to identify Postal Service employees who are ready reservists for the purposes of updating DoD's listings of ready reservists and to report reserve status information to USPS and the Congress; and to identify retired military employees who are subject to restrictions under the Dual Compensation Act and to take subsequent actions to reduce military retired pay or collect debts and overpayments.
g. Disclosure of records about current and former employees may be made to the Selective Service System under an approved computer matching program to identify individuals eligible for registration under the Military Selective Service Act, to determine whether those individuals have complied with registration requirements and to enforce compliance when necessary.
h. Disclosure of records about current or recently terminated Postal Service employees who live or work in Colorado may be made to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation under an approved computer matching program to identify currently or recently terminated employees who have been arrested for violations of law that relate to postal offenses and/or suitability for continued employment, or who are fugitives, and to assist state or local agents to apprehend fugitives.
i. Disclosure of records may be made to the Internal Revenue Service under approved computer matching programs to identify current or former Postal Service employees who owe delinquent federal taxes or returns and to collect the unpaid taxes by levy on the salary of those individuals pursuant to Internal Revenue Code; and to make a determination as to the proper reporting of income tax purposes of an employee's wages, expenses, compensation, reimbursement, and taxes withheld and to take corrective action as warranted.
j. Disclosure of the records about current or recently terminated Postal Service employees may be made to the Department of Transportation (DOT) under an approved computer matching program to identify individuals who appear in DOT's National Driver Register Problem Driver Pointer System. The matching results are used only to determine as a general matter whether commercial license suspension information within the pointer system would be beneficial in making selections of USPS motor vehicle and tractor-trailer operator personnel and will not be used for actual selection decisions.
k. Disclosure of records about current or former Postal Service employees may be made to the Department of Health and Human Services under an approved computer matching program for further release to state child support enforcement agencies when needed to locate noncustodial parents, to establish and/or enforce child support obligations, and to locate parents who may be involved in parental kidnapping or child custody cases.
l. Disclosure of records about current or former Postal Service employees may be made to the Department of the Treasury under Treasury Offset Program computer matching to establish the identity of the employee as an individual owing a delinquent debt to another federal agency and to offset the salary of the employee to repay that debt.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By employee name, Social Security Number, Employee Identification Number, or duty or pay location.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
1. Leave application and unauthorized overtime records are retained 3 years. Time and attendance records (other than payroll) and local payroll records are retained 3 years. Automated payroll records are retained 10 years.
2. Uniform allowance case files are retained 3 years; and automated records are retained 6 years.
3. Records of approved monetary awards are retained 4 years. Records of proposals not adopted are retained 2 years.
4. Injury compensation records are retained 5 years. Records resulting in affirmative identifications become part of a research case file, which if research determines applicability, become either part of an investigative case record or a remuneration case record that is retained 2 years beyond the determination.
5. Monetary claims records are retained 3 years.
6. Automated records of garnishment cases are retained 6 months. Records located at a Post Office are retained 3 years.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President, Employee Resource Management, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Vice President, Finance (Controller), United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Employees wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system must address inquiries to the facility head where currently or last employed. Headquarters employees must submit inquiries to Corporate Personnel Management, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 1831, Washington, DC 20260. Inquiries must include full name, Social Security Number or Employee Identification Number, name and address of facility where last employed, and the dates of USPS employment.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Employees; employees' supervisor or manager; other systems of records; claimants or their survivors or agents who make monetary claims; witnesses; investigative sources; courts; and insurance companies.
Records in this system relating to injury compensation that have been compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding are exempt from individual access as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5). The USPS has also claimed exemption from certain provisions of the Act for several of its other systems of records at 39 CFR 266.9. To the extent that copies of exempted records from those other systems are incorporated into this system, the exemptions applicable to the original primary system continue to apply to the incorporated records.
Personnel Resource Management Records.
Post Offices; area and district facilities; Human Resources and Operations, Headquarters; and Computer Operations Service Centers.
Current and former USPS employees.
1.
2.
39 U.S.C. 401, 404, 1001, 1003, and 1005; and 29 U.S.C. 2601
1. To administer leave, attendance, and attendance-related awards; and to identify potential attendance problems.
2. To provide operations management with information about employee work schedules, mail volume, and productivity.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By employee name, Social Security Number, employee identification number(s), route number, duty or pay location, or pay period.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Restricted medical information is maintained in a separate locked cabinet under control of the FMLA Coordinator. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Resource management records related to leave application and time and attendance are retained 3 years. Other categories of resource management records are retained 1 year. Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President, Employee Resource Management, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Senior Vice President, Operations, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Employees wanting to know if information about them is maintained in
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Employees; employees' supervisor or manager; and other systems of records.
Personnel Research Records.
USPS Headquarters; National Test Administration Center; Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers (IBSSC); and contractor sites.
Applicants for USPS employment, USPS employee applicants for reassignment and/or promotion, and employees whose work records or solicited responses are used in research projects.
1.
2.
39 U.S.C. 401, 410, 1001, and 1005.
1. To support research and development efforts on personnel assessment instruments, workforce analysis, and evaluation of personnel management practices.
2. To assess the impact of selection decisions on applicants in race, sex, national origin, and disability categories.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply. In addition:
a. Disclosure of records about applicants for employment with USPS may be made to the Selective Service System under an approved computer matching program to identify individuals eligible for registration under the Military Selective Service Act, to determine whether those individuals have complied with registration requirements, and to enforce compliance when necessary.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By individual name, Social Security Number or respondent identification code, research project identifiers, duty or pay location, or location where test or survey was administered.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Retention depends on the type of research project, but does not exceed 30 years. Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President, Employee Resource Management, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the head of the examination center that administered the test. Headquarters employees must submit inquiries to Corporate Personnel Management, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 1831, Washington, DC 20260. In cases of studies involving information not collected through an examination, individuals must address inquiries to the system manager. Inquiries must contain full name, Social Security Number or Employee Identification Number, and date and location of their participation.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
USPS employees and applicants who provide information to personnel research programs; and other systems of records.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), USPS has established regulations at 39 CFR 266.9 that exempt records in this system depending on their purpose. The USPS has also claimed exemption from certain provisions of the Act for several of its other systems of records at 39 CFR 266.9. To the extent that copies of exempted records from those other systems are incorporated into this system, the exemptions applicable to the original primary system continue to apply to the incorporated records.
Medical Records.
USPS medical facilities and designee offices; USPS personnel offices; USPS Headquarters Corporate Health and
1. Current and former USPS employees.
2. Individuals who have been offered employment but failed the medical examination before being placed on the rolls, or who declined the offer.
3. Headquarters employees who participate in the Corporate Health and Fitness Program.
4. Employees who volunteer to join the USPS Blood Donor Program.
5. Current and former USPS employees who are or were required to have a commercial driver's license (CDL) or are otherwise subject to controlled substance and alcohol testing.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
39 U.S.C. 401, 410, 1001, 1005, and 1206.
1. To provide all employees with necessary health care and to determine fitness for duty.
2. To provide for a Headquarters health promotion program.
3. To provide the USPS Blood Donation Program with a record of donations.
4. To implement a controlled substance and alcohol testing program for employees in safety-sensitive positions.
5. To provide for the uniform collection and compilation of controlled substance and alcohol test results.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply. In addition:
a. Medical records may be disclosed to an employee's private treating physician and to medical personnel retained by USPS to provide medical examinations or treatment for an employee's health or physical condition related to employment.
b. Blood donor records may be disclosed to the American Red Cross in response to an inquiry for available donors having a particular blood type.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By employee or applicant name, Social Security Number, or duty or pay location.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
1. The Employee Medical Folder is retained by USPS until the employee is separated from USPS. On an annual basis, records of all employees separated during the prior year are transferred to the National Personnel Records Center and retained for 30 years.
2. Candidate medical information of failed eligible candidates (and those who were determined to be eligible but ultimately declined the offer) is retained 2 years. Computer data are archived from the active database to a history database after 3 years, and retained in the history database 30 years.
3. Corporate Health and Fitness Center records are retained 5 years beyond the membership termination date.
4. Blood donor records are retained 5 years after termination of employment.
5. Alcohol test results indicating a breath alcohol concentration of 0.02 or greater, verified positive controlled substance test results, refusals, medical review officer's evaluations, employee statements, and substance abuse professionals' evaluations and referrals are retained 5 years. Alcohol test results indicating a breath alcohol concentration of less than 0.02, and negative and canceled controlled substance test results, are retained 1 year.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President, Employee Resource Management, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system must address inquiries to the facility head where currently or last employed, or where job application was made. Headquarters employees must submit inquiries to the National Medical Director, Health and Resources, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 2641, Washington, DC 20260. Inquiries must include full name, Social Security Number or Employee Identification Number, name and address of facility where last employed, and dates of USPS employment or date of application.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Employees; applicants for employment; USPS and Department of Veterans Affairs medical staff; USPS designee testing facilities; substance abuse professionals; and designated contractors.
Employee Accident Records.
Safety offices at USPS facilities.
USPS employees who sustain an on-the-job accident or an occupational injury or illness.
1.
2.
39 U.S.C. 401, 410, 1001, and 1005.
1. To administer a program to collect and analyze occupational safety and health statistics.
2. To permit evaluation and correction of occupational safety and health hazards.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By employee name, Social Security Number, or Employee Identification Number.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Records are retained 5 years following the end of the calendar year of their creation. Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President, Employee Resource Management, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Employees wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the facility head where currently, or last, employed. Headquarters employees must submit inquiries to Corporate Personnel Management, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 1831, Washington, DC 20260. Inquiries must include full name, Social Security Number or Employee Identification Number, name and address of facility where last employed, and dates of USPS employment.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Employees; employees' supervisor or manager; witnesses; physicians; USPS accident reports; and other systems of records.
Records in this system that have been compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding are exempt from individual access as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5). The USPS has also claimed exemption from certain provisions of the Act for several of its other systems of records at 39 CFR 266.9. To the extent that copies of exempted records from those other systems are incorporated into this system, the exemptions applicable to the original primary system continue to apply to the incorporated records.
Office of Workers' Compensation Program (OWCP) Record Copies.
USPS personnel offices.
USPS employees who file for injury compensation.
1.
2.
39 U.S.C. 401, 410, 1001, and 1005.
To provide injury compensation to qualifying employees, and to support USPS management decisions and requirements.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By employee name, Social Security Number, or Employee Identification Number.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer
Records are retained 5 years beyond the end of the calendar year in which the employee's compensation is terminated. Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President, Employee Resource Management, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Employees wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the facility head where currently, or last, employed. Headquarters employees must submit inquiries to Corporate Personnel Management, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 1831, Washington, DC 20260. Inquiries must include full name, Social Security Number or Employee Identification Number, name and address of facility where last employed, and dates of USPS employment.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
For records maintained by the Department of Labor, individuals must apply as instructed by the Department of Labor.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
For records maintained by the Department of Labor, individuals must contest records as instructed by the Department of Labor.
Employees; employees' supervisor or manager; witnesses; physicians; other systems of records, and Department of Labor.
Employee Inquiry, Complaint, and Investigative Records.
USPS personnel offices; area and district facilities; Post Offices; and contractor sites.
USPS employees who contact USPS with an inquiry or complaint, and employees who are subjects of management inquiries or investigations of workplace issues.
1.
2.
39 U.S.C. 401, 410, 1001, 1005, and 1206.
1. To enable review and response to employee inquiries and complaints.
2. To enable management to initiate, review, process, track, and resolve inquiries, complaints, or concerns about the workplace.
3. To support administrative or court litigation and arbitration proceedings.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By employee name, subject category, or case number.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Records are retained 4 years after response to inquiry, resolution of complaint, or conclusion of investigation. Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President, Employee Resource Management, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Employees wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the facility head where currently, or last, employed. Headquarters employees must submit inquiries to Corporate Personnel Management, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 1831, Washington, DC 20260. Inquiries must include full name, Social Security Number or Employee Identification Number, name and address of facility where last employed, and dates of USPS employment.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Employees, supervisors and managers, and witnesses.
Records in this system that have been compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding are exempt from individual access as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5). The USPS has also claimed exemption from certain provisions of the Act for several of its other systems of records at 39 CFR
Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Records.
EAP Offices at Philadelphia and Los Angeles USPS facilities. This system does not include records maintained by the Federal Occupational Health Service (FOHS) under an interagency agreement with USPS.
USPS employees and immediate family members who volunteer for or are referred to an internal EAP office at a USPS facility.
1.
2.
39 U.S.C. 401.
To provide EAP counselors with information needed to maintain program operations and to assist EAP participants.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By name, Social Security Number, Employee Identification Number, or participant case number.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Records are retained 3 years from the date of the participant's last activity. Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President, Employee Resource Management, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Employees wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the facility head where currently, or last, employed. Inquiries must include full name, Social Security Number or Employee Identification Number, and dates of USPS employment.
For records maintained by the Federal Occupational Health Service (FOHS) under an interagency agreement with USPS, individuals must inquire as instructed by FOHS.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Participating employee, other family members, and EAP counselors.
Labor Relations Records.
Labor Relations and Law Department, USPS Headquarters; EEO Compliance and Appeals Processing Centers; area and district facilities; and contractor sites.
1. Current and former USPS employees, applicants for employment, third-party complainants, and mediators (USPS employees, other federal agency employees, or contract employees) involved in EEO discrimination complaints.
2. USPS employees involved in labor arbitration.
3. USPS employees who are candidates considered by promotion boards for an EEO staff position.
4. Individuals and organizations interested in providing alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services to all disputes, except those arising under USPS collective bargaining agreements.
1.
2.
3.
4.
39 U.S.C. 401, 409, 410, 1001, 1005, and 1206.
1. To adjudicate complaints of alleged discrimination, and to evaluate USPS EEO program effectiveness.
2. To provide advice and representation to USPS in labor arbitration cases.
3. To accomplish EEO staff selection.
4. To determine ADR service provider qualifications.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
EEO discrimination complaint case records are retrieved by case number, complainant's name, Social Security Number, Employee Identification Number, or the location where the complaint was made. EEO staff selection records are retrieved by applicant name or pay location. Other records categories are retrieved by name of subject individual.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in secure file cabinets within locked rooms or within locked filing cabinets. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
For EEO discrimination complaint case records, labor arbitration records, EEO staff selection records, and REDRESS ADR staff providers: Vice President, Labor Relations, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
For records of non-REDRESS ADR staff providers: Senior Vice President, General Counsel, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Inquiries about EEO discrimination complaint case records must be submitted to the EEO officer at the district, area, or Headquarters level, and must include complainant name, complainant Social Security Number or Employee Identification Number, location, and case number and year. Inquiries about labor arbitration records and ADR provider records must be submitted to the system manager. Inquiries about EEO staff selection records must be addressed to the head of the facility where application was made.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
For EEO discrimination complaint case information: complainants, witnesses, investigators, and respondents. For labor arbitration records: employees and other individuals involved in arbitration; counsel or other representatives for parties involved in a case; and arbitrators. For EEO staff position records: employee applicant and other systems of records. For ADR provider records, the provider.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), USPS has established regulations at 39 CFR 266.9 that exempt EEO discrimination complaint case records. Records in this system that have been compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding are exempt from individual access as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5). The USPS has also claimed exemption from certain provisions of the Act for several of its other systems of records at 39 CFR 266.9. To the extent that copies of exempted records from those other systems are incorporated into this system, the exemptions applicable to the original primary system continue to apply to the incorporated records.
Finance Records.
Computer Operations Service Centers, Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers, Accounting Service Centers, area and district facilities, personnel offices, Headquarters, Post Offices, and contractor sites.
1. Debtors of USPS, including suppliers, customers, payees of money orders, and current and former employees.
2. Individuals or entities to whom USPS makes payments for materials and services received or expenses incurred in conjunction with official USPS business.
1.
2.
39 U.S.C. 401, 404, 410, 1001, 1005, 1206, and 2008.
1. To facilitate debt collection by USPS.
2. To support payments to creditors of USPS.
Standard routine uses 1 through 10 apply. In addition:
a. Disclosure of records about USPS customers who write insufficient funds checks for USPS services may be made to the permit holder or presenter of a mailing being made on the customer's behalf. Disclosure is limited to the identity of the customer, the date of the mailing, and the date and amount of the check.
b. Disclosure of records about individuals indebted to USPS may be made to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) under an approved computer matching program, but limited to those data elements considered relevant to determine whether the indebted individual has retirement funds available for setoff, collecting debts when funds are available for setoff, and writing off debts determined to be uncollectible.
c. Disclosure of records about individuals indebted to USPS may be made to the Defense Manpower Data Center of the Department of Defense under an approved computer matching program to identify and locate such individuals in order to initiate collection of the debts through salary and/or administrative offset procedures.
d. Disclosure of records about individuals indebted to USPS may be made to the Internal Revenue Service under an approved computer matching program to obtain the mailing address of a taxpayer in order to locate the taxpayer to collect a debt owed to USPS.
e. Disclosure of records may be made to the Department of the Treasury under Treasury Offset Program computer matching to establish the identity of a current or former Postal Service Employee as an individual owing a delinquent debt to another federal agency and to offset the salary of or payments to the employee to repay that debt.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
Accounts receivable records are retrieved by debtor name, Social Security Number, Employee Identification Number, or invoice number. Accounts payable records are retrieved by creditor name, creditor identification number, credit card number, financial institution account number, transaction date, or batch number.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Accounts receivable records are retained 3 years after the claim is paid. Accounts payable records are retained 3 years beyond the end of the fiscal year in which payment was made. Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President, Finance (Controller), United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Inquiries about accounts receivable records must be submitted to the pertinent USPS facility. Inquiries about accounts payable records must be submitted to the system manager. Inquiries must include the individual's full name and tax identification number or Social Security Number.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Debtors and creditors; other systems of records; government travel card vendor; employee-designated financial institutions; and other federal agencies to which creditors have delinquent debts.
Supplier and Tenant Records.
USPS Headquarters; supply management offices; facilities service offices; and area and district facilities.
Suppliers; prospective suppliers; owners and tenants of real property purchased or leased by USPS.
1.
2.
39 U.S.C. 401.
1. To administer contracts.
2. To determine supplier suitability for assignments requiring access to mail.
3. To adjudicate claims by owners and tenants of real property acquired by USPS.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
Individual, business, lessor, or claimant name; contract name or
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
1. Unsuccessful proposals and architect/engineering questionnaires are retained 1 year beyond contract award. Contract records are closed at the end of the fiscal year in which they become inactive, and are retained 6 years thereafter.
2. Contractor fingerprint records are retained 2 years beyond contractor termination date.
3. Leased property records are closed at the end of the calendar year in which the lease or rental agreement expires or terminates, and are retained 6 years and 3 months from that date.
4. Real property owner and tenant records are retained 6 years unless required longer for litigation purposes.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
For contracting records: Vice President, Supply Management, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
For contractor fingerprint screening records: Chief Postal Inspector, Inspection Service, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
For architecture-engineer selection and real property owner and tenant records: Vice President, Facilities, United States Postal Service, 4301 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22203.
Individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the appropriate system manager. Inquiries about highway vehicle contracts must be made to the applicable USPS area office. Real property owner and tenant claimants must address inquiries to the same facility to which they submitted the claim. Inquiries must contain full individual or business name, Social Security Number, tax identification number, contract number, date of contract, or other pertinent identifying information.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Contract employees or businesses; previous dwelling owner or tenant claimant; and USPS claims reviewers and adjudicators.
Property Management Records.
All USPS facilities.
1. Individuals who are granted regular access to USPS facilities through the issuance of a building access badge, or who are assigned accountable property.
2. Individuals with authorized access to USPS computers and information resources, including USPS employees, contractors, and other individuals.
3. Individuals who are members of carpools with USPS employees or otherwise regularly use USPS parking facilities.
1.
2.
3.
4.
39 U.S.C. 401.
1. To ensure personal and building safety and security by controlling access to USPS facilities.
2. To ensure accountability for property issued to persons.
3. To assign computer logon IDs; to identify USPS computer users to resolve their computer access problems by telephone; and to monitor and audit the use of USPS information resources as necessary to ensure compliance with USPS regulations.
4. To provide parking and carpooling services to individuals who use USPS parking facilities.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
1. Records about building access and issuance of accountable property are retrieved by name, Social Security Number, or Employee Identification Number.
2. Records about authorized access to computer and information resources are retrieved by name, logon ID, Employee Identification Number, or other unique identifier of the individual.
3. Records of carpools and parking facilities are retrieved by name, ZIP Code, space number, or parking license number.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
1. Building access and accountable property records are retained until termination of access or accountability.
2. Records of computer access privileges are retained 1 year after all authorizations are cancelled.
3. Records of carpool membership and use of USPS parking facilities are retained 6 years.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
For records of accountable property, carpool membership, and use of USPS parking facilities: Vice President, Facilities, United States Postal Service, 4301 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22203.
For records of building access and Postal Inspector computer access authorizations: Chief Postal Inspector, Inspection Service, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
For other records of computer access authorizations: Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Inquiries for records about building access, accountable property, carpool membership, and use of USPS parking facilities must be addressed to the facility head. Inquiries about computer access authorization records must be directed to the Manager, Corporate Information Security, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 2141, Washington, DC 20260. For Inspection Service computer access records, inquiries must be submitted to the Inspector in Charge, Information Technology Division, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201. Inquiries must include full name, Social Security Number or Employee Identification Number, and period of employment or residency at the location.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Employees; contractors; subject individuals; and other systems of records.
Carrier and Vehicle Operator Records.
Headquarters; area and district facilities; processing and distribution centers; bulk mail centers; vehicle maintenance facilities; Post Offices; Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers; Accounting Service Centers; contractor or licensee locations; and facilities employing persons under a highway vehicle contract.
1. City letter carriers.
2. Current and former USPS employees who operate or maintain USPS-owned or leased vehicles.
3. Contract highway vehicle operators.
1.
2.
3.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, 404, and 1206.
1. To reimburse carriers who use privately owned vehicles to transport the mail pursuant to a postmaster agreement.
2. To evaluate delivery and collection operations and to administer these functions.
3. To provide local Post Office managers, supervisors, and transportation managers with information to assign routes and vehicles, and to adjust workload, schedules, and type of equipment operated.
4. To determine contract vehicle operator suitability for assignments requiring access to mail.
5. To serve as a basis for vehicle operator corrective action and presentation of safe driving awards.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By name, Social Security Number, Employee Identification Number, pay location, Postal Service facility name, route number, or vehicle number.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers
1. Route inspection records and minor adjustment worksheets are retained 2 years where inspections or minor adjustments are made annually or more frequently. Where inspections are made less than annually, records are retained until a new inspection or minor adjustment, and an additional 2 years thereafter.
2. Statistical engineering records are retained 5 years, and may be retained further on a year-to-year basis.
3. Agreements for use of a privately-owned vehicle are retained 2 years. Post office copies of payment authorizations are retained 90 days.
4. Records of employees who operate or maintain USPS vehicles are retained 4 years.
5. Records of highway vehicle contract employees are retained 1 year after contract expiration or contract employee termination.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Senior Vice President, Operations, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Current and former employees, and highway vehicle contract employees, wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the facility head where currently or last employed. Requests must include full name, Social Security Number or Employee Identification Number, and, where applicable, the route number and dates of any related agreements or contracts.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Employees; contractors; carrier supervisors; route inspectors; and state motor vehicle departments.
Controlled Correspondence, FOIA, and Privacy Act Disclosure Records.
Postmaster General, Government Relations, and Consumer Advocate offices, Headquarters; Law Department, Headquarters and field offices; records custodian offices at USPS Headquarters and field facilities.
1. Individuals who correspond directly with the Office of the Postmaster General.
2. Individuals who have written to non-USPS government officials; congressmen and other government officials who write USPS on behalf of USPS customers or employees; and individuals to whom USPS announcements or greetings are regularly directed.
3. Individuals who submit inquiries and requests for information, including under FOIA.
4. Individuals who submit an inquiry or request for information, or who contest a record, subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act.
1.
2.
39 U.S.C. 401, 410, and 412.
1. To maintain correspondence files for persons who communicate with the Office of the Postmaster General, and correspondence from other government officials.
2. To respond to FOIA and Privacy Act requests, and to comply with FOIA and Privacy Act disclosure accounting and reporting requirements.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply. In addition:
a. Records may be provided to a federal agency, when that agency may maintain records relevant to a Privacy Act or FOIA request, for that agency's disclosure determination, or to obtain its assistance on a USPS disclosure determination.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
1. Correspondence records are retrieved by subject category, by the individual's name, or by the name of the official inquiring on his or her behalf.
2. FOIA and Privacy Act disclosure records are retrieved by case number, name of the requester, or the name of the attorney or agent acting on their behalf.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Correspondence records are retained 4 years. FOIA and Privacy Act-related records are cut off at the end of each fiscal or calendar year, respectively, and retained 6 years thereafter. Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
For Postmaster General correspondence: Office of the Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
For other correspondence in this system: Senior Vice President, Government Relations, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
For FOIA and Privacy Act requests: Vice President and Consumer Advocate, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington DC 20260.
Individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the system manager. Inquiries about Office of the Postmaster General correspondence must include the full name of the originator, date, and subject of correspondence. Inquiries about other kinds of correspondence must contain the full name of the originator, the name of the government official to whom written, if applicable, and the date of the correspondence. Inquiries about FOIA and Privacy Act disclosure accounting records must contain the individual's name, or that of their agent, and the date of the request.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Individuals who submit correspondence, FOIA, or Privacy Act requests; their counsel or other representative; USPS officials who prepare responses; and other systems of records.
Records in this system related to FOIA and Privacy Act inquiries that have been compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding are exempt from individual access as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5). The USPS has also claimed exemption from certain provisions of the Act for several of its other systems of records at 39 CFR 266.9. To the extent that copies of exempted records from those other systems are incorporated into this system, the exemptions applicable to the original primary system continue to apply to the incorporated records.
Emergency Management Records.
Headquarters and all field postal facilities.
1. USPS employees and other individuals having emergency management responsibilities officially designated by the Postal Service to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, or recover from any natural disaster or manmade hazard.
2. Individuals who are evacuees from postal facilities or who are unaccounted for in the event of a natural disaster or manmade hazard affecting a postal facility.
1.
2.
3.
4.
39 U.S.C. 401 and 410.
1. To permit collaboration among officially designated individuals who are responsible for mitigation of, preparation for, response to, and recovery from any natural disaster or manmade hazard affecting postal facilities.
2. To satisfy federal requirements for the training, fitness testing, and medical surveillance of officially designated emergency management personnel in response to a natural disaster or manmade hazard at a postal facility.
3. To test for the exposure to hazards by officially designated emergency management personnel.
4. To account for the whereabouts of individuals in response to a natural disaster or manmade hazard at a postal facility.
5. To assess the likelihood of an evacuee's exposure to a hazard and to contact the evacuee with important health-related information.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply. In addition: a. Medical records may be disclosed to an individual's private treating physician, to medical personnel retained by USPS, and to public health agencies to provide medical examinations or treatment to individuals covered by this system of records.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By name, Social Security Number, Employee Identification Number, and postal facility name.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon
1. Emergency management information and emergency management training information is retained 5 years beyond the end of the period for which the individual is assigned emergency management responsibilities.
2. Medical fitness and medical surveillance information is retained 30 years.
3. Evacuee information is retained 5 years beyond the date of collection.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President, Emergency Preparedness, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Vice President, Employee Resources Management, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Current and former employees and contractors wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the facility head where currently or last employed. Headquarters employees or contractors must submit inquiries to the Vice President, Emergency Preparedness. Requests must include full name, Social Security Number or Employee Identification Number, and employment or contract dates. Individuals from whom evacuee information may have been collected must address inquiries to head of the facility from which they were evacuated.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Employees; contractors; medical staff of the Postal Service, designated contractors, federal public health agencies, emergency response providers, and first responders; and individuals evacuated from a postal facility in the event of a natural disaster or manmade hazard.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), USPS has established regulations at 39 CFR 266.9 that exempt records in this system depending on their purpose.
Legal Records Related to Mail.
Law Department, USPS Headquarters and field offices; Prohibitory Order Processing Center (POPC).
1. Complainants, respondents, and opposing parties in cases of false representations, lotteries, or nonmailable matter; prohibitory orders; mail withheld from delivery; and denial or termination of Post Office box or caller service.
2. USPS attorneys, attorneys representing parties, subjects of investigations, and postal inspectors involved in such cases.
3. Addressees who request orders prohibiting further mailings to them by mailers of pandering advertisements, and the mailers against whom such orders are issued.
1.
2.
3.
4.
39 U.S.C. 204, 401, 404, and 3001 et seq.; 18 U.S.C. 1301, 1302, 1341, and 1342.
1. To investigate and enforce USPS statutes about false representations, lotteries, and mailability.
2. To process applications for orders prohibiting mailers of pandering advertisements from making further mailings to the applicants, to determine whether violations of such orders have occurred, and to prevent them.
3. To enable representation of USPS in administrative proceedings when customers petition for review of cases in which USPS has withheld mail from delivery or refused or terminated Post Office box or caller service.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By individual name, USPS docket number, or prohibitory order number.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
1. Records about false representations, lotteries, or nonmailable matter through the mails are retained 20 years.
2. Records about prohibitory orders against pandering advertisers are retained 5 years following issuance of order or last application for enforcement.
3. Records about an appeal of withholding of mail are retained 1 year after final disposition of the case.
4. Records about refusal to provide, or involuntary termination of, Post Office box or caller service are retained 1 year after final disposition of the case.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Senior Vice President, General Counsel, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the system manager, and provide the following information: the full name of the subject individual; and, if applicable, the names of respondents, appellants, plaintiffs, attorneys or agents; and dates of appeals, filings, or proceedings.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Subject individuals; their counsel or other representative; postal inspectors; Prohibitory Order Processing Center personnel; members of the Judicial Officer Department; attorneys for USPS; attorneys for mailers; witnesses; and postmasters.
Records in this system that have been compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding are exempt from individual access as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5). The USPS has also claimed exemption from certain provisions of the Act for several of its other systems of records at 39 CFR 266.9. To the extent that copies of exempted records from those other systems are incorporated into this system, the exemptions applicable to the original primary system continue to apply to the incorporated records.
General Legal Records.
Law Department, USPS Headquarters and field offices; area and district facilities; Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers; Tort Claims Center; and Post Offices.
1. Current or former USPS employees who are parties to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cases, or on whose behalf NLRB charges are filed by a collective bargaining representative, and other individuals involved in labor or employment litigation.
2. Individuals who claim to be involved in accidents related to USPS operations and who seek money damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
3. Individuals investigated for possible infringement of USPS intellectual property rights, including inventors seeking patents for devices.
4. Individuals involved in other formal administrative proceedings or litigation in which USPS is a party or has an interest in which information or testimony is sought.
Records related to proceedings, including individuals' names, Social Security Numbers, postal assignment information, work contact information, finance number(s), duty location, pay location, assigned case or docket numbers, and other details related to the nature of the litigants and litigation subject matter.
39 U.S.C. 401, 409, 1206, and 1208.
1. To provide legal advice and representation in NLRB cases, labor or employment litigation, and miscellaneous civil actions and litigation.
2. To consider, settle, or defend against tort claims made under the Federal Tort Claims Act; to support program management by accident prevention and safety officers; and to provide pertinent information regarding safety, accidents, and claims to equipment providers and insurers.
3. To protect USPS intellectual property and patents.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply. In addition:
a. Tort claims records may be disclosed to members of the American Insurance Association Index System; to insurance companies that have issued policies under which the United States is or may be an (additional) insured; to equipment manufacturers, suppliers, and their insurers for claims considerations and possible improvement of equipment and supplies; and in response to a subpoena or other appropriate court order.
b. A record may be transferred and information from it disclosed to the Patent and Trademark Office or the Library of Congress when relevant in any proceeding involving the registration of Postal Service trademarks or issuance of patents.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By name of subject individual, litigant, claimant, charging party, or individual on whose behalf a charge has been filed; case number, docket number, or topic title.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
1. Labor litigation records are retained 5 years.
2. Tort claim files are retained 7 years after final adjudication or other closure. Tort litigation files are retained 5 years after closure.
3. Records of investigations of possible infringement of USPS intellectual property rights are retained 25 years after closure of the case.
4. Records of miscellaneous civil actions and administrative proceedings are retained 10 years.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Senior Vice President, General Counsel, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the system manager. Inquiries must include full name of litigant, charging party, or individual on whose behalf a charge has been filed, case number or docket number, if known, and the approximate date the action was instituted.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Subject individuals; their counsel or other representative; external authorities such as the NLRB, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or Merit System Protection Board; customers; police; postal inspectors; witnesses; American Insurance Association Index reports; and other systems of records.
Records in this system that have been compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding are exempt from individual access as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5). The USPS has also claimed exemption from certain provisions of the Act for several of its other systems of records at 39 CFR 266.9. To the extent that copies of exempted records from those other systems are incorporated into this system, the exemptions applicable to the original primary system continue to apply to the incorporated records.
Privacy Act and FOIA Appeal and Litigation Records.
Law Department, USPS Headquarters.
Individuals who submit administrative appeals or bring suit against USPS under the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 and/or FOIA.
Names, Social Security Numbers, dates, case numbers, and other information related to individuals and the subject matter of the appeal and/or litigation.
39 U.S.C. 401, 409, 410, and 412.
To process appeals, assist in litigation, and comply with reporting requirements related to the Privacy Act and FOIA.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply. In addition:
a. Records may be provided to a federal agency, when that agency may maintain records relevant to a Privacy Act or FOIA request, for that agency's disclosure determination, or to obtain its assistance on a USPS disclosure determination.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By case number, name of requester, or name of their attorney or agent.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Records are retained 10 years. Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Senior Vice President, General Counsel, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260.
Individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the system manager, and provide the following information: the name of the individual or agent who submitted the appeal, and the year in which the appeal was made, or, if applicable, the name of the plaintiff in the civil action and the year in which the civil action was filed.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Subject individuals; their counsel or other representative; USPS officials; other agencies referring requests to USPS; and other systems of records.
Records in this system that have been compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding are exempt from individual access as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5). The USPS has also claimed exemption from certain provisions of the Act for several of its other systems of records at 39 CFR 266.9. To the extent that copies of exempted records from those other systems are incorporated into this system, the exemptions applicable to the original primary system continue to apply to the incorporated records.
Public and Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports.
Law Department, USPS Headquarters and field law offices; other Headquarters offices.
Employees required to file public or confidential financial disclosure reports, including the postmaster general, deputy postmaster general, USPS ethical conduct officer, administrative law judges, the Governors of the Postal Service, and other USPS employees determined by regulation.
1.
2.
39 U.S.C. 401, 410; and 5 U.S.C. Appendix 4.
To meet the statutory requirements of the Ethics in Government Act with respect to the filing of public and confidential financial disclosure reports by covered individuals.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply. In addition: a. Records may be disclosed to any source when necessary to obtain information relevant to a conflict-of-interest investigation or determination.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By individual's name.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Records are retained 6 years. Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Senior Vice President, General Counsel, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260.
Individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries as follows:
For field OGE 450 filers, to the Managing Counsel of the Area Law Office serving the employee's work location.
For Headquarters OGE 450 filers, to their organization's ethics representative.
For field and Headquarters SF 278 filers, to the system manager.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6. Requests for SF 278 reports must be submitted using OGE Form 201.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Subject individual; their counsel or representative; ethics officials; individuals alleging conflicts of interest; and persons contacted during any investigation of such allegations.
Administrative Litigation Records.
Law Department, USPS Headquarters; area and district facilities; and USPS facilities.
1. Current and former USPS employees involved in MSPB appeals.
2. USPS employees and applicants for employment involved in EEO litigation.
Records related to individuals involved in MSPB appeals or EEO litigation, including names, Social Security Numbers, Employee Identification Numbers, work locations, dates, case number, and other information related to the litigants and the subject matter of the litigation.
39 U.S.C. 401 and 409.
To provide advice and representation to USPS in MSPB appeals and EEO litigation.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By name of litigant or case number.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls,
MSPB appeals records are retained 7 years from the date of the last administrative or judicial decision. EEO litigation records are retained 4 years from the date of the final decision. Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President, Labor Relations, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Senior Vice President, General Counsel, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the system manager, and provide full name, case number, if known, and the approximate date the action was instituted.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Subject employees; counsel or other representatives for parties; and other individuals involved in appeal or litigation.
Records in this system that have been compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding are exempt from individual access as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5). The USPS has also claimed exemption from certain provisions of the Act for several of its other systems of records at 39 CFR 266.9. To the extent that copies of exempted records from those other systems are incorporated into this system, the exemptions applicable to the original primary system continue to apply to the incorporated records.
Inspection Service Investigative File System.
Office of the Chief Postal Inspector, USPS Headquarters; Inspection Service Human Resources Service Center, Security Investigation Service Center, and Criminal Investigation Service Center; Inspectors-in-Charge.
1. Subjects of investigations; complainants, informants, witnesses, and other individuals in investigations.
2. Applicants, current and former USPS employees, contractors, and other individuals providing information related to employment suitability checks.
3. Applicants for and appointees to sensitive positions in USPS, and individuals providing information related to security clearance checks on those individuals.
Records related to investigations, including person name(s), Social Security Number(s), case number, addresses, reports of postal inspectors and third parties; physical identifying characteristics (including fingerprints, voiceprints, handwriting samples, polygraph tests, photographs, or other biometrics); and employment and payroll information maintained by USPS.
39 U.S.C. 401 and 404; and 18 U.S.C. 3061.
To support investigations of criminal, civil, or administrative matters, including applicant, employee, and contractor background investigations.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply. In addition:
a. A record from this system may be disclosed to the public, news media, trade associations, or organized groups to provide information of interest to the public about the activities and the accomplishments of USPS or its employees.
b. A record relating to a person held in custody pending or during arraignment, trial, sentence, or extradition proceedings or after conviction may be disseminated to a federal, state, local, or foreign prison, probation, parole, or pardon authority or to any other agency or individual involved with the maintenance, transportation, or release of such a person.
c. A record relating to a case or matter may be disseminated to a foreign country, through the United States Department of State or directly to the representative of such country, under an international treaty, convention, or executive agreement; or to the extent necessary to assist such country in apprehending or returning a fugitive to a jurisdiction that seeks that individual's return.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By name or other personal identifier, subject category, or assigned case number.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Records are retained up to 15 years. Exceptions may be granted for longer retention in specific instances. Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Chief Postal Inspector, Inspection Service, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the system manager and include full name, address, and information sufficient to ascertain the investigation and the individual's involvement.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Subjects, applicants, applicant references, employees, complainants, witnesses, other systems of records, other government agencies, and external public or private sources.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), USPS has established regulations at 39 CFR 266.9 that exempt records in this system depending on their purpose.
Mail Cover Program Records.
Chief Postal Inspector, USPS Headquarters; Criminal Investigation Service Center; Inspection Service field offices.
Individuals on whom a mail cover has been duly authorized by USPS to obtain information in the interest of (a) protecting the national security; (b) locating a fugitive; and (c) obtaining evidence of the commission or attempted commission of a crime that is punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year.
Records related to names and addresses of individuals on whom a mail cover is authorized; interoffice memoranda and materials; and correspondence with other relevant agencies.
39 U.S.C. 401 and 404.
To investigate the commission of, or attempted commission of, acts constituting a crime punishable by law.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By subject individual name.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Records are retained 5 years. Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Chief Postal Inspector, Inspection Service, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the system manager. Inquiries must include full name of subject individual, current address, and other addresses during the previous 5 years.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
The requesting authority and postal inspectors.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), USPS has established regulations at 39 CFR 266.9 that exempt records in this system depending on their purpose.
Vehicular Violations Records System.
Inspection Service, USPS Headquarters; and USPS facilities where postal police officers issue vehicular violations notices.
Vehicle operators.
Vehicle operator's and postal police officers' names; operator's state permit and permit number; state vehicle license number; date, number, and cause of citation; and dates of court appearances.
39 U.S.C. 401.
To regulate traffic and parking on USPS premises.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By the subject individual name or vehicle license number.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to
Vehicular violations records are retained 2 years. Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Chief Postal Inspector, Inspection Service, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Individuals at USPS Headquarters wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to: Inspector-in-Charge for Internal Affairs, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260. Individuals at other facilities must address inquiries to the facility's Inspector-in-Charge.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Vehicle operators; postal police officers; witnesses; state motor vehicle registration bureaus; USPS personnel offices; USPS parking control officers; prosecutive and judicial officials; and other systems of records.
Inspector General Investigative Records.
Office of the Inspector General (OIG), USPS Headquarters; OIG field offices.
1. Present and former USPS employees and applicants for employment, contractors, subcontractors, lessees, licensees, and other persons who are named individuals in investigations conducted by OIG or who are subjects of security checks or suitability determinations.
2. Complainants and subjects of complaints collected through the operation of the OIG Hotline.
3. Other individuals, including witnesses, sources, and members of the general public, who are named individuals in connection with investigations conducted by OIG.
Records related to OIG investigations, including name(s), Social Security Number(s), assigned case number, addresses; reports of OIG investigators and third parties; investigative materials; physical identifying characteristics (including fingerprints, voiceprints, handwriting samples, polygraph tests, photographs, or other biometrics); and employment, payroll, financial, contractual, and property management records maintained by USPS.
39 U.S.C. 404; 18 U.S.C. 3061; and 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3.
To support the conduct of OIG investigations.
Standard routine uses 1 through 9 apply. In addition:
a. A record from this system may be disclosed to the public, news media, trade associations, or organized groups to provide information of interest to the public about the activities and the accomplishments of USPS or its employees.
b. A record relating to a person held in custody pending or during arraignment, trial, sentence, or extradition proceedings or after conviction may be disseminated to a federal, state, local, or foreign prison, probation, parole, or pardon authority or to any other agency or individual involved with the maintenance, transportation, or release of such a person.
c. A record relating to a case or matter may be disseminated to a foreign country, through the United States Department of State or directly to the representative of such country, under an international treaty, convention, or executive agreement; or to the extent necessary to assist such country in apprehending or returning a fugitive to a jurisdiction that seeks that individual's return.
d. Records originating exclusively within this system of records may be disclosed to other federal offices of inspector general and/or to the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency for purposes of conducting qualitative assessment reviews of internal safeguards and management procedures employed in investigative operations of the USPS OIG. Records originating from any other USPS systems of records, which may be duplicated in or incorporated into this system, may also be disclosed with all personally identifiable information redacted.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By name or other personal identifier, subject category, or assigned case number.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge. Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections. Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
1. Official investigative case files, evidence and custody files, and informant files are retained up to 20 years, or 5 years beyond the sentence of the subject individual, whichever is longer.
2. Information reports, investigative analysis reports, confidential fund files,
3. Proactive project case files and briefing reports are retained 2 years after closeout.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Inspector General, United States Postal Service, 1735 N Lynn Street, Arlington, VA 22209.
Individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the system manager and include full name, address, and information sufficient to ascertain the investigation and the individual's involvement.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification and Record Access Procedures above.
Subjects, applicants, applicant references, employees, complainants, witnesses, other systems of records, other government agencies, and external public or private sources.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k), USPS has established regulations at 39 CFR 266.9 that exempt records in this system depending on their purpose.
Address Change, Mail Forwarding, and Related Services.
USPS National Customer Support Center (NCSC), Computerized Forwarding System (CFS) sites, Post Offices, and contractor sites.
Customers requesting change of address, mail forwarding or other related services either online or offline. Customers who are victims of a natural disaster who request mail forwarding services through the American Red Cross.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 404.
1. To provide mail forwarding and change of address services.
2. To provide address correction services.
3. To provide address information to the American Red Cross about a customer who has been relocated because of disaster.
4. To provide customers the ability to contact providers of move-related services (e.g. moving vans or supplies).
Standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply. In addition:
a. Disclosure upon request. The new address of a specific business or organization that has filed a permanent change of address order may be furnished to any individual on request. (Note: The new address of an individual or family will not be furnished pursuant to this routine use, but only when authorized by one of the standard routine uses listed above or one of the specific routine uses listed below.)
b. Disclosure for Address Correction. Disclosure of any customer's new permanent address may be made to a mailer, only if the mailer is in possession of the name and old address: from the National Change of Address file if the mailer is seeking corrected addresses for a mailing list; from the Computerized Forwarding System (CFS) if a mailpiece is undeliverable as addressed; or from the Locatable Address Conversion System if an address designation has been changed or assigned. Copies of change of address orders may not be furnished.
c. Disclosure for Voter Registration. Any customer's permanent change of address may be disclosed to a duly formed election board or registration commission using permanent voter registration. Copies of change of address orders may be furnished.
d. Disclosure to Government Agency. Any customer's permanent or temporary change of address information may be disclosed to a federal, state, or local government agency upon prior written certification that the information is required for the performance of its duties. A copy of the change of address order may be furnished. Name and address information may be disclosed to government planning authorities, or firms under contract with those authorities, if an address designation has been changed or assigned.
e. Disclosure to Law Enforcement Agency. Any customer's permanent or temporary change of address information may be disclosed to a law enforcement agency, for oral requests made through the Postal Inspection Service, but only after the Postal Inspection Service has confirmed that the information is needed for a criminal investigation. A copy of the change of address order may be furnished.
f. Disclosure for Service of Process. Any customer's permanent or temporary change of address information may be disclosed to a person empowered by law to serve legal process, or the attorney for a party in whose behalf service will be made, or a party who is acting pro se, upon receipt of written information that meets prescribed certification requirements. Disclosure will be limited to the address of the specifically identified individual (not other family members or individuals whose names may also appear on the change of address order). A copy of the change of address order may not be furnished.
g. Disclosure for Jury Service. Any customer's change of address information may be disclosed to a jury
h. Disclosure at Customer's Request. If the customer elects, change of address information may be disclosed to government agencies or other entities, and requests for move-related services may be forwarded to the specified service provider.
All routine uses are subject to the following exception: Information concerning an individual who has filed an appropriate protective court order with the postmaster/CFS manager will not be disclosed under any routine use except pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Change of address orders are maintained on file at the delivery unit. They are filed alphabetically by name and date. Records generated from the source document are recorded on the Forwarding Control System file server and on tapes at CFS units. Electronic change of address records and related service records are also stored on disk and/or magnetic tape in a secured environment. Change of address records are consolidated in a National Change of Address (NCOA) file at the NCSC. Selected extracts of NCOA are provided to a limited number of firms under contract or license agreement with USPS. Records pertaining to move-related services are also transmitted to specific service providers, including government agencies and private companies under contract to USPS.
For those delivery units under Postal Automated Redirection System (PARS), images of the change of address orders are maintained electronically in the Change of Address Reporting System (COARS) database. The physical COA is filed in the CFS unit by the date processed.
Records are retrieved by the following methods:
For paper records: By name, address, date, and ZIP Code.
For electronic records: by name, address, date, ZIP Code, and customer number for electronic change of address and related service records; by name, address, and e-mail address for customer service records; by service provider name or number for service provider records.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections.
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
1. National change of address records are retained 4 years from the effective date.
2. COA records are retained in the delivery unit up to 18 months. For delivery units using the PARS system, the physical change of address order is retained in the CFS unit for 30 days if it was scanned or 18 months if it was manually entered into the national database. The COARS database records are retained 2 years from the effective date.
3. Mail Forwarding records are retained for up to 3 years.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Senior Vice President, Intelligent Mail and Address Quality, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington DC 20260.
Vice President, Delivery and Retail, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington DC 20260.
Customers wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records should address inquiries to their local postmaster. Inquiries should contain full name, address, effective date of change order, route number (if known), and ZIP Code. Customers wanting to know if information about them is also maintained in the NCOA File should address such inquiries to: Manager, NCOA, National Customer Support Center, United States Postal Service, 6060 Primacy Parkway, Memphis, TN 38188.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
Customers, personnel, service providers, and, for call center operations, commercially available sources of names, addresses, and telephone numbers.
Address Matching for Mail Processing.
Computer Operations Service Center; Engineering; Processing and Distribution Centers; and contractor site(s).
USPS customers, including individual and business customers.
Names and mailing addresses of individuals and businesses.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 404.
To improve the speed, accuracy, and certainty of mail delivery.
Standard routine uses 1 through 6 and 11 apply. In addition:
a. A mailpiece containing a barcode that is encoded with the address, but not name, of a customer derived from this system may be disclosed to a mailer if the Postal Service is unable to deliver the mailpiece, and returns it to the mailer as part of a requested return service.
Automated databases, electronic and computer storage media, with names and addresses stored separately.
Retrieval is accomplished by a computer-based system, using one or more of the following elements: name, ZIP Code(s), street name, primary number, secondary number, delivery point, and/or carrier route identification.
The name and address database is obtained from a commercial vendor under strict contract and security controls. The database is maintained separately from USPS databases. Name data and address data within the commercial database are also stored separate from each other. In field deployment, name and address data are stored in an encrypted fashion. The database is not be commingled with any agency records or databases, and is not to be used to update any agency record or database. No information is provided from the USPS into the commercial database or back to the vendor.
The database only operates on secure systems. Electronic transmissions of records are protected by encryption and access authorization codes. Records are kept on computers in controlled-access areas, with access limited to authorized personnel. Computers are protected by a cipher lock system, card key system, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and use identifications, and file management. Contractors are subject to contract controls regarding security, as well as security compliance reviews.
The database will be maintained until 90 days after termination of the contract or program, and then destroyed. During contract performance, the database is replaced by the vendor in its entirety no less frequently than every 90 days. To destroy the replaced version, the Postal Service employs sanitization procedures that ensure the complete destruction of information as specified by its information security policies.
Senior Vice President for Operations, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Customers wanting to know if information about them is kept in this system of records must address inquiries in writing to the Manager, Image Recognition Processing, 8403 Lee Highway, Merrifield VA 22082.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and the Postal Service Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
Commercially available source of names and mailing addresses.
http://www.usps.com Registration.
Computer Operations Service Centers.
Customers who register via the USPS Web site at
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 404.
1. To provide online registration with single sign on services for customers.
2. To obtain accurate contact information in order to deliver requested products, services, and other material.
3. To authenticate customer logon information for
4. To permit customer feedback in order to improve
5. To enhance understanding and fulfillment of customer needs.
Standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By customer name, customer ID(s), phone number, or mail or e-mail address.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections.
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software. Online data transmissions are protected by encryption.
For small business registration, computer storage tapes and disks are maintained in controlled-access areas or under general scrutiny of program personnel. Access is controlled by logon ID and password as authorized by the Marketing organization via secure Web site. Online data transmissions are protected by encryption.
1. ACH records are retained up to 2 years.
2. Records stored in the registration database are retained until the customer cancels the profile record, 3 years after
3. For small business registration, records are retained 5 years after the relationship ends.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Customers wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries in writing to the system manager. Inquiries must contain name, address, and other identifying information.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
Customers.
http://www.usps.com Ordering, Payment, and Fulfillment.
Computer Operations Service Centers.
Customers who place orders and/or make payment for USPS products and services through
1.
2.
3.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 404.
1. To fulfill orders for USPS products and services.
2. To promote increased use of the mail by providing electronic document preparation and mailing services for customers.
3. To provide shipping supplies and services, including return receipts and labels.
4. To provide recurring ordering and payment services for products and services.
Standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply.
Automated databases, computer storage media, and paper.
By customer name, customer ID(s), phone number, mail or e-mail address, or job number.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections.
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Online data transmission is protected by encryption, dedicated lines, and authorized access codes. For shipping supplies, data is protected within a stand-alone system within a controlled-access facility.
1. Records related to mailing online and online tracking and/or Confirmation Services supporting a customer order are retained for up to 30 days from completion of fulfillment of the order, unless retained longer by request of the customer.
2. Records related to shipping services and domestic and international labels are retained 90 days.
3. Delivery Confirmation and return receipt records are retained 6 months.
4. Signature Confirmation records are retained 1 year.
5. ACH records are retained up to 2 years.
6. Other customer records are retained 3 years after the customer relationship ends.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Customers wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries in writing to the system manager. Inquiries must contain name, address, customer ID(s), and order number, if known.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
Customers.
Offline Registration, Payment, and Fulfillment.
USPS Marketing Headquarters; Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers; Philatelic Fulfillment Service Center; area and district facilities; Post Offices; and contractor sites.
Customers who register for USPS programs, place orders and/or make payment for USPS products and services via offline means.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 404.
1. To provide offline registration services for customers.
2. To fulfill requests for USPS products, services, and other materials.
3. To authenticate customer information and permit customer feedback.
4. To operate recurring ordering and payment services for products and services.
5. To enhance understanding and fulfillment of customer needs.
Standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply.
Automated databases, computer storage media, and paper forms.
By customer name, customer ID(s), phone number, mail or e-mail address, or order number.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections.
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Online data transmission is protected by encryption, dedicated lines, and authorized access codes. For shipping supplies, data is protected within a stand-alone system within a controlled-access facility.
1. ACH records are retained up to 2 years.
2. Other records are retained up to 3 years after the customer relationship ends.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260.
Customers wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries in writing to the system manager. Inquiries must contain name, address, and other identifying information.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
Customers and, for call center operations, commercially available sources of names, addresses, and telephone numbers.
Mailer Services—Applications and Approvals.
USPS Headquarters; Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers; National Customer Support Center (NCSC); district facilities; detached mailing units; and facilities that access USPS computers.
Customers who apply for mail management and tracking products or services.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 404.
1. To provide application services for mail management and tracking products and services.
2. To authenticate applicant information, assign computer logon IDs, and qualify and assist users.
3. To provide product and/or service updates, service, and support.
4. To collect accurate technical data to ensure the proper operation of electronic data transmission and software.
Standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By customer name, customer ID(s), or logon ID.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections.
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software. Online data transmissions are protected by encryption.
1. Logon records are retained 1 year after computer access.
2. ACH records are retained up to 2 years.
3. Security access records are retained 2 years after computer access privileges are cancelled.
4. Other customer records are retained 4 years after the customer relationship ends.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Customers wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries in writing to the system manager. Inquiries should contain name, customer ID(s), if any, and/or logon ID.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
Customers.
Mail Management and Tracking Activity.
USPS Headquarters; Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers; and Mail Transportation Equipment Service Centers.
Customers who use USPS mail management and tracking services.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 404.
1. To provide mail acceptance, induction, and scheduling services.
2. To fulfill orders for mail transportation equipment.
3. To provide customers with information about the status of mailings within the USPS network.
4. To help mailers identify performance issues regarding their mail.
5. To provide delivery units with information needed to fulfill requests for mail redelivery and hold mail service at the address and for the dates specified by the customer.
Standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply.
Automated databases, computer storage media, and paper.
By customer name, customer ID(s), or logon ID.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections.
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software. Online data transmissions are protected by encryption.
1. CONFIRM records are retained for up to 30 days.
2. Records related to ePubWatch, Confirmation Services and hold mail services are retained for up to 1 year.
3. Special Services and drop ship records are retained 2 years.
4. ACH records are retained up to 2 years.
5. Other records are retained 4 years after the relationship ends.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Customers wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries in writing to the system manager. Inquiries should contain name, customer ID(s), if any, and/or logon ID.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
Customers and, for call center operations, commercially available sources of names, addresses, and telephone numbers.
Customer Service and Correspondence.
USPS Consumer Advocate, Headquarters; Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers; the National Customer Support Center (NCSC); districts, Post Offices, contractor sites; and detached mailing units at customer sites.
This system contains records relating to customers who contact customer service by online and offline channels. This includes customers making inquiries via e-mail, 1-800-ASK-USPS, other toll-free contact centers, or the BSN, as well as customers with product-specific service or support issues.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 404.
1. To enable review and response services for customer inquiries and concerns regarding USPS and its products and services.
2. To ensure that customer accounts and needs are attended to in a timely manner.
Standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply.
Automated databases, computer storage media, and paper.
By customer name, customer ID(s), mail or e-mail address, phone number, customer account number, case number, article number, pickup number, and last four digits of SSN, ZIP Code, or other customer identifier.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections.
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software. Online data transmissions are protected by encryption.
1. Customer care records for usps.com products are retained 90 days.
2. Records related to 1-800-ASK-USPS, Delivery Confirmation service, Special Services, and international call centers are retained 1 year.
3. Customer complaint letters are retained 6 months and automated complaint records are retained 3 years.
4. Business Service Network records are retained 5 years.
5. Other records are retained 2 years after resolution of the inquiry.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President and Consumer Advocate, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington DC 20260.
Customers wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries to the system manager in writing. Inquiries should include name, address, and other identifying information.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
Customers and, for call center operations, commercially available sources of names, addresses, and telephone numbers.
Customer Mailing and Delivery Instructions.
USPS Headquarters, Prohibitory Order Processing Center, districts, Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers, and Post Offices.
1. Customers requesting delivery of mail through an agent and the agent to whom the mail is to be delivered.
2. Customers who are visually or physically disabled and unable to use or read conventionally printed materials and who are receiving postage-free matter in their delivery areas.
3. Customers whose mailboxes do not comply with USPS standards and regulations.
4. Customers who elect to have their names and addresses, or the name and address of their children under 19 years of age or a deceased spouse, placed on the list of individuals who do not want mailed to them sexually oriented advertisements (SOAs) or pandering advertisements.
5. Rural route customers.
1.
2.
3.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, 404, 3008, 3010, and 3403.
1. To provide for efficient and secure mail delivery services.
2. To permit authorized delivery of mail to the addressee's agent.
3. To enable the efficient processing of mail for visually or physically disabled customers.
4. To protect customers from mail fraud and identity theft.
5. To maintain a list of addressees that do not want SOA material mailed to them, available for mailers to comply with statutory requirements; and to maintain records as necessary to provide protections requested by an addressee against individual mailers under the Pandering Advertisement statutes.
6. To assist rural carrier leave replacements who might be unfamiliar with assigned route and box numbers of rural route customers.
Standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply. In addition:
a. Information may be disclosed for the purpose of identifying an address as an address of an agent to whom mail is delivered on behalf of other persons. This routine use does not authorize the disclosure of the identities of persons on behalf of whom agents receive mail.
All routine uses are subject to the following exception: Information concerning an individual who has filed an appropriate protective court order with the postmaster will not be disclosed under any of the general routine uses except pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Automated databases, computer storage media, and paper.
By customer name, address, and application number, or by customer ID(s).
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections.
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
1. Records related to customer requests not to have mailed to them SOAs or pandering advertisements are retained up to 5 years after request.
2. Other records are retained 1 year from the date the customer relocates, cancels an order, corrects a cited mailbox irregularity, or terminates the special instruction.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
For SOA and pandering advertisement prohibitory orders: Vice President, Pricing and Classification, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
For other delivery records: Vice President, Delivery and Retail, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington DC 20260.
Customers wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system pertaining to mail delivery by agents, noncompliant mailboxes, with regard to free matter for the visually disabled, or pertaining to rural routes must address inquiries to their local postmasters. Customers should include name, address, and other identifying information.
Customers wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system pertaining to requests not to have mailed to them SOAs and
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
Customers; cosigners of the request for delivery of mail through an agent; medical personnel or other competent authorities; and USPS personnel.
Auction Files.
USPS Mail Recovery Centers.
Customers who participate in or request information about USPS auctions.
1.
2.
3.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 404.
1. To maintain a list of names and addresses of customers participating in or requesting information about auctions.
2. To accurately process delivery and payment.
Standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply.
Automated databases, computer storage media, and paper.
By customer name, customer ID(s), or other identifier.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access.
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Records are retained up to 1 year. Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President and Consumer Advocate, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington DC 20260.
Customers wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system must address inquiries to the system manager. Inquiries must contain full name, address, and other identifying information.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
Customers.
Financial Transactions.
USPS Headquarters; Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers; Accounting Service Centers; anti-money laundering support group; and contractor sites.
1. Customers who use online payment or funds transfer services.
2. Customers who file claims or make inquiries related to online payment services, funds transfers, money orders, and stored-value cards.
3. Customers who purchase funds transfers or stored-value cards in an amount of $1000 or more per day, or money orders in an amount of $3000 or more per day, or who purchase or redeem any such services in a manner requiring collection of information as potential suspicious activities under anti-money laundering requirements. Recipients of funds transfers and the beneficiaries of funds from money orders totaling $10,000 in one day.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 404; 31 U.S.C. 5318, 5325, 5331, and 7701.
1. To provide financial products and services.
2. To respond to inquiries and claims related to financial products and services.
3. To fulfill requirements of anti-money laundering statutes and regulations.
Standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply. Legally required disclosures to agencies for law enforcement purposes include disclosures of information relating to money orders, funds transfers, and stored-value cards as required by anti-money laundering statutes and regulations.
Automated database, computer storage media, microfiche, and paper.
For online payment and funds transfer services, information is retrieved by customer name, customer ID(s), transaction number, or address.
Claim information is retrieved by name of purchaser or payee, claim number, serial number, transaction number, check number, customer ID(s), or ZIP Code.
Information related to anti-money laundering is retrieved by customer name; SSN; alien registration, passport, or driver's license number; serial number; transaction number; ZIP Code; transaction date; data entry operator number; and employee comments.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections.
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software. Online data transmissions are protected by encryption.
1. Summary records, including bill due date, bill amount, biller information, biller representation of account number, and the various status indicators, are retained 2 years from the date of processing.
2. For funds transfers, transaction records are retained 3 years.
3. Records related to claims are retained up to 3 years from date of final action on the claim.
4. Forms related to fulfillment of anti-money laundering requirements are retained 5 years from the end of the calendar quarter in which they were created.
5. Related automated records are retained the same 5-year period and purged from the system quarterly after the date of creation.
6. Enrollment records related to online payment services are retained 7 years after the subscriber's account ceases to be active or the service is cancelled.
7. Account banking records, including payment history, Demand Deposit Account (DDA) number, and routing number, are retained 7 years from the date of processing.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington DC 20260.
Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
For online payment services, funds transfers, and stored-value cards, individuals wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system must address inquiries in writing to the Chief Marketing Officer. Inquiries must contain name, address, and other identifying information, as well as the transaction number for funds transfers.
For money order claims and anti-money laundering documentation, inquiries should be addressed to the Chief Financial Officer. Inquiries must include name, address, or other identifying information of the purchaser (such as driver's license, Alien Registration Number, Passport Number, etc), and serial or transaction number. Information collected for anti-money laundering purposes will only be provided in accordance with Federal anti-money laundering laws and regulations.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
Customers, recipients, financial institutions, and USPS employees.
USPS has established regulations at 39 CFR 266.9 that exempt information contained in this system of records from various provisions of the Privacy Act in order to conform to the prohibition in the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. 5318(g)(2), against notification of the individual that a suspicious transaction has been reported.
Trust Funds and Transaction Records.
USPS Headquarters Marketing; Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers; district offices; Post Offices; and detached mailing units.
Customers who are users of trust fund payment accounts.
1.
2.
3.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 404.
1. To establish and maintain trust fund accounts and process payments.
2. To ensure revenue protection.
3. To provide information and updates to users of these accounts.
4. To enhance understanding and fulfillment of customer needs.
Standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply.
Automated database, computer storage media, and paper.
By customer name or customer ID(s), account number, and/or address.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections.
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software. Online data transmissions are protected by encryption.
1. ACH records are retained up to 2 years.
2. Other records in this system are retained up to 4 years after the relationship ends.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
To access Permit records, customers must make a written request to their local postmaster. Correspondence must include name, address, account number, company name, mailing location, and a clear description of the issue.
To access all other records, customers must make a written request to the system manager. Correspondence must include name, address, account numbers, and other identifying information.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
Customers.
Postage Meter and PC Postage Customer Data and Transaction Records.
USPS Headquarters Marketing, USPS facilities, Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers, and partner locations.
Postage evidencing system users.
1.
2.
3.
4.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 404.
1. To enable responsible administration of postage evidencing system activities.
2. To enhance understanding and fulfillment of customer needs.
Standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply. In addition:
a. The name and address of an authorized user of a postage meter or PC Postage product (postage evidencing systems), printing a specified indicium will be furnished to any person provided the user is using the postage meter or PC Postage product for business purposes.
Automated databases, computer storage media, and paper.
By customer name and by numeric file of postage evidencing systems ID number, or by customer ID(s).
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
1. ACH records are retained up to 2 years. Records of payment are retained up to 7 years.
2. Other records in this system are retained up to 4 years after a customer ceases using a postage evidencing system.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Customers wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquires in writing to: Manager, Postage Technology Management, United States Postal Service, 1735 N Lynn St., Arlington, VA 22209.
Inquiries should include the individual's name and customer ID.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
Customers; authorized service providers of postage evidencing systems; and USPS personnel.
Post Office and Retail Services.
USPS Headquarters, Consumer Advocate; Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers; Accounting Service Centers; and USPS facilities, including Post Offices (New Jersey, as an exception, does not store passport information in Post Offices), international claims and inquiry offices, and contractor locations.
1. Customers who apply for or purchase products and services at Post Offices or other retail sites. This includes products and services related to passports, Post Office boxes, caller services, and self-service equipment.
2. Senders and recipients of special mail services.
3. Authorized users of Post Office boxes and caller services.
4. Customers with inquiries or claims relating to special mail services.
1.
2.
3.
4. Names and addresses of persons authorized to access a Post Office box or caller service.
5.
6.
7.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, 404, and 411; 22 U.S.C. 214; 31 U.S.C. 7701.
1. To enable customers to apply for and purchase nonfinancial products and services at Post Offices and other retail locations.
2. To ensure accurate mail delivery.
3. To respond to inquiries and claims related to special mail services.
Standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply. In addition:
a. Disclosure of boxholder applicant name/address and the names of other persons listed as receiving mail on PS Form 1093,
b. Disclosure of boxholder applicant name/address may be made to a person empowered to serve legal process, or the attorney for a party in whose behalf service will be made, or a party who is acting pro se, on receipt of written information that meets prescribed certification requirements. A copy of PS Form 1093 will not be furnished.
c. Disclosure of boxholder applicant name/address and the names of other persons listed as receiving mail on PS Form 1093 may be made, on prior written certification from a foreign government agency citing the relevance of the information to an indication of a violation or potential violation of law and its responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation, and only if the address is (a) outside the United States and its territories, and (b) within the territorial boundaries of the requesting foreign government. A copy of PS Form 1093 may be furnished.
All routine uses are subject to the following exception: Information concerning an individual who has filed an appropriate protective court order with the postmaster will not be disclosed under any routine use except pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
Automated databases, computer storage media, and paper.
By name, customer ID(s), ZIP Code, article number, claim number, Post Office box or caller service number, check number, or debit and/or credit card number.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software. Online data transmissions are protected by encryption.
1. Passport applications are mailed on the day of acceptance with fees and documentation. Records related to passports are retained 4 months.
2. Records related to Special Services for domestic and International Express Mail are retained up to 1 year.
3. Domestic and international Special Services records are retained 2 years. Records relating to Post Office boxes and caller services are retained up to 2 years after the customer relationship ends.
4. Records collected via self-service equipment are retained up to 2 years.
5. Records related to credit and/or debit card transactions are retained 2 years.
6. Records related to inquiries and claims are retained up to 3 years from final action on the claim.
7. Records related to retail transactions are retained up to 5 years.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Senior Vice President, Operations, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
For records relating to Post Office boxes, caller services, self-service, and passports, inquiries made in person must be made by the subject individual at the local Post Office. Requestors must identify themselves with a driver's license or military, government, or other form of acceptable identification.
For passports, inquiries are best directed to the Department of State, which maintains the original case file.
For Special Services, information can be obtained from the facility where the service was obtained, or can be accessed on
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
Customers.
Sales, Marketing, Events, and Publications.
USPS Headquarters Marketing and Public Policy; Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers; National Customer Service Center; Area and District USPS facilities; Post Offices; and contractor sites.
Customers who interact with USPS sales personnel, respond to direct marketing messages, request publications, respond to contests and surveys, and attend USPS events.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, 404.
1. To understand the needs of customers and improve USPS sales and marketing efforts.
2. To provide appropriate materials and publications to customers.
3. To conduct registration for USPS and related events.
Standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply.
Automated databases, computer storage media, and paper.
For sales, events, and publications, information is retrieved by customer name or customer ID(s), mail or e-mail address, and phone number.
For direct marketing, information is retrieved by Standard Industry Code (SIC) or North American Industry Classification System (NAISC) number, and company name.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections.
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon
1. Records relating to organizations and publication mailing lists are retained until the customer ceases to participate.
2. ACH records are retained up to 2 years. Records relating to direct marketing, advertising, and promotions are retained 5 years.
3. Other records are retained 3 years after the relationship ends.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
For information pertaining to sales, inquiries should be addressed to: Office of Sales Performance Assessment, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
Customers wanting to know if other information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries in writing to the Chief Marketing Officer, and include their name and address.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
Customers, USPS personnel, and list providers.
International Services.
USPS Headquarters, Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers, and USPS facilities.
Customers shipping to or from international locations.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Company name; contact name, title, and phone and fax number; mail and e-mail address; after-hours contact name and phone number; Tax ID number; Permit account number; and CAPS account number.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 404.
1. To provide international mailings and business services.
2. To provide USPS scan data to customers for mail tracking purposes.
3. To support customized mail agreements with international customers.
4. To satisfy reporting requirements for customs purposes.
Standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply.
Automated databases, computer storage media, and paper.
By customer name, ID number(s).
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections.
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
1. Records related to the Pre-Customs Advisory System are retained 5 years, and then erased according to the requirements of domestic and foreign Customs services.
2. Other records are retained 3 years after the relationship ends.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Vice President, International Business, United States Postal Service, 1735 N. Lynn Street, Suite 6026, Arlington, VA 22209.
Customers wanting to know if other information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries in writing to the system manager, and include their name and address.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
Customers and USPS personnel.
Identity and Document Verification Services.
USPS Marketing, Headquarters; Integrated Business Solutions Services Centers; and contractor sites.
Customers who apply for identity and document verification services.
1.
2. Names and contact information of users who are authorized to have access to data.
3.
4. Biometric information including fingerprint, photograph, height, weight, and iris scans. (Note: Information may be collected, secured, and returned to customer or third parties at the direction of the customer, but not stored.)
5.
6.
7.
39 U.S.C. 401, 403, and 404.
1. To provide services related to identity and document verification services.
2. To issue and manage public key certificates, user registration, email addresses, and/or electronic postmarks.
3. To provide secure mailing services.
4. To protect business and personal communications.
5. To enhance personal identity and privacy protections.
Standard routine uses 1 through 7, 10, and 11 apply.
Automated databases, computer storage media, and paper.
By customer name, customer ID(s), distinguished name, certificate serial number, receipt number, and transaction date.
Paper records, computers, and computer storage media are located in controlled-access areas under supervision of program personnel. Access to these areas is limited to authorized personnel, who must be identified with a badge.
Access to records is limited to individuals whose official duties require such access. Contractors and licensees are subject to contract controls and unannounced on-site audits and inspections.
Computers are protected by mechanical locks, card key systems, or other physical access control methods. The use of computer systems is regulated with installed security software, computer logon identifications, and operating system controls including access controls, terminal and transaction logging, and file management software.
Key pairs are protected against cryptanalysis by encrypting the private key and by using a shared secret algorithm to protect the encryption key, and the certificate authority key is stored in a separate, tamperproof, hardware device. Activities are audited, and archived information is protected from corruption, deletion, and modification.
For authentication services and electronic postmark, electronic data is transmitted via secure socket layer (SSL) encryption to a secured data center. Computer media are stored within a secured, locked room within the facility. Access to the database is limited to the system administrator, database administrator, and designated support personnel. Paper forms are stored within a secured area within locked cabinets.
1. Records related to Pending Public Key Certificate Application Files are added as received to an electronic database, moved to the authorized certificate file when they are updated with the required data, and records not updated within 90 days from the date of receipt are destroyed.
2. Records related to the Public Key Certificate Directory are retained in an electronic database, are consistently updated, and records are destroyed as they are superseded or deleted.
3. Records related to the Authorized Public Key Certificate Master File are retained in an electronic database for the life of the authorized certificate.
4. When the certificate is revoked, it is moved to the certificate revocation file.
5. The Public Key Certificate Revocation List is cut off at the end of each calendar year and records are retained 30 years from the date of cutoff. Records may be retained longer with customer consent or request.
6. Other records in this system are retained 7 years, unless retained longer by request of the customer.
Records existing on paper are destroyed by burning, pulping, or shredding. Records existing on computer storage media are destroyed according to the applicable USPS media sanitization practice.
Senior Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260.
For authentication services, electronic postmarks, and digital certificates, inquiries should be addressed to:
Manager, Business Development and Identity Protection Services, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 5806, Washington, DC 20260.
Customers wanting to know if other information about them is maintained in this system of records must address inquiries in writing to the system manager, and include their name and address.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the Notification Procedure above and USPS Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
Customers.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Final rule.
The Federal Transit Administration is revising its rule on state safety oversight of rail fixed guideway systems not regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Since January 26, 1996, when the rule took effect, the agency has gained experience and insight concerning the benefits of and recommended practices for implementing state safety oversight requirements. This final rule revises the State Safety Oversight rule and adds clarifying sections, further specification concerning what the state must require to monitor safety and security of non-FRA rail systems, and incorporates into the body of the regulation material previously incorporated by reference. The revised part should be easier to understand and ensure greater compliance of the State oversight agencies, and enhance the safety and security of the rail systems governed by this part.
The effective date of this rule is May 31, 2005. The compliance date of this rule is May 1, 2006.
For program issues, Jerry A. Fisher or Roy Field, Office of Safety and Security, Federal Transit Administration, (202) 366-2896 (telephone) or (202) 366-3394 (fax). For legal issues, Richard Wong, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, (202) 366-4011.
You may download this rule and other safety rules from the FTA Office of Safety and Security home page at
This document adopts as final a new part 659, Rail Fixed Guideway Systems; State Safety Oversight. This preamble to the final rule contains a brief regulatory and program background about FTA's state safety oversight program. It also summarizes the final rule provisions, and discusses in detail the comments received on the proposed rule. We also include in the preamble a section by section description of the regulation. This is important, because, as discussed in the proposed rule, we have changed the organization of the rule to enhance usability. As a further aid, we are publishing at the end of this preamble, distribution and derivation tables, which track where old sections are in the revised part 659 and, conversely, the old section from which the new part 659 sections are derived.
The preamble to a proposed rule typically contains more detailed information than the final rule, because it lays out in detail the provisions to aid public comment. This is true for this proposed and final rule as well, but we have included a level of information in today's
For reasons described in the next section of this preamble, the agency determined that improvements could be made to part 659. Accordingly, on March 9, 2004, FTA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing changes to its state safety oversight rule contained in 49 CFR part 659. Today's document contains the final rule, making changes to the substance and format of the existing part 659. These changes are detailed later in this preamble.
Since part 659 created a community of oversight agencies where previously few existed, the initial goal of the rulemaking was to ensure that states were provided with sufficient authority to establish programs that met the rule's statutory requirements. Now, after eight years of experience in implementing part 659 and evaluating its performance, FTA has identified changes that will improve the program. Today's final rule addresses many of these changes.
Since the beginning of the state safety oversight program, FTA has maintained outreach with a variety of groups, including the affected states, rail transit agencies, our DOT sister agency, FRA, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the American Public
For example, the final rule clarifies the role of the state oversight agency and the role of the rail transit provider. We have done this by reorganizing the regulation and including more complete descriptions of the responsibilities of the state, the state oversight agency, and what the state oversight agency must require of the rail transit property. The final rule also includes a new definition of hazard and contains a separate section on a hazard management plan.
In addition, in September 2002, the NTSB issued recommendations to FTA (R-02-18 and -19). NTSB stated that the
APTA may choose to update its Manual. However, to provide a more user-friendly regulation, the FTA determined that it is in the interest of our users to publish all of the provisions of the APTA Manual in the state safety oversight regulation. By eliminating a reference to the APTA manual in the regulation, and listing all requirements in full, this allows FTA to respond to changed circumstances and subsequent recommendations from NTSB directly through the rulemaking process. This listing also provides greater usability of the regulations, since all of the requirements are printed in one place.
This rule is published to improve the performance of the State Safety Oversight Program and to ensure the following outcomes: (1) Enhance program efficiency; (2) increase responsiveness to recommendations from the NTSB and emerging safety and security issues; (3) improve consistency in the collection and analysis of accident causal factors through increased coordination with other Federal reporting and investigation programs; and (4) improve performance of the hazard management process. The rule also clarifies FTA's oversight management objectives, and streamlines current reporting requirements, including the change from paper reporting to electronic reporting. Finally, the rule addresses heightened concerns for rail transit security and emergency preparedness.
FTA amended several sections of the State Safety Oversight rule. These changes are summarized below, according to their effect on state, oversight agency, rail transit agency, and FTA roles and responsibilities.
Under this rule, the primary responsibility of the state remains designating an entity—other than the rail transit agency—to oversee the safety and security of a rail fixed guideway system. If a rail fixed guideway system operates in more than one state, each state may designate an entity as the oversight agency or may agree to designate one agency from one state to provide oversight. In either case, this rule requires that in all circumstances in which a rail fixed guideway system is operating in multiple states, the rail transit agency operating the rail fixed guideway system must be subject to only one program standard.
In addition, an affected state's designation of its oversight agency must now either coincide with the execution of any New Starts project grant agreement between FTA and the rail fixed guideway system within the state's jurisdiction, or occur before the application for funding under FTA's formula program for urbanized areas (49 U.S.C. 5307) by an entity meeting the definition of rail fixed guideway system.
Within sixty (60) days of designating the oversight agency, the state must make its designation submission to FTA. A state that has already designated an oversight agency before the implementation of this rule does not need to re-designate. Should a state change its designated oversight agency, it must submit its proposed designation to FTA for review and approval within thirty (30) days of its change. After FTA approves the oversight agency designation, the designated oversight agency must provide its initial submission within thirty (30) days of receiving FTA's approval.
The state may prohibit public disclosure of investigation reports. Furthermore, states are not required to make available the rail transit agency's security plan or referenced procedures. If states cannot protect rail transit agency security plans or supporting procedures from public disclosure, then the state must review these documents on-site at the rail transit agency.
This rule identifies the minimum requirements for the oversight agency's development of its program standard and the rail transit agency's development of its system safety program plan and security plan. In the previous regulation some of these standards were contained in the APTA Manual, which was incorporated by reference into the regulation.
Each oversight agency must require the rail transit agency to develop and maintain a separate system safety program plan and system security plan that complies with the oversight agency's program standard and requirements specified in this part. The oversight agency must still require the rail transit agency to conduct internal safety and security audits.
The oversight agency must review and approve the rail transit agency's annual report, documenting rail transit agency internal safety and security audit findings. The rule also requires the oversight agency to oversee an annual review by the rail transit agency of its system safety program plan and system security plan to determine whether or not either plan must be modified or updated. The oversight agency must review and approve any modification or update.
The oversight agency must require the rail transit agency to develop a hazard management process as part of its system safety program plan, to be reviewed and approved by the oversight agency. The oversight agency must require the rail transit agency to develop, in coordination with the oversight agency, thresholds for the notification and reporting of hazards to the oversight agency. Measures to eliminate or control hazards and the associated corrective actions are to be managed through the hazard management process, including rail transit agency procedures for providing the oversight agency with reports to track mitigation.
FTA has modified the thresholds for the notification and investigation of accidents. The oversight agency must require rail transit agencies to report the occurrence of accidents within two (2) hours. In those instances where the rail
The oversight agency must investigate—or cause to be investigated—all accidents meeting the notification and investigation thresholds. The oversight agency must review and approve all procedures—except those used by the NTSB—that will be used to conduct an investigation on its behalf. Should the oversight agency not accept the rail transit agency's investigation report, it must either conduct its own investigation or prepare its own report with the amended findings. If the NTSB investigates an accident, the oversight agency remains responsible for the development of the accident report and corrective actions. It may adopt, in whole or in part, NTSB's report and findings, just as it may adopt, in whole or in part, the rail transit agency's investigation report and findings.
The oversight agency must require the rail transit agency to develop corrective action plans to address findings from accidents and the oversight agency's three-year safety and security review. In the case of accident investigations, the oversight agency is responsible for ensuring that a corrective action plan is developed, implemented, and tracked, regardless of the entity that conducts the investigation on the oversight agency's behalf. Should the NTSB conduct the accident investigation, the oversight agency must identify a process for evaluating NTSB findings to determine whether or not corrective actions should be implemented. The oversight agency must also identify a dispute resolution process for corrective action plan implementation, should the rail transit agency disagree with the oversight agency.
The oversight agency must still submit three types of reports to FTA: the initial submission, annual reports, and periodic reports. The initial submission must be delivered to FTA not later than sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of passenger operations for any New Starts system. All designated oversight agencies must provide FTA with an initial submission by the rule's date of effectiveness. An oversight agency designated after the rule's date of effectiveness must make its initial submission by the date specified in its designation submission, but no later than sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of passenger operations. In the event a state changes its oversight agency, the initial submission is due within thirty (30) days of the new designation. The initial submission must include the oversight agency program standard, all referenced procedures, and certification that the rail transit agency system safety program plan and the system security plan have been developed, reviewed, and approved by the oversight agency.
Annual reports must summarize oversight activities for the preceding twelve (12) months, including: a description of the causal factors of investigated accidents and status of corrective actions, updates, and modifications to rail transit agency program documentation; a report that documents findings from three-year safety review activities, whether or not a three-year safety review has been completed since the last annual report was submitted; a description of the program standard and supporting procedures, if they have changed during the preceding year; and certification that any changes or modifications to the rail transit agency system safety program plan or system security plan have been reviewed and approved by the oversight agency.
FTA may request periodic reports from the oversight agency. All three types of reports must be submitted electronically to FTA.
The oversight agency must ensure that there is no conflict of interest by either the oversight agency or an entity operating on its behalf in providing oversight activities required in this rule.
FTA added the definition of “rail transit agency” as the agency responsible for operating the rail fixed guideway system. FTA modified the definition of “rail fixed guideway system” to ensure that states, their designated oversight agencies, and rail transit agencies have completed applicable requirements prior to the start of passenger operations.
The rail transit agency is still required to develop a system safety program plan and security plan that complies with the oversight agency's program standard and the minimum requirements specified in this rule. However, the two documents must be developed and maintained separately. The rail transit agency must review its system safety program plan and security plan annually. If either the system safety program plan or security plan must be modified, the rail transit agency must submit the modified plan to the oversight agency for review and approval.
The rail transit agency must ensure that all elements of its system safety program and security plan are reviewed in an ongoing manner over a three-year cycle, in accordance with internal audit requirements. The rail transit agency must provide the oversight agency at least thirty (30) days notice prior to the conduct of scheduled internal safety and security reviews. The rail transit agency must also submit to the oversight agency checklists and procedures to be used in conducting the reviews. The rail transit agency's chief executive must submit a statement of compliance or noncompliance with its system safety program plan or security plan, along with the rail transit agency's annual report, to the oversight agency. If the rail transit agency is in noncompliance, the report must identify the areas that do not conform to the rail transit agency's system safety program plan, and must list measures being taken to bring these areas into compliance.
The rail transit agency must develop and implement a hazard management process that includes, at a minimum, a definition of the rail transit agency's approach to the hazard management and resolution process, a list of the sources and mechanisms used to support the ongoing identification of hazards, the process by which identified hazards will be evaluated and prioritized for elimination or control, the mechanism used to track identified hazards to resolution, the minimum thresholds for notification and reporting hazards to the oversight agency, and the process for ongoing reporting of hazard resolution activities to the oversight agency.
The rail transit agency must notify the oversight agency within two (2) hours of accidents in a format defined by the oversight agency. The rail transit agency must provide verification that corrective actions to address the finding(s) from an accident investigation are implemented as described in a corrective action plan, or must propose an alternative action(s) to be implemented subject to oversight agency review and approval. The rail transit agency must provide periodic reports as requested by the oversight agency detailing the status of corrective action implementation.
The FTA will continue to evaluate whether states have complied with the rule or have made adequate efforts to comply with it. This rule directs FTA to approve state designation submittals, oversight agency initial submissions, and oversight agency annual submissions. FTA retains the authority to request periodic submissions from oversight agencies.
FTA received eighteen (18) comments in response to the NPRM. FTA considered all comments filed. The breakdown among commenter categories is as follows:
Our evaluation of the comments did not lead to substantial changes between the NPRM and this Final Rule. In Section V below, we discuss in detail the public comments addressing issues raised in the NPRM.
Historically, states have raised concern over the lack of Federal funding to assist them in the development and implementation of safety and security oversight programs. In response to FTA's NPRM, several commenters addressed the issue of what the states term an “unfunded mandate.”
Two commenters stated that the proposed rule would increase the burden on the states to perform oversight without providing any funding. These commenters noted that the proposed increase in workload is beyond their current state funding levels. One of the commenters suggested that safety oversight could be monitored and enforced through FTA's Triennial Review Process instead of through the states. One commenter noted that FTA makes funds available to support the development of the oversight program. The commenter recommended that “FTA provide funding for all capital projects includ[ing] monies to the [oversight agency] for the significant additional costs of safety and security certification.” One commenter suggested that FTA identify ways to minimize the information collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information.
Finally, one commenter suggested that the rule should take into account typical state funding cycles in relation to the schedule for implementing corrective actions.
FTA provides technical assistance to state oversight agencies under development or in existence in an effort to effectively promote safety and security in the rail transit environment and to reduce the learning curve of a state new to the program. The rule makes allowances for state funding cycles and corrective action implementation dates. The implementation cycle of corrective actions continues to be a local issue, and schedules for the implementation of corrective actions should be decided by the rail transit agency, with appropriate state oversight, taking into consideration the funds available to implement the corrective actions. FTA believes that the rule allows the rail transit agency and oversight agency to identify an appropriate schedule for corrective action implementation.
One commenter recommended changing the definition of “hazard” to “hazard means any real or potential conditions,” rather than just stating “hazard means any condition.” The commenter recommended that FTA clearly define the context of real or potential condition. Two commenters suggested that FTA replace the phrase “hazardous condition” with “hazard.”
One commenter suggested including a definition of “medical attention” (a term used in § 659.33) and “first aid.” Three commenters suggested that definitions should be included for “damage to a system” and “damage to the environment,” terms used in the definition of “hazard.” These commenters suggested that the terms be quantifiable.
A few commenters suggested that FTA either remove the definition of “rail transit-controlled property” or limit its applicability to only areas that support operations, including revenue facilities.
A few commenters also suggested that changes be made to the definition of “individual.” The comments ranged from deleting the term to modifying the definition to make it less restrictive. Two commenters recommended that the definition on “passenger” include “patron” to address persons who have just used or intend to use the rail transit system.
One commenter requested that the rule include the definition of “security breach.” Finally, one commenter recommended that the rule define “qualified professional.”
In response to commenters recommending the replacement of “hazardous condition” with “hazard,” FTA concurs and has made this change throughout the rule.
FTA does not agree with the recommendation by the commenter to remove the definition of “rail transit-controlled property.” It is important to maintain consistency within FTA's data collection programs, specifically state safety oversight and the National Transit Database (NTD). Furthermore, through its definition of rail transit-controlled property, FTA expects that safety or security incidents occurring on property controlled by the rail transit agency that meet the accident notification thresholds must be reported to the oversight agency. We believe that the rail transit agency's hazard identification process should include all incidents that occur on its property, regardless of whether or not the activity supports revenue operations.
FTA has chosen to keep the definition of “individual,” but add the term “person” to the definition to ensure that anyone involved in an accident, meeting the thresholds specified in the notification and investigation sections, is covered by this part. This includes “pedestrians” and “others,” as specified in the NTD.
FTA does not believe it is appropriate to identify each type of medical attention that an individual could receive as a result of an accident, to support notification and investigation thresholds. The rule is clear that if two or more individuals receive immediate medical attention away from the scene, the incident qualifies as an accident under § 659.33 and § 659.35. FTA's intent is to capture serious events and believes that even if the injuries sustained by two or more individuals were minor, the accident itself, regardless of the type of injury, warrants notification and investigation.
FTA believes that a detailed definition of “damage” to the system or environment is most appropriately developed by the rail transit agency, with concurrence from the state oversight agency. The threshold for damage or potential damage to the system, equipment, property or the environment should be identified during the development of the rail transit agency's hazard management process. Each property must address its operating risk in accordance with management's policy for providing standard care to the rail transit agency's passengers and employees. It is the oversight agency's responsibility to ensure that the rail transit agency's level of accepted risk meets the intent of the oversight agency's program standard and this rule, as well as conform to the rail transit agency's requirements for mitigating system hazards and their potential to cause loss.
Defining a “security breach” is similar to defining all types of accidents. Notification and investigation thresholds are determined by the impact of the accident on the rail transit passengers, employees, system, and environment. Therefore, security breaches should be reported when thresholds under § 659.33 and § 659.35 have been met.
We have not defined “qualified professional” or attempted to regulate minimum qualifications of the individuals involved at either the state oversight agency or rail transit agency level. The state and respective rail transit agency should identify and enforce the qualifications necessary to meet the requirements of this part. Finally, FTA has made a technical correction to paragraph (2) in the definition of “rail fixed guideway system” to reflect the wording of the current rule.
FTA did not propose changes to its criteria for the withholding of funds for noncompliance. A few commenters recommended that FTA extend the judgment of noncompliance to include rail transit agencies, rather than just states. The commenters noted that some states have difficulty in enforcing part 659 requirements. Two commenters recommended that FTA also identify the process by which withheld funds would be released.
With regard to state difficulties enforcing the part 659 provisions, FTA did not make changes. States are required to ensure compliance with the provisions of this part. Under 49 U.S.C. 5330, FTA does not have the authority to regulate state policies for managing noncompliance. We believe that each state needs to identify its own enforcement mechanism.
FTA proposed changes to this section to clarify its intent about event(s) that must prompt oversight agency designation, as well as FTA's expectation that once designated the oversight agency will ensure that its program is fully implemented before the initiation of passenger service.
One commenter recommended that FTA include a provision for when a state officially moves oversight responsibility to a “new” state organization.
FTA did not propose changes to this section.
One commenter raised concerns over past and potential problems in obtaining accident information from rail transit agencies. The commenter explained that in their state, an existing Public Records Act makes accident information available to citizens. Because of the potential release of accident information, rail transit agencies have refused to provide their investigation information and reports to the oversight agency, citing their protection by the rail transit agencies' attorney-client privilege.
One commenter recommended that security plan directives should mention other documents that should be controlled, such as drill coordination plans, training, and emergency management plans.
The NPRM proposed removing the reference to the
In its comments to the docket, APTA raised concern over FTA's proposed elimination of the
One commenter suggested that FTA require the oversight agency to send a copy of its program standard to all managers of the rail transit agencies within its jurisdiction. Another commenter recommended FTA clarify the role of the oversight agency during construction and pre-revenue phases.
Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 5330, does not address the authority to be provided to states to oversee rail transit capital projects before passenger operations commence. In 1995, FTA concluded that this lack of definition prevented application of the state safety oversight rule during the planning, design, and construction of New Starts projects. However, states with New Starts projects must be in compliance with each element of part 659 before the initiation of passenger operations. To facilitate compliance, the rule requires that states make their oversight agency designation prior to a rail transit agency application for formula grant money, or at the same time as the execution of a grant agreement between FTA and the grantee applicant for a New Starts project. Furthermore, FTA requires that each state submit documentation identified in § 659.9(d) to FTA within sixty (60) days of designating its oversight agency.
FTA believes that state oversight agency participation in a project's developmental phases is critical to the success of the State Safety Oversight Program and the state's ability to provide effective oversight during operations. FTA supports states' efforts to participate during pre-operation by providing a funding mechanism through its New Starts projects process that allows capital grant monies to be used for the initial state safety oversight agency program development.
For those capital projects in states with existing rail transit agencies and safety oversight agencies and where the rail system is being modified, extended, or rehabilitated, FTA expects each oversight agency to participate in the pre-operation phases under the requirements of this part (§ 659.15 and § 659.19(g) and (h)), but FTA funds may not be used.
Furthermore, there is no requirement in this part that limits a state's ability to extend its safety oversight in all phases of project development. FTA encourages this practice and a handful of states currently have authority to conduct their safety and security oversight program during the planning, design and construction of a New Starts system.
In lieu of the
One commenter requested a clarification of the meaning of “approved”—whether it meant the system safety program plan would be approved by the oversight agency or the rail transit agency. Another commenter suggested that the regulation should require a formal letter of approval from the state oversight agency, accompanied by the checklist used to review the rail transit agency's system safety program plan and security plan.
FTA received one comment proposing an “hours of service” requirement, limiting the number of hours that safety sensitive employees can work and providing a minimum number of required hours off.
Finally, two commenters suggested removing or combining specific sections of the system safety program plan minimum elements to reduce what the commenters believed to be redundant—namely removing § 659.19(s) and combining § 659.19(g) and § 659.19(r) under the heading of “System Modifications and Configuration Control.”
FTA proposed, and maintains, that the oversight agency issue a formal letter of approval to the rail transit agency after reviewing the system safety program plan and security plan. FTA agrees with the commenter that the oversight agency should include in its formal submittal to the rail transit agency the checklist used to conduct the system safety program plan and security plan review.
FTA did not propose an “hours of service” requirement in this part. FTA does not have the authority to regulate in this area.
The NPRM proposed minimum requirements for an agency security plan that must be maintained as a separate document.
One commenter recommended that security breaches and other security issues such as threat and vulnerability assessments should be covered similarly to safety issues. Another commenter recommended that FTA modify the security audit requirement so that such audits are conducted periodically and by qualified professionals.
One commenter suggested that the rule require a security plan that includes a description of a positive ID program identifying all contractors, visitors and employees requiring access to the system or facilities, and tracks all security related IDs, uniforms, or equipment that may be used as part of the positive ID program.
Finally, two commenters recommended that FTA not require the oversight agency to conduct an “on-site” review of the rail transit agency security plan.
While FTA agrees with the importance of positive ID programs and other access control measures to enhance security at rail transit systems, FTA does not intend that this rule specify the type of security strategy to be used by the rail transit agency and monitored by the state oversight agency.
In the NPRM “Section-by-Section Analysis” FTA proposed that the oversight agency conduct its review of the rail transit agency's security plan on-site at the rail transit agency. FTA agrees with the commenters who suggested that this requirement places an unnecessary burden on the oversight agencies in the conduct of their review. Therefore, we have modified the Final Rule to require that the rail transit agency must submit its security plan to the oversight agency if the state has established protocols to protect the security plan from public disclosure. If the state cannot provide these protections, the oversight agency must review the security plan on-site at the rail transit agency. Finally, FTA intends that state oversight agencies always identify in-house representatives or contract personnel whose qualifications are sufficient to review a rail transit agency's system safety program plan and security plan.
The NPRM proposed a requirement for the oversight agency to require the rail transit agency to conduct an annual review of its safety and security plans.
One commenter requested clarification regarding the level of system modification that would require resubmission of the rail transit agency's system safety program plan.
FTA proposed a section that requires the oversight agency to require the rail transit agency to develop and document a process for performing on-going internal safety and security reviews.
A commenter recommended FTA require a rail transit agency general manager to sign off on all conducted internal safety and security audits to ensure management is aware of internal operations and processes, and that they are effective. Three commenters voiced concern over outstanding issues at time of certification, suggesting that the requirement of the rail transit agency's general manager to certify compliance in its annual report does not address the instance when a rail transit agency may not be in full compliance with its system safety program plan, but is still required to certify as such. One of these commenters proposed specific language indicating certification by the agency's chief executive officer.
Another commenter requested that FTA shorten the time period requirement for notifying state oversight agencies of internal safety audits from 30 days to 10 days. Three commenters recommended lengthening the time requirement for notifying state oversight agencies of scheduled internal safety audits, 45 days and 60 days. Finally, one commenter suggested that the internal safety audit process not be “reset” to coincide with the implementation of the new rule, inasmuch as certain transit operators might currently be dealing with safety issues in the midst of their audit cycles.
We have not reduced the timeframe for rail transit agency notification to the state before the conduct of internal safety audits from at least thirty (30) days to ten (10) days. Internal safety audits are the means by which a rail transit agency can assess effectiveness of its own safety program and how well it is being implemented agency-wide. A rail transit agency must be able to develop a schedule for these audits and make the schedule available to its oversight agency thirty (30) days before conducting the internal review. Other commenters requested the timeframe be expanded to forty-five (45) or sixty (60) days. FTA believes that thirty (30) days is sufficient for oversight agency notification since the oversight agency is not required—but strongly encouraged—to participate in the internal safety review process.
FTA agrees with the last commenter and will not require the internal safety audits to be “reset.” Instead, the rail transit agency should continue its cycle of audits in compliance with all other terms of this rule, regardless of the date this rule goes into effect. It should be noted, however, that any changes to internal safety audit procedures or processes as the result of this rule must be implemented at the date this rule goes into effect.
FTA proposed that the oversight agency must conduct an on-site review of the rail transit agency's safety and security plans every three years or in an on-going manner.
One commenter requested that the regulation outline what should be included in the state oversight agency safety and security review report. Another commenter recommended that the proposed rule be amended to clarify that the state oversight agency reserves the right to conduct an on-site review more frequently than every three years. This commenter also recommended adding the following language, “[t]he oversight agency must prepare and issue a report containing findings, recommendations, corrective actions, and the rail transit agency's response to each finding that requires additional action. The rail transit agency's response shall set a time frame to implement the corrective actions resulting from the review. The report, at a minimum, must include an analysis of the efficacy of the system safety program plan and a determination of whether it should be updated.”
There is no language in this requirement that precludes the oversight agency from establishing the right to conduct an on-site review of the rail transit agency more frequently than every three years. FTA agrees that the reviews may be conducted in an “ongoing manner.”
FTA disagrees with the commenter that additional language is needed to address oversight findings from the three-year safety or security review. Section 659.37 requires that rail transit agencies develop corrective action plans to address three-year review findings. Subsequently, the corrective actions must be implemented and tracked according to § 659.37 requirements.
FTA proposed that each rail transit agency develop and implement a hazard management process that has been reviewed and approved by the state oversight agency. Two comments were received. One commenter agreed with FTA's process while another recommended that FTA delete the hazard management process section and make reference to it only in the proposed § 659.13 (system safety program standard) in the NPRM.
In the NPRM, FTA proposed revisions to the definition of accident to provide greater consistency with the notification and investigation requirements used by the NTSB as well as reporting thresholds established by FTA's NTD. Further, FTA proposed defining accident in relation to the activities required by the rail transit agency and oversight agency after the occurrence of an event deemed an accident. FTA proposed in the NPRM that the oversight agency must require the rail transit agency to notify the oversight agency within two (2) hours of any event involving a rail transit vehicle or taking place on rail transit-controlled property where one or more of the following occurs:
(1) A fatality, where an individual is confirmed dead within thirty (30) days of a transit-related incident, excluding suicides and deaths from illness;
(2) Injuries requiring immediate medical attention away from the scene for two or more individuals;
(3) Property damage to rail transit vehicles, non-rail transit vehicles, other rail transit property or facilities that equals or exceeds $25,000;
(4) An evacuation due to life safety reasons; or
(5) A main-line derailment.
In addition the oversight agency must require rail transit agencies that share track with the general railroad system and are subject to the Federal Railroad Administration notification requirements to notify the oversight agency within two (2) hours of an incident for which the rail transit agency must notify the Federal Railroad Administration.
A majority of the commenters addressed the definition or thresholds for accident notification and investigation in several ways. Two commenters suggested that the two-hour notification requirement adds an unreasonable burden on the rail transit agency, especially during a catastrophic event, and recommended that FTA change the time period to four hours. One commenter recommended that FTA further define what constitutes “notification,” questioning whether or not an individual from the state oversight agency should be required to be available to receive the notification twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week or if it is sufficient that a message is left or fax is sent within the two (2) hour window. The commenter suggested that this might influence state resource allocation.
Several commenters expressed concern over the definition of fatality, noting that a fatality may be difficult to “[confirm] within thirty (30) days of a transit incident,” given increased constraints on retrieving patient information due to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). A few commenters suggested that the 30-day confirmation period should be removed, while one commenter suggested it be reduced to twenty-four (24) hours.
Several commenters recommended that state oversight agencies be notified of all fatalities, including suicides. Several of these commenters noted that the determination of cause of death might not be made within the first two hours after the incident. Other commenters noted that FRA and NTSB do not make distinctions between a fatality and a suicide, and that a situation may occur where the NTSB or FRA may be notified of a fatality but the state oversight agency would not.
Relating to the notification threshold for injuries, some commenters recommended that FTA maintain the current definition, which requires notification by the rail transit agency when an incident occurs resulting in a single injury instead of “two or more persons” in the NPRM. These commenters suggested that under FTA's proposed threshold for injury, an incident in which a person is struck by a train and is transported to the hospital would not be reported to the oversight agency. One commenter also noted that FTA's NTD requires the reporting of one person injured in a collision occurring on a rail right-of-way. Other commenters suggested that while the NPRM attempted to align definitions with NTD, in some areas conflicts remain.
Several commenters objected to the reduction in the property damage threshold from $100,000 in the current rule to $25,000 in the NPRM. Many of these commenters indicated that in lowering the threshold, rail transit agencies and state oversight agencies would face an unnecessary increase in notifications, and there would be an increased burden in investigating and tracking these accidents. Most commenters recommended that FTA maintain the $100,000 property damage notification threshold. One commenter suggested that the qualification of property damage to only “rail transit vehicles, non-rail transit vehicles, [or] other rail transit property or facilities” limits applicable items, and that since the current rule includes all property damage and provides the necessary information, it should be retained.
Several commenters proposed that FTA either delete the definition of individual for threshold purposes, or make it broader to ensure that pedestrians are included. Another commenter suggested that the term “person” be used, as no fatality should go unreported.
Some commenters recommended that FTA either add a definition for “medical attention” or clarify the term “injury,” to clarify that the intent of the rule is not to require immediate notification for very minor items.
Some commenters objected to the proposed location of the incident “involving a rail transit vehicle or taking place on rail transit-controlled property,” suggesting that FTA should limit the requirement for notification to those instances where an event has occurred only when it involves the operation of the rail transit vehicle, and not in such places as offices, parking lots and other areas that do not involve rail transit operations.
In reference to requirements for accident investigation, § 659.29, FTA proposed, “[t]he oversight agency must investigate, or cause to be investigated, at a minimum, any event involving a rail transit vehicle or taking place on rail transit-controlled property meeting the fatality, injury, or property damage thresholds identified in § 659.27(a).” Relating to the threshold for investigations, one commenter suggested that the NPRM creates a large investigative workload. Some
Additionally, the NPRM proposed, “(b) The oversight agency must use approved investigation procedures that have been submitted to FTA as required in the initial submission or annual submission” and “(c) In the event the oversight agency designates the rail transit agency to conduct investigations on its behalf, it must do so formally and require the rail transit agency to use investigation procedures that have been formally approved by the oversight agency.”
Some commenters recommended that the required investigation process for the analysis of probable or multiple causal determinations be standardized across the industry. Another commenter recommended that the state oversight agency's procedures include the rail transit agency's own investigation of the accident.
The NPRM proposed, “(d) Each investigation must be documented in a final report that includes a description of investigation activities, identified causal factors, and a corrective action plan. (1) The final investigation report must be submitted to the oversight agency in a format and timeframe specified by the oversight agency. (2) The oversight agency must review and formally approve each final investigation report. (3) The oversight agency shall have the authority to require periodic status reports that document investigation activities and findings in a time frame determined by the oversight agency.”
One commenter objected to the requirement for the state oversight agency to approve the rail transit agency investigation report, indicating that the investigating party must be given autonomy for findings in the final report and that any state comments should be made during the drafting phase. Another commenter suggested that the proposed rule for accident investigations relied on transparency between the agencies and that the rail transit agencies must release, or make available, all essential information to the state oversight agency in order for the state to adequately review the determination of cause(s).
Finally, one commenter recommended that FTA require sending the final investigation report to the rail transit agency's executive director or general manager.
In reference to the notification threshold for a fatality, FTA disagrees with the commenters who noted that it might be difficult to track the status of an individual for thirty (30) days to determine whether or not the individual has been confirmed dead, thus requiring notification of the state oversight agency and compliance with subsequent investigation and corrective action plan requirements. Furthermore, FTA believes that the rail transit agency's representative(s) responsible for risk management, legal duties, or claims will either be notified of the confirmed death or will track status information. In addition, rail transit agencies must currently track this information for NTD reporting. For these reasons we did not revise the 30-day tracking period.
FTA agrees with commenters indicating that noteworthy incidents, such as a collision between a train and a person would go unreported under the notification threshold for two (2) or more injuries in the NPRM. Furthermore, we agree that there are still discrepancies between notification and investigation thresholds in the NPRM and those of the data reporting thresholds for “major events” within the NTD Program and notification thresholds for NTSB. While we believe that minor inconsistencies will remain, we have made changes to the accident notification and investigation thresholds in an effort to increase the coordination between the above stated programs. Most significantly, FTA has changed the accident notification and investigation thresholds to mirror all eight (8) NTD “Major Event” thresholds, not just the first five (5) thresholds identified in the NPRM. In addition to the five (5) thresholds identified in the NPRM, rail transit agencies are now also required to notify state oversight agencies in the event of a mainline derailment, a collision with person(s) on a rail right-of-way, and a collision between a rail transit vehicle and another rail transit vehicle or a transit non-revenue vehicle.
We agree with several commenters who requested greater clarity for key definitions within the accident notification and investigation thresholds, namely individual and medical attention. We have more clearly identified the definition of “individual” to include pedestrians and other persons. While there are distinctions between the types of individuals, FTA intends that all persons who suffer injuries that require medical attention away from the scene of the incident or end in fatality are individuals under this rule. Historically, FTA excluded the reporting of fatalities and injuries of employees and trespassers under the State Safety Oversight Program.
FTA agrees with one commenter who recommended FTA clarify that the intent of this rule is not to require state safety oversight agency notification for very minor injuries. For consistency, the use of “immediate medical attention” in this rule should be interpreted as it is used under FTA's NTD program. The following is an excerpt from the NTD reporting manual and clarifies FTA's intent within this rule:
The definition of injury requires immediate medical attention away from the scene. Immediate medical attention includes, but is not limited to, transport to the hospital by ambulance. If an individual is transported immediately from the incident scene to a hospital or physician's office by another type of emergency vehicle, by passenger vehicle, or through other means of transport, this is also considered an injury. An individual seeking medical care several hours after an incident or in the days following an incident is not considered to have received immediate medical attention. In cases that are less clear-cut, reporters should apply their judgment in determining whether the injury sustained caused the individual to immediately seek medical attention.
The medical attention received must be at a location other than the location at which the incident occurred. The intent of this distinction is to exclude incidents that only require minor first aid or other assistance received at the scene. This distinction is not, however, intended to be burdensome for the [rail] transit agency. It is not a requirement that an agency follow-up on each person transported by ambulance, for example, to ensure that they actually received medical attention at the hospital. It is acceptable to count each person immediately transported by ambulance as an injury. If, however, an agency representative does choose to follow-up with the hospital and finds that, though an individual was transported to the hospital, he did not receive any medical attention, this
We disagree with commenters suggesting that the two-hour notification requirement does not provide an adequate amount of time for the rail transit agency to notify the oversight agency, especially during catastrophic events. While we understand that a catastrophic event can overwhelm rail transit agency personnel, we believe that two (2) hours is reasonable and mirrors requirements by the NTSB, and may provide more time than the “immediate notification” required by FRA.
In reference to the format in which notifications are made and state oversight agency personnel availability, we believe that these decisions are best left to the state to identify and define. FTA believes it is reasonable to expect state oversight agency and rail transit agency representatives to identify a practical process that ensures the oversight agency is notified appropriately and can carry out subsequent activities.
We agree with commenters who noted that the qualifying of property damage as applying only to “rail transit vehicles, non-rail transit vehicles, [or] other rail transit property or facilities” limits applicable items. To clarify FTA's intent, FTA has removed the qualifiers and requires notification when an accident equals or exceeds $25,000 in total accident damage. Consistent with NTD and NTSB requirements, property damage to both transit and non-transit property should be included in the estimate. While many commenters objected to the reduction in the property damage threshold, we believe that the $25,000 notification and investigation threshold is appropriate and reflects the current requirements of the NTSB.
FTA disagrees with recommendations to constrain the applicability of the accident notification and investigation thresholds to only those incidents “involving the operation of a transit vehicle,” ignoring incidents that occur in parking lots, stations, and other areas of rail transit property and responsibility. We believe that this rule limits notification and investigation to only the most serious events that might occur on rail transit property. As such, we believe that in accordance with the intent of state safety oversight, these events should be reported to the state in a timely manner to ensure the state's ability to investigate and require corrective actions, as required under Section 5330 of the enabling legislation. Furthermore, FTA has interpreted the state safety oversight legislation to include security considerations. In so doing, FTA requires the rail transit agency to report security incidents that meet the notification thresholds to the oversight agency. We believe that passenger safety and security are often interrelated and each passenger should expect to be free from danger, unintentional or intentional, to the extent that it is reasonably practicable. As such, we believe that efforts by the rail transit agency, in accordance with state oversight, should be applied system-wide and not limited to only specific passenger or vehicle operations.
As mentioned above, accident investigation thresholds have been changed to accurately reflect thresholds identified in the NTD major event category. FTA disagrees with the commenter who suggested that the NPRM creates a large investigative workload. Under the old definition of accident, states were required to investigate all single person events in which an individual was treated for injuries away from the scene (the majority of these events were slips, trips and falls in transit stations and vehicles). The new accident investigation thresholds actually lessen the investigative burden by only requiring investigation of single person events in which there has been a train/person collision or a collision between a rail transit vehicle and another rail transit vehicle or a transit non-revenue vehicle. Some commenters expressed concern over the exclusion of all single person events meeting the injury threshold under the old rule. FTA requires this threshold to be identified in the hazard management process developed by the rail transit agency. We believe that an effective identification process within a hazard management resolution program would include single person events as a source for hazards or potential hazards. We believe that the changes are necessary to capture incidents with serious consequences. FTA acknowledges that while one set of thresholds will not necessarily accommodate different modal considerations or state and local resource allocation and burden, they support our intent to standardize the reporting and investigation of accident causal factors and mitigating activities, and allow us to identify proactive activities that prevent fatalities, serious injury and major system loss. Finally, we believe it is imperative that oversight agencies are notified of accidents within a timeframe consistent with that of the NTSB notification requirement.
FTA has clarified the investigation reporting requirements to ensure that rail transit agency investigation reports maintain their autonomy, while assuring the state's right to conduct its own investigation. However, FTA kept the requirement for state oversight agencies to review and approve corrective action plans.
With reference to the requirements for state approval of investigation reports, FTA agrees with the commenter recommendation to not require such approval. FTA did not intend the state oversight agency to formally review and approve the rail transit agency's investigation report. In those instances where the oversight agency has authorized the rail transit agency to conduct an investigation on its behalf, FTA intends that the oversight agency review and approve the report for the oversight agency's own internal process, not for the rail transit agency. This investigation report is now the responsibility of the oversight agency, which must either formally approve it or amend the report prior to adopting it as its final investigation report.
FTA also allows the oversight agency to contract for this service and/or allow the rail transit agency to conduct some of the investigations. For each accident that meets the investigation thresholds, the oversight agency must approve the investigation report. They must also require the rail transit agency to develop corrective action plans to address accident findings. These plans must then be reviewed and approved by the oversight agency. In addition, the oversight agency must establish a process to resolve any disagreements in the event that the two agencies cannot reach an agreement on the corrective action plan.
FTA disagrees with the recommendation to require the submission of the final investigation report to the rail transit agency's chief executive. While FTA encourages inter and intra-agency communication and coordination, we did not specify the distribution list for the final investigation report. However, there is no language in this part that limits the rail transit agency safety manager from providing the chief executive with a copy of the investigation report, and FTA encourages this level of intra-agency coordination.
Finally, FTA recommends that rail transit agencies and oversight agencies develop investigation procedures and apply them consistently. However, FTA did not require standardization of the investigation process across the industry as some commenters recommended. We believe that there are different, yet equally effective, methods of conducting accident investigations. Furthermore, we believe it is the responsibility of rail
FTA proposed that oversight agencies review and formally approve corrective action plans.
Two commenters recommended that FTA should not require state oversight agencies to approve corrective action plans. Three commenters suggested that FTA require corrective actions plans be developed after safety and security internal audits and any annual reviews that may be performed by the rail transit agency.
One commenter proposed a clarification change in the language from “* * * its process for the review and approval of a corrective action plan,” to “* * * the Transit Agency's process for the review and approval of the corrective action plan.”
FTA also disagrees with the commenters that recommend developing corrective action plans to address findings from rail transit agency internal audits. FTA believes that some level of autonomy is necessary when the rail transit agency conducts its own internal safety and security audit process. We recommend that the state oversight agency work with the rail transit agency to identify the criteria for which findings from internal safety and security audits are subject to the hazard identification and subsequent resolution process.
One commenter suggested spreading the reporting requirements specified in the NPRM over a two-year period so that states operating under a deficit are not unnecessarily burdened. Two commenters requested that FTA allow a minimum one-year grace period to states for implementation of new regulations. One of these commenters went on to recommend that the rule identify the records required to be maintained and specify the required retention periods.
One commenter recommended that the rule explicitly specify the requirements of the initial submission, including its program standard, procedures or process for reviewing and approving the rail transit agencies' system safety program plans, investigatory procedures, and criteria for the development of the rail transit agencies' corrective action plans to correct, eliminate, minimize or control investigated hazardous conditions. The commenter went on to recommend that the rule explicitly name the types of periodic submissions that FTA may request.
Three commenters suggested that the rule provide a list of any records that must be maintained by the oversight agency and specify the required retention periods. Two of those commenters stated that the rule should also provide the same information for transit agencies.
Finally, one commenter suggested that reporting requirements were too burdensome to states and FTA should identify a mechanism to improve the effectiveness of annual reporting without affecting the quality of reporting.
FTA expects that each oversight agency will submit its entire program standard and all program procedures developed to support the oversight activities required by this rule. This includes all procedures associated with the oversight agency's implementation of its program identified in § 659.19 and each procedure that requires action by the oversight agency. FTA disagrees that we should identify every procedure to be submitted and believes that it is not necessary to burden the rule with what may be redundant requirements, without greater justification.
While one commenter presented an exhaustive list of information FTA may request as part of a periodic submission, FTA believes it is unnecessary to identify each potential submission in the text of the rule. Instead, FTA will identify needed material on a case-by-case basis and work with the oversight agency to obtain needed material. Similarly, FTA decided not to identify records that the oversight agency should maintain. We believe that the oversight agency should maintain the necessary records for the effective development, management, and implementation of its oversight duties.
FTA is requiring electronic data collection for oversight agency reporting. FTA agrees that the quality of information collected is of the greatest importance.
The NPRM proposed that the oversight agency must prohibit a party or entity from providing services to both the oversight agency and the rail transit agency, when a conflict of interest exists.
A few commenters suggested that FTA either define conflict of interest in the rule, or provide a clarification of the scope of services to be performed by a contractor. One commenter also suggested that this might limit the number of contractors eligible to compete for proposals.
This section explains that FTA is implementing the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5330, which requires a state to establish an agency to oversee the safety of rail fixed guideway systems. This rule directs the oversight agency to develop a program standard, including a security element, and to require the rail transit agency to develop a security plan and a separate system safety program plan that complies with the program standard and requirements of this rule. In addition, the oversight agency must conduct safety and security reviews and ensure the conduct of accident and hazard investigations. The oversight agency must also ensure that corrective action plans are developed and implemented to address findings from accident and hazard investigations and track implementation to resolution. The oversight agency must ensure that the rail transit agency implements its system safety program plan and security plan effectively.
This section explains that the rule applies only to states with rail fixed guideway systems, as defined in this part.
“Contractor” means an entity that performs tasks required by this part on behalf of the oversight or “rail transit agency.” The “rail transit agency” may not be a “contractor” for the “oversight agency.”
“Corrective action plan” means a plan developed to set forth the actions the “rail transit agency” will take to minimize, control, correct, or eliminate “hazards,” and the schedule for implementation for those actions.
“FRA” means the Federal Railroad Administration, an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation.
“FTA” means the Federal Transit Administration, an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation.
“Hazard” means any real or potential condition (as defined in the “rail transit agency's” hazard management process) that can cause injury, illness, or death; damage to or loss of a system, equipment or property; or damage to the environment.
“Individual” means a passenger; employee; contractor; other rail transit facility worker; pedestrian; trespasser; or any person on rail transit-controlled property.
“Investigation” means the process used to determine the causal and contributing factors of an accident or hazard, so that actions can be identified to prevent recurrence. The oversight agency is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the investigation and the resulting findings. An investigation may be conducted by an entity acting on behalf of the oversight agency, providing the procedures to be used during the investigation have been reviewed and approved by the oversight agency and submitted to FTA. If the rail transit agency conducts the investigation on behalf of the oversight agency, the oversight agency must either adopt the findings from the investigation or successfully negotiate any disputes that result from the findings. In the event there is a dispute over investigation findings, if there is no resolution, the oversight agency must either conduct its own investigation or amend the rail transit agency findings with its opinion. There must not be conflicting corrective actions to address investigation findings.
“New Starts Project” means any rail fixed guideway system funded under FTA's 49 U.S.C. 5309 discretionary construction program.
“Oversight Agency” means the entity, other than the rail transit agency, designated by the state or several states to implement this part.
“Passenger” means a person who is on board, boarding, or alighting from a rail transit vehicle for the purpose of travel. The intent of this definition is to make a distinction between individuals that are physically on the rail transit vehicle, or those in the process of entering or leaving the rail transit vehicle, and non-passengers such as pedestrians or trespassers as categorized under the National Transit Database (NTD).
“Passenger operations” means the period of time commencing when any aspect of rail transit agency operation is initiated with the intent to carry passengers. In the previous rule, there was confusion over the definition of revenue service; did it mean the period the agency opened its doors to the public, or simply when a passenger boarded the first rail transit vehicle of the day. In this rule, FTA uses the former definition. Once the rail transit agency initiates its first action with the intent to carry passengers, it is considered to be in passenger operations.
“Program standard” means a written document developed and adopted by the oversight agency, that describes the policies, objectives, responsibilities, and procedures used to provide rail transit agency safety and security oversight.
“Rail fixed guideway system” means any light, heavy, or rapid rail system, monorail, inclined plane, funicular, trolley, or automated guideway that:
(1) is not regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration; and
(2) is included in FTA's calculation of fixed guideway route miles, or receives funding under FTA's formula program for urbanized areas (49 U.S.C. 5336); or
(3) has submitted documentation to FTA indicating its intent to be included in FTA's calculation of fixed guideway route miles to receive funding under FTA's formula program for urbanized areas (49 U.S.C. 5336).
“Rail transit agency” means an entity that operates a rail fixed guideway system. If the grantee has contracted out operations and maintenance of the rail fixed guideway system, it maintains full accountability to ensure that all requirements identified in the oversight agency's program standard and this rule are met.
“Rail transit-controlled property” means property that is used by the rail transit agency and may be owned, leased, or maintained by the rail transit agency. FTA does not distinguish between different types of rail transit-controlled property, meaning that an accident meeting the notification and investigation thresholds of this section must prompt notification of the oversight agency, regardless of where it occurred on rail transit-controlled property.
“Rail transit vehicle” means the rail transit agency's rolling stock. This definition includes vehicles used for carrying “passengers” and providing maintenance (
“Safety” means freedom from harm resulting from unintentional acts or circumstances.
“Security” means freedom from harm resulting from intentional acts or circumstances. Intentional danger includes crimes and must be reported to the oversight agency if the intentional act meets the thresholds for notification as specified in this rule.
“State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands.
“System safety program plan” means a document developed and adopted by the rail transit agency, describing its safety policies, objectives, responsibilities, and procedures.
“System security plan” means a document developed and adopted by the rail transit agency, describing its security policies, objectives, responsibilities, and procedures. The system security plan must be a separate document from the system safety program plan.
Authority for this section is based on 49 U.S.C. 5330, which directs FTA to withhold federal funding from a state or an urbanized area in the state. FTA is authorized to withhold up to five percent of an affected urbanized area's apportionment if FTA determines the state is not in compliance or making adequate efforts to comply with the rule. Withheld formula funds will be restored if the state is in compliance within two (2) years.
This section directs the state to select an agency to oversee the rail fixed guideway system and prohibits the state from selecting the rail transit agency to perform this role. It also prohibits the state from selecting an agency for which a conflict of interest—as determined by FTA—exists that would prevent the oversight agency from carrying out its activities in an unbiased manner.
The rule requires that the state's designation, at a minimum, coincides with the execution of a grant agreement between FTA and the rail transit agency for a New Starts project or prior to the application for any formula funds.
Designation means that the Governor for the affected state would identify an agency, and a point of contact from that agency who will assume oversight responsibility. Designation, for purposes of the final rule, may occur prior to the passage of enabling legislation or other activities that may be necessary for the oversight agency to assume its responsibilities for implementing part 659 requirements.
After designation, the state would have sixty (60) days to provide FTA with a designation submission, which would include: (1) Identification of the agency most likely to provide oversight; (2) a description of its current authorities relating to rail transit safety and security oversight; (3) a point of contact within the designated agency to coordinate program development with FTA; (4) identification of any potential conflicts of interest between the designated agency and the rail transit agency, based on financial or shared management responsibilities; and (5) a proposed schedule describing major milestones to ensure implementation of the state's oversight program before the start of passenger operations at the rail transit agency.
For rail transit agencies that operate, or will operate, in more than one state, the affected states may each designate an agency of the state to implement state safety oversight requirements, or may agree to designate one agency of one state, or an agency representative of each state. After the states designate an agency, a single program standard, adopted by each state, must be developed to implement state safety oversight program requirements. This will allow the rail transit agency to develop a seamless program that is equally applicable in all affected states, rather than being burdened with requirements from two or more states.
States that have already designated an approved agency to FTA are not required to re-designate. However, if a state changes its designation, the new oversight agency must submit a new initial submission to FTA within thirty (30) days of the change, consistent with § 659.39.
This section allows states to prohibit an investigation report prepared or adopted by the oversight agency from being admitted into evidence or used in a civil action. In addition, this part does not require public availability of the rail transit agency's security plan.
This rule removes the reference to the
The program standard must address both safety and security and be submitted to FTA with the oversight agency's initial submission. If the oversight agency modifies its program standard it must submit the revised version to FTA.
The rule stipulates that the oversight agency must require the rail transit agency to develop and implement a written system safety program plan that complies with the oversight agency's program standard. FTA has identified twenty-one (21) elements that, at a minimum, must be addressed by the rail transit agency. The rail transit agency must submit its system safety program plan—and any subsequent revisions—to the oversight agency for review and approval.
The rule requires that the system security plan is developed and maintained separately from the rail transit agency's system safety program plan. FTA considers the system security plan to be sensitive information and has not established any requirements preventing the state, oversight agency, or rail transit agency from protecting the system security plan and any referenced procedures from public disclosure. The oversight agency and rail transit agency must identify a process by which the oversight agency can review and approve the system security plan without compromising sensitive information. Throughout this process, the transit system and the oversight agency must comply with all regulations relating to the non-disclosure of sensitive information in 49 CFR part 1520.
FTA, to the best of its knowledge, has not established any requirements for the system security plan that are in conflict with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directives. The DHS is the lead Federal agency on security matters, including transportation, and FTA collaborates closely with them.
The rule specifies that the oversight agency must require the rail transit agency to conduct an annual review of its system safety program plan and system security plan. This review may simply result in the determination that no update is necessary in either plan, or it may result in more substantive changes to one or both plans.
In the event that the system safety program plan is modified, the rail transit agency must submit the modified plan and any subsequently modified procedures to the oversight agency for review and approval. When the plan is approved, the oversight agency must issue a formal letter of approval to the rail transit agency.
In the event that the system security plan is modified, the rail transit agency is required to make it available to the oversight agency for review and approval. When the plan is approved, the oversight agency must issue a formal letter of approval to the rail transit agency.
Each rail transit agency must conduct internal safety and security reviews as described in its procedures. The rail transit agency must document this process in its system safety program plan for review and approval by the oversight agency. The rail transit agency must notify the oversight agency at least thirty (30) days before conducting a scheduled review, in a manner acceptable to the oversight agency without placing undue burden on the rail transit agency.
The internal safety and security reviews must be conducted throughout the year, with all elements to be reviewed completed within a three-year cycle. The rail transit agency must provide the oversight agency with all checklists and procedures used to conduct its safety reviews, and make available checklists and procedures for conducting security reviews, provided this does not compromise sensitive information.
The oversight agency must require the rail transit agency to submit an annual report documenting internal safety and security review activities and the status of subsequent findings and recommendations. The security section of this report must be made available to the oversight agency in a manner that does not compromise sensitive information. The annual report must be accompanied by a formal letter of certification signed by the rail transit agency's executive director or general manager, indicating that the rail transit agency is in compliance with its system safety program plan and system security plan. In the event that the rail transit agency is not in compliance with its own system safety program plan or security plan, the rail transit agency must identify the actions it is taking to achieve compliance, including a schedule and the department that is responsible. The oversight agency must formally review and approve this report.
At least every three (3) years, the oversight agency must conduct an on-site review of the rail transit agency's implementation of its system safety program plan and system security plan. The rule also requires that the oversight agency prepares and issues a report containing findings and recommendations resulting from that review, which, at a minimum, must include an analysis of the effectiveness of the system safety program plan and the security plan and a determination of whether either should be updated. Based on the results of this on-site review, the oversight agency must ensure that corrective action plans are developed to address review findings.
The rail transit agency's system safety program plan and system security plan may be reviewed in an ongoing manner over the three-year timeframe, or in a comprehensive on-site review, once every three years.
The rule requires the rail transit agency to develop a process to identify and resolve hazards during operation, system extensions, modifications, or changes (including procedural changes). This process would replace the current requirements for the notification and investigation of unacceptable hazardous conditions, and ensure that the oversight agency has an ongoing role in the rail transit agency's hazard identification and resolution process.
As part of the system safety program plan, the oversight agency must require the rail transit agency to develop a hazard management process, to be reviewed and approved by the oversight agency. This process must, at a minimum: (1) Define the rail transit agency's approach to hazard management and the implementation of an integrated system-wide hazard resolution process; (2) specify the sources of, and the mechanisms to support, the on-going identification of hazards; (3) define the process by which identified hazards will be evaluated and prioritized for elimination or control; (4) identify the mechanism used to track to resolution the identified hazards; (5) define minimum thresholds for the notification and reporting to oversight agencies of hazards; and (6) specify the process by which the rail transit agency will provide on-going reporting of hazard resolution activities to the oversight agency.
The oversight agency must require the rail transit agency to notify the oversight agency within two (2) hours of any incident involving a rail transit vehicle or taking place on rail transit-controlled property, where one or more of the following occurs:
(1) A fatality at the scene; or where an individual is confirmed dead within thirty (30) days of a rail transit-related incident;
(2) Injuries requiring immediate medical attention away from the scene for two or more individuals;
(3) Property damage to rail transit vehicles, non-rail transit vehicles, other rail transit property or facilities, and non-transit property that equals or exceeds $25,000;
(4) An evacuation due to life safety reasons;
(5) A collision at a grade crossing;
(6) A main-line derailment;
(7) A collision with an individual on a rail right of way; or
(8) A collision between a rail transit vehicle and another rail transit vehicle or a rail transit non-revenue vehicle.
These events could take place on a rail transit vehicle or on rail transit-controlled property, and could involve rail transit passengers, employees, contractors, rail transit facility occupants, other workers, trespassers, or other persons.
For rail transit agencies that share track with the general railroad system and are subject to FRA notification requirements, the rule requires notifying the oversight agency within two (2) hours of an incident for which the rail transit agency must notify the FRA. FTA believes this is necessary to address the role of the State Safety Oversight Program in the FRA's waiver process at 49 CFR parts 209 and 211.
The rule requires that the oversight agency identify in its program standard
At a minimum the oversight agency must investigate, or cause to be investigated, any incident involving a rail transit vehicle or taking place on rail transit-controlled property meeting the notification thresholds identified in the notification § 659.33(a).
These thresholds correspond closely to the thresholds required by the NTSB for rail transit agency notification of events that may be subsequently investigated by the NTSB, as well as the thresholds identified in the NTD for major incidents.
In meeting this requirement, the oversight agency must ensure that the investigation is conducted according to procedures reviewed and approved by the oversight agency and submitted to FTA. In the event the oversight agency designates the rail transit agency to conduct the investigation on its behalf, it must do so formally and require the rail transit agency to use investigation procedures that have been formally approved by the oversight agency and submitted to FTA to fulfill the oversight agency's initial or annual submission requirements.
The rule specifies that each investigation must be documented in a final report that includes a description of investigation activities, causal factors and contributing factors, and a corrective action plan. The rule provides the oversight agency with the flexibility to determine, in its program standard, when the final investigation report must be submitted to the oversight agency, the format of the final report, and whether status updates or preliminary findings should also be submitted according to a timeframe specified by the oversight agency.
The oversight agency is ultimately responsible for the investigation and the final report. The oversight agency may adopt the final report, findings, and corrective actions submitted by the rail transit agency or conduct its own investigation to determine findings. If a dispute relating to investigation findings should arise between the oversight agency and the rail transit agency, the oversight agency is responsible for resolving the dispute to ensure that corrective actions are developed to address report findings and requiring periodic status reports that document investigation activities and findings.
The rule consolidates all requirements for corrective action plans into a single section. The rule specifies that the oversight agency, at a minimum, require the rail transit agency to develop a corrective action plan for the following occurrences: (1) results from investigations in which identified causal and contributing factors are determined by the rail transit agency or oversight agency as requiring corrective actions; and (2) findings from safety and security reviews performed by the oversight agency. Requirements for corrective action plan development for identified hazards are to be specified by the rail transit agency in the hazard management process.
The rule specifies that each corrective action plan must identify the action to be taken by the rail transit agency, the schedule for its implementation, and the department responsible for its implementation. The corrective action plan must be reviewed and formally approved by the oversight agency. The oversight agency is required to monitor the implementation of each approved corrective action plan.
The rule specifies that the oversight agency must require the rail transit agency to provide (1) verification that the corrective action(s) has been implemented as detailed in the corrective action plan or a proposed alternate action(s) subject to oversight agency review and approval and (2) periodic reports as requested by the oversight agency describing the status of each corrective action(s) not completely implemented as described in the corrective action plan.
The rule requires that all submissions to FTA be made electronically. At the current time, FTA anticipates that this reporting would occur in an Internet-based format, as a secure page on FTA's existing safety and security Web site. Until the system is in place, FTA requires that annual submissions be made through electronic mail or on CD-ROM through regular mail. Oversight agencies will be notified when the Internet-based system is operational.
For initial submissions, the rule specifies that each designated oversight agency must submit to FTA: (1) oversight agency program standard and referenced procedures; and (2) certification that the system safety program plan and the system security plan have been developed, reviewed, and approved. In states with rail fixed guideway systems in passenger operations, as of the publication date of this rule, the designated oversight agency must make its initial submissions to FTA no later than one year after the publication of the final rule. In states with rail fixed guideway systems entering passenger operations
This rule requires that oversight agencies make annual submissions prior to March 15 of each year using a reporting system specified by FTA. The annual submission would require the following: (1) Publicly available annual report summarizing its oversight activities for the preceding twelve months; (2) report documenting and tracking findings from three-year safety and security review activities, and whether a three-year safety or security review has been completed since the last annual report was submitted; and (3) program standard and supporting procedures that have changed during the preceding year.
Finally, FTA has the authority to request periodic submissions from oversight agencies, which may include status reports for accident investigations, hazards, and corrective action plans.
This rule requires the oversight agency to prohibit a person or entity from providing services to both the state safety oversight agency and rail transit agency when a conflict of interest exists.
This rule requires that each oversight agency annually certify electronically to FTA that it has complied with the requirements of the State Safety Oversight Program. The oversight agency must maintain a signed copy of each annual certification, subject to audit by FTA.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that OMB review under EO 12866 is not necessary. While the economic impact of this rulemaking is not anticipated to be significant because the changes are incremental in nature, FTA recognizes that this rule affects state governments, may be of congressional interest and makes changes to important DOT policy. These changes include replacing a referenced industry manual as the guideline for program compliance with proposed minimum requirements, revised thresholds for accident notification and investigation, clarification of critical processes such as the management of hazardous conditions, and additional definitions. For these reasons, this rule is a significant regulation under the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
In 1995, FTA evaluated the industry-wide costs and benefits of part 659 before this revision. The economic analysis is available from FTA. In its analysis, FTA estimated the total costs for the first ten years to be approximately $9.1 million. However, when factoring in projections for program growth and new starts, the estimated annual burden between years five (5) and ten (10) increased approximately 15 percent. FTA estimates the annual cost of this rule (
In accordance with the
This rule will not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the
Prior to the publication of the original State Safety Oversight rule, FTA conducted a Federalism Assessment according to the requirements of Executive Order 12612, which has since been revoked and replaced by the above-referenced order. Refer to 60 FR 67041 (December 27, 1995). Because the state safety oversight requirements are already in place, and this rule only provides more detailed requirements for greater clarification and performance-based evaluation to the existing rule, FTA has determined that Federalism impacts are minimal.
FTA has also determined that this action does not preempt any state law or state regulation or affect the states' ability to discharge traditional state governmental functions. As noted in the original analysis, there may be instances in which a state or local agency faces a conflict between compliance with this rule and state and local requirements. Because compliance with this rule is a condition of Federal financial assistance, state and local governments have the option of not seeking the Federal funds if they choose not to comply.
Under the
The estimated burden for information collection requirements is an annualized 26,502 hours and $927,600 for oversight agencies and 33,244 hours and $1,163,540 for rail transit agencies. These numbers relate to the burdens of the entire rule as amended, distinct from incremental burdens of the changes.
FTA has analyzed this action for the purpose of compliance with the
Grant Programs—Transportation, Mass Transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Security, Transportation.
49 U.S.C. 5330.
This part implements 49 U.S.C. 5330 by requiring a state to oversee the safety and security of rail fixed guideway systems through a designated oversight agency.
This part applies only to states with rail fixed guideway systems, as defined in this part.
(1) Is not regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration; and
(2) Is included in FTA's calculation of fixed guideway route miles or receives funding under FTA's formula program for urbanized areas (49 U.S.C. 5336); or
(3) Has submitted documentation to FTA indicating its intent to be included in FTA's calculation of fixed guideway route miles to receive funding under FTA's formula program for urbanized areas (49 U.S.C. 5336).
(a) The Administrator of the FTA may withhold up to five percent of the amount required to be distributed to any state or affected urbanized area in such state under FTA's formula program for urbanized areas, if:
(1) The state in the previous fiscal year has not met the requirements of this part; and
(2) The Administrator determines that the state is not making adequate efforts to comply with this part.
(b) The Administrator may agree to restore withheld formula funds, if compliance is achieved within two years (See 49 U.S.C. 5330).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Coincide with the execution of any grant agreement for a New Starts project between FTA and a rail transit agency within the state's jurisdiction; or
(2) Occur before the application by a rail transit agency for funding under FTA's formula program for urbanized areas (49 U.S.C. 5336).
(d)
(1) The name of the oversight agency designated to implement requirements in this part;
(2) Documentation of the oversight agency's authority to provide state oversight;
(3) Contact information for the representative identified by the designated oversight agency with responsibility for oversight activities;
(4) A description of the organizational and financial relationship between the designated oversight agency and the rail transit agency; and
(5) A schedule for the designated agency's development of its State Safety Oversight Program, including the projected date of its initial submission, as required in § 659.39(a).
(e)
(1) May agree to designate one agency of one state, or an agency representative of all states, to implement the requirements in this part; and
(2) In the event multiple states share oversight responsibility for a rail fixed guideway system, the states must ensure that the rail fixed guideway system is subject to a single program standard, adopted by all affected states.
(f)
(a) A state may withhold an investigation report that may have been prepared or adopted by the oversight agency from being admitted as evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report.
(b) This part does not require public availability of the rail transit agency's security plan and any referenced procedures.
The state oversight agency is responsible for establishing standards for rail safety and security practices and procedures to be used by rail transit agencies within its purview. In addition, the state oversight agency must oversee the execution of these practices and procedures, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this part. This subpart identifies and describes the various requirements for the state oversight agency.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(a) The oversight agency shall require the rail transit agency to develop and implement a written system safety program plan that complies with requirements in this part and the oversight agency's program standard.
(b) The oversight agency shall review and approve the rail transit agency system safety program plan.
(c) After approval, the oversight agency shall issue a formal letter of approval to the rail transit agency, including the checklist used to conduct the review.
The system safety plan shall include, at a minimum:
(a) A policy statement signed by the agency's chief executive that endorses the safety program and describes the authority that establishes the system safety program plan.
(b) A clear definition of the goals and objectives for the safety program and stated management responsibilities to ensure they are achieved.
(c) An overview of the management structure of the rail transit agency, including:
(1) An organization chart;
(2) A description of how the safety function is integrated into the rest of the rail transit organization; and
(3) Clear identification of the lines of authority used by the rail transit agency to manage safety issues.
(d) The process used to control changes to the system safety program plan, including:
(1) Specifying an annual assessment of whether the system safety program plan should be updated; and
(2) Required coordination with the oversight agency, including timeframes for submission, revision, and approval.
(e) A description of the specific activities required to implement the system safety program, including:
(1) Tasks to be performed by the rail transit safety function, by position and management accountability, specified in matrices and/or narrative format; and
(2) Safety-related tasks to be performed by other rail transit departments, by position and management accountability, specified in matrices and/or narrative format.
(f) A description of the process used by the rail transit agency to implement its hazard management program, including activities for:
(1) Hazard identification;
(2) Hazard investigation, evaluation and analysis;
(3) Hazard control and elimination;
(4) Hazard tracking; and
(5) Requirements for on-going reporting to the oversight agency relating to hazard management activities and status.
(g) A description of the process used by the rail transit agency to ensure that safety concerns are addressed in modifications to existing systems, vehicles, and equipment, which do not require formal safety certification but which may have safety impacts.
(h) A description of the safety certification process required by the rail transit agency to ensure that safety concerns and hazards are adequately addressed prior to the initiation of passenger operations for New Starts and subsequent major projects to extend, rehabilitate, or modify an existing system, or to replace vehicles and equipment.
(i) A description of the process used to collect, maintain, analyze, and distribute safety data, to ensure that the safety function within the rail transit organization receives the necessary information to support implementation of the system safety program.
(j) A description of the process used by the rail transit agency to perform accident notification, investigation and reporting, including:
(1) Notification thresholds for internal and external organizations;
(2) Accident investigation process and references to procedures;
(3) The process used to develop, implement, and track corrective actions that address investigation findings;
(4) Reporting to internal and external organizations; and
(5) Coordination with the oversight agency.
(k) A description of the process used by the rail transit agency to develop an approved, coordinated schedule for all emergency management program activities, which include:
(1) Meetings with external agencies;
(2) Emergency planning responsibilities and requirements;
(3) Process used to evaluate emergency preparedness, such as annual emergency field exercises;
(4) After action reports and implementation of findings;
(5) Revision and distribution of emergency response procedures;
(6) Familiarization training for public safety organizations; and
(7) Employee training.
(l) A description of the process used by the rail transit agency to ensure that planned and scheduled internal safety reviews are performed to evaluate compliance with the system safety program plan, including:
(1) Identification of departments and functions subject to review;
(2) Responsibility for scheduling reviews;
(3) Process for conducting reviews, including the development of checklists and procedures and the issuing of findings;
(4) Review of reporting requirements;
(5) Tracking the status of implemented recommendations; and
(6) Coordination with the oversight agency.
(m) A description of the process used by the rail transit agency to develop, maintain, and ensure compliance with rules and procedures having a safety impact, including:
(1) Identification of operating and maintenance rules and procedures subject to review;
(2) Techniques used to assess the implementation of operating and maintenance rules and procedures by employees, such as performance testing;
(3) Techniques used to assess the effectiveness of supervision relating to the implementation of operating and maintenance rules; and
(4) Process for documenting results and incorporating them into the hazard management program.
(n) A description of the process used for facilities and equipment safety inspections, including:
(1) Identification of the facilities and equipment subject to regular safety-related inspection and testing;
(2) Techniques used to conduct inspections and testing;
(3) Inspection schedules and procedures; and
(4) Description of how results are entered into the hazard management process.
(o) A description of the maintenance audits and inspections program, including identification of the affected facilities and equipment, maintenance cycles, documentation required, and the process for integrating identified problems into the hazard management process.
(p) A description of the training and certification program for employees and contractors, including:
(1) Categories of safety-related work requiring training and certification;
(2) A description of the training and certification program for employees and contractors in safety-related positions;
(3) Process used to maintain and access employee and contractor training records; and
(4) Process used to assess compliance with training and certification requirements.
(q) A description of the configuration management control process, including:
(1) The authority to make configuration changes;
(2) Process for making changes; and
(3) Assurances necessary for formally notifying all involved departments.
(r) A description of the safety program for employees and contractors that incorporates the applicable local, state, and federal requirements, including:
(1) Safety requirements that employees and contractors must follow when working on, or in close proximity to, rail transit agency property; and
(2) Processes for ensuring the employees and contractors know and follow the requirements.
(s) A description of the hazardous materials program, including the process used to ensure knowledge of and compliance with program requirements.
(t) A description of the drug and alcohol program and the process used to ensure knowledge of and compliance with program requirements.
(u) A description of the measures, controls, and assurances in place to ensure that safety principles, requirements and representatives are included in the rail transit agency's procurement process.
(a) The oversight agency shall require the rail transit agency to implement a system security plan that, at a minimum, complies with requirements in this part and the oversight agency's program standard. The system security plan must be developed and maintained as a separate document and may not be part of the rail transit agency's system safety program plan.
(b) The oversight agency may prohibit a rail transit agency from publicly disclosing the system security plan.
(c) After approving the system security plan, the oversight agency shall issue a formal letter of approval, including the checklist used to conduct the review, to the rail transit agency.
The system security plan must, at a minimum address the following:
(a) Identify the policies, goals, and objectives for the security program endorsed by the agency's chief executive.
(b) Document the rail transit agency's process for managing threats and vulnerabilities during operations, and for major projects, extensions, new vehicles and equipment, including integration with the safety certification process;
(c) Identify controls in place that address the personal security of passengers and employees;
(d) Document the rail transit agency's process for conducting internal security reviews to evaluate compliance and measure the effectiveness of the system security plan; and
(e) Document the rail transit agency's process for making its system security plan and accompanying procedures available to the oversight agency for review and approval.
(a) The oversight agency shall require the rail transit agency to conduct an annual review of its system safety program plan and system security plan.
(b) In the event the rail transit agency's system safety program plan is modified, the rail transit agency must submit the modified plan and any subsequently modified procedures to the oversight agency for review and approval. After the plan is approved, the oversight agency must issue a formal letter of approval to the rail transit agency.
(c) In the event the rail transit agency's system security plan is modified, the rail transit agency must make the modified system security plan and accompanying procedures available to the oversight agency for review, consistent with requirements specified in § 659.23(e) of this part. After the plan is approved, the oversight agency shall issue a formal letter of approval to the rail transit agency.
(a) The oversight agency shall require the rail transit agency to develop and document a process for the performance of on-going internal safety and security reviews in its system safety program plan.
(b) The internal safety and security review process must, at a minimum:
(1) Describe the process used by the rail transit agency to determine if all identified elements of its system safety program plan and system security plan are performing as intended; and
(2) Ensure that all elements of the system safety program plan and system security plan are reviewed in an on-going manner and completed over a three-year cycle.
(c) The rail transit agency must notify the oversight agency at least thirty (30) days before the conduct of scheduled internal safety and security reviews.
(d) The rail transit agency shall submit to the oversight agency any checklists or procedures it will use during the safety portion of its review.
(e) The rail transit agency shall make available to the oversight agency any checklists or procedures subject to the security portion of its review, consistent with § 659.23(e).
(f) The oversight agency shall require the rail transit agency to annually submit a report documenting internal safety and security review activities and the status of subsequent findings and corrective actions. The security part of this report must be made available for oversight agency review, consistent with § 659.23(e).
(g) The annual report must be accompanied by a formal letter of certification signed by the rail transit agency's chief executive, indicating that the rail transit agency is in compliance
(h) If the rail transit agency determines that findings from its internal safety and security reviews indicate that the rail transit agency is not in compliance with its system safety program plan or system security plan, the chief executive must identify the activities the rail transit agency will take to achieve compliance.
(i) The oversight agency must formally review and approve the annual report.
At least every three (3) years, beginning with the initiation of rail transit agency passenger operations, the oversight agency must conduct an on-site review of the rail transit agency's implementation of its system safety program plan and system security plan. Alternatively, the on-site review may be conducted in an on-going manner over the three year timeframe. At the conclusion of the review cycle, the oversight agency must prepare and issue a report containing findings and recommendations resulting from that review, which, at a minimum, must include an analysis of the effectiveness of the system safety program plan and the security plan and a determination of whether either should be updated.
(a) The oversight agency must require the rail transit agency to develop and document in its system safety program plan a process to identify and resolve hazards during its operation, including any hazards resulting from subsequent system extensions or modifications, operational changes, or other changes within the rail transit environment.
(b) The hazard management process must, at a minimum:
(1) Define the rail transit agency's approach to hazard management and the implementation of an integrated system-wide hazard resolution process;
(2) Specify the sources of, and the mechanisms to support, the on-going identification of hazards;
(3) Define the process by which identified hazards will be evaluated and prioritized for elimination or control;
(4) Identify the mechanism used to track through resolution the identified hazard(s);
(5) Define minimum thresholds for the notification and reporting of hazard(s) to oversight agencies; and
(6) Specify the process by which the rail transit agency will provide on-going reporting of hazard resolution activities to the oversight agency.
(a) The oversight agency must require the rail transit agency to notify the oversight agency within two (2) hours of any incident involving a rail transit vehicle or taking place on rail transit-controlled property where one or more of the following occurs:
(1) A fatality at the scene; or where an individual is confirmed dead within thirty (30) days of a rail transit-related incident;
(2) Injuries requiring immediate medical attention away from the scene for two or more individuals;
(3) Property damage to rail transit vehicles, non-rail transit vehicles, other rail transit property or facilities and non-transit property that equals or exceeds $25,000;
(4) An evacuation due to life safety reasons;
(5) A collision at a grade crossing;
(6) A main-line derailment;
(7) A collision with an individual on a rail right of way; or
(8) A collision between a rail transit vehicle and a second rail transit vehicle, or a rail transit non-revenue vehicle.
(b) The oversight agency shall require rail transit agencies that share track with the general railroad system and are subject to the Federal Railroad Administration notification requirements, to notify the oversight agency within two (2) hours of an incident for which the rail transit agency must also notify the Federal Railroad Administration.
(c) The oversight agency shall identify in its program standard the method of notification and the information to be provided by the rail transit agency
(a) The oversight agency must investigate, or cause to be investigated, at a minimum, any incident involving a rail transit vehicle or taking place on rail transit-controlled property meeting the notification thresholds identified in § 659.33(a).
(b) The oversight agency must use its own investigation procedures or those that have been formally adopted from the rail transit agency and that have been submitted to FTA.
(c) In the event the oversight agency authorizes the rail transit agency to conduct investigations on its behalf, it must do so formally and require the rail transit agency to use investigation procedures that have been formally approved by the oversight agency.
(d) Each investigation must be documented in a final report that includes a description of investigation activities, identified causal and contributing factors, and a corrective action plan.
(e) A final investigation report must be formally adopted by the oversight agency for each accident investigation.
(1) If the oversight agency has conducted the investigation, it must formally transmit its final investigation report to the rail transit agency.
(2) If the oversight agency has authorized an entity other than itself (including the rail transit agency) to conduct the accident investigation on its behalf, the oversight agency must review and formally adopt the final investigation report.
(3) If the oversight agency does not concur with the findings of the rail transit agency investigation report, it must either:
(i) Conduct its own investigation according to paragraphs (b), (d) and (e)(1) of this section; or
(ii) Formally transmit its dissent to the findings of the accident investigation, report its dissent to the rail transit agency, and negotiate with the rail transit agency until a resolution on the findings is reached.
(f) The oversight agency shall have the authority to require periodic status reports that document investigation activities and findings in a time frame determined by the oversight agency.
(a) The oversight agency must, at a minimum, require the development of a corrective action plan for the following:
(1) Results from investigations, in which identified causal and contributing factors are determined by the rail transit agency or oversight agency as requiring corrective actions; and
(2) Findings from safety and security reviews performed by the oversight agency.
(b) Each corrective action plan should identify the action to be taken by the rail transit agency, an implementation schedule, and the individual or department responsible for the implementation.
(c) The corrective action plan must be reviewed and formally approved by the oversight agency.
(d) The oversight agency must establish a process to resolve disputes between itself and the rail transit agency resulting from the development or enforcement of a corrective action plan.
(e) The oversight agency must identify the process by which findings from an NTSB accident investigation will be evaluated to determine whether or not a corrective action plan should be developed by either the oversight agency or rail transit agency to address NTSB findings.
(f) The rail transit agency must provide the oversight agency:
(1) Verification that the corrective action(s) has been implemented as described in the corrective action plan, or that a proposed alternate action(s) has been implemented subject to oversight agency review and approval; and
(2) Periodic reports requested by the oversight agency, describing the status of each corrective action(s) not completely implemented, as described in the corrective action plan.
(g) The oversight agency must monitor and track the implementation of each approved corrective action plan.
(a)
(b) An initial submission must include the following:
(1) Oversight agency program standard and referenced procedures; and
(2) Certification that the system safety program plan and the system security plan have been developed, reviewed, and approved.
(c)
(1) A publicly available annual report summarizing its oversight activities for the preceding twelve months, including a description of the causal factors of investigated accidents, status of corrective actions, updates and modifications to rail transit agency program documentation, and the level of effort used by the oversight agency to carry out its oversight activities.
(2) A report documenting and tracking findings from three-year safety review activities, and whether a three-year safety review has been completed since the last annual report was submitted.
(3) Program standard and supporting procedures that have changed during the preceding year.
(4) Certification that any changes or modifications to the rail transit agency system safety program plan or system security plan have been reviewed and approved by the oversight agency.
(d)
(e)
The oversight agency shall prohibit a party or entity from providing services to both the oversight agency and rail transit agency when there is a conflict of interest, as defined by the state.
(a) Annually, the oversight agency must certify to the FTA that it has complied with the requirements of this part.
(b) The oversight agency must submit each certification electronically to FTA using a reporting system specified by FTA.
(c) The oversight agency must maintain a signed copy of each annual certification to FTA, subject to audit by FTA.