Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Rural Telephone Bank
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Presidential Documents
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Coast Guard
Customs and Border Protection Bureau
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Employment and Training Administration
Labor Statistics Bureau
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Thrift Supervision Office
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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations for “Thunder over the Boardwalk”, an aerial demonstration to be held over the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action will restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey during the aerial demonstration.
This rule is effective from 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 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 CGD05-05-072 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (oax), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Auxiliary and Recreational Boating Safety Branch, at (757) 398-6204.
On July 11, 2005, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic City, NJ in the
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
On August 31, 2005, the Atlantic City Chamber of Commerce will sponsor the “Thunder over the Boardwalk”. The event will consist of high performance jet aircraft performing low altitude aerial maneuvers over the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather nearby to view the aerial demonstration. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of spectators and transiting vessels.
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 proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts, area newspapers and local radio stations so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Atlantic Ocean during the event.
This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only a short period, from 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 31, 2005. Affected waterway users can pass safely around the regulated area. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions
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 (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
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)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1233, Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b) Definitions: (1)
(2)
(c)
(2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol.
(ii) Proceed as directed by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol.
(d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 31, 2005.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations during the “Patuxent River Air Expo 2005”, an event to be held over the waters of the lower Patuxent River near Solomons, Maryland. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Patuxent River during the event.
This rule is effective from 9 a.m. on September 2, 2005 to 5 p.m. on September 4, 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 CGD05-05-090 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (oax), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Auxiliary and Recreational Boating Safety Branch, at (757) 398-6204.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Due to the late submission of marine event request by the event organizer, there is not sufficient time for the publishing of an NPRM before the event. The event will take place September 2-4, 2005. Publishing an NPRM would be contrary to the public interest as there is not sufficient time for a notice and comment period and immediate action is needed to protect persons and vessels from the event's potential hazards. Because of the danger posed by low flying aircraft performing precision maneuvers and aerial stunts, special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have the regulations in effect during the event.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
From September 2, through September 4, 2005, U.S. Naval Air Station Patuxent River will conduct the “Patuxent River Air Expo 2005”. This event will take place over the waters of the lower Patuxent River, between Fishing Point and the base of the breakwall marking the entrance to the East Seaplane Basin at Naval Air Station Patuxent River. The event will consist of military and civilian aircraft performing low-flying high speed precision maneuvers and aerial stunts over the waters of the Patuxent River. To provide for the safety of spectators and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in the event area during the air show.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the lower Patuxent River between Fishing Point and the base of the breakwall marking the entrance to the East Seaplane Basin at the Naval Air Station. The regulated area includes a portion of the waters of the Patuxent River that is approximately 850 yards long and 700 yards wide. The temporary special local regulations will be in effect from 9 a.m. on September 2, 2005 until 5 p.m. on September 4, 2005. The effect will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the event. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period. The Patrol Commander will notify the public of specific enforcement times by Marine Radio Safety Broadcast. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.
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.
Although this regulation will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Patuxent River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following
This rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule would be in effect for only a limited period. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the address listed under
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 (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
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)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under that section.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol.
(ii) Proceed as directed by any Official Patrol.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations for “Ragin' on the River”, a power boat race to be held on the waters of the Susquehanna River adjacent to Port Deposit, Maryland. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Susquehanna River adjacent to Port Deposit, Maryland during the power boat race.
This rule is effective from 11:30 a.m. on September 3, 2005 to 6:30 p.m. on September 4, 2005.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD05-05-091 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (oax), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
D.M. Sens, Project Manager, Auxiliary and Recreational Boating Safety Branch, at (757) 398-6204.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Because the event organizer provided the Coast Guard late notice of the event, there is not sufficient time for the publishing of an NPRM before the event. The event will take place on September 3 and 4, 2005. Publishing an NPRM would be contrary to the public interest as there is not sufficient time for a notice and comment period. Immediate action is needed to protect the safety of life at sea from the danger posed by high-speed power boats. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have the regulations in effect during the event.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
On September 3 and 4, 2005, the Perryville Chamber of Commerce will sponsor the “Ragin' on the River”, on the waters of the Susquehanna River. The event will consist of approximately 60 inboard hydroplanes and runabouts racing in heats counter-clockwise around an oval racecourse. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather nearby to view the competition. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Susquehanna River adjacent to Port Deposit, Maryland. The regulated area includes a section of the Susquehanna River approximately 3500 yards long, and bounded in width by each shoreline. The temporary special local regulations will be enforced from 11:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on September 3 and 4, 2005, and will restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the power boat race. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period.
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 temporary rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of the Susquehanna River adjacent to Port Deposit, Maryland during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts and area newspapers so
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Susquehanna River during the event.
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only a short period, from 11:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on September 3 and 4, 2005. Although the regulated area will apply to the entire width of the river, traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that reduces wake near the race course. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in 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)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine event permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under those sections.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1233, Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol.
(3) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol. The operator of a vessel in the regulated area shall stop the vessel immediately when instructed to do so by the Official Patrol and then proceed as directed. When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at a minimum speed not to exceed six (6) knots necessary to maintain a safe course that reduces wake near the race course.
(d)
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you wish to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office or the NFIP servicing contractor.
Michael M. Grimm, Mitigation Division, 500 C Street, SW., Room 412, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2878.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program, 42 U.S.C. 4001
In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified the special flood hazard areas in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in the identified special flood hazard area of communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
Each community receives a 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letter addressed to the Chief Executive Officer that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications have been made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless they take remedial action.
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing the plant
At the time of listing, there were 34 known
This final rule is effective September 19, 2005.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of this final rule, are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Tennessee Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, Tennessee 38501.
You may obtain copies of the final rule from the field office address above, by calling 931-528-6481, or from our Web site at
Timothy Merritt, Tennessee Field Office (telephone 931-528-6481, extension 211; facsimile 931-528-7075).
This sunflower develops an extensive rhizome system that may result in the production of dense clusters or patches of stems. These rhizomes can live for many years. Because of this extensive rhizome system, the plant does not have to produce seeds every year to ensure its survival. If environmental conditions change (
When
The term “population,” as it relates to
Federal actions on this species began in 1973, when the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The 1978 amendments to the Act required that all proposals that were not finalized within 2 years be withdrawn. On December 10, 1979 (44 FR 70796), we published a notice withdrawing all plant species proposed in the June 16, 1976, rule. The revised Notice of Review for Native Plants published on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82480), included
All plant taxa included in the comprehensive plant notices are treated as if under a petition. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as amended in 1982, requires the Secretary to make certain findings on pending petitions within 12 months of their receipt. Section 2(b)(1) of the 1982 amendments further requires that all petitions pending as of October 13, 1982, be treated as having been newly submitted on that date. This was the case for
In 1991, we accepted a final report on these surveys (Jones 1991). Information contained in the 1991 final report completed informational gaps and provided what was then thought to be sufficient data to warrant preparation of a proposed rule to list the species.
The final recovery plan for
Other Federal involvement with
On October 12, 2000, the Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project filed suit against us, challenging our determination that designation of critical habitat for
In the April 5, 2004, proposed rule, we requested that all interested parties submit comments or information concerning the proposed delisting of
We accepted public comments on the proposal for 60 days, ending June 4, 2004. By that date, we received comments from two parties, specifically one Federal agency and one nonprofit organization. One commenter supported the proposed delisting, and one was opposed.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited independent opinions from three knowledgeable individuals who have expertise with the species, who are within the geographic region where the species occurs, and/or are familiar with the principles of conservation biology. We received comments from all three of the peer reviewers, all of whom are employed by State agencies, which are included in the summary below and are incorporated into the final rule.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the public for substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed delisting of
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act and the regulations (50 CFR part 424) issued to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth five criteria to be used in determining whether to add, reclassify, or remove a species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. These five factors and their application to
Overall, the activities affecting the species' habitat, such as encroachment of more competitive vegetation, direct destruction of habitat for commercial and residential development, intensive rights-of-way maintenance, and conversion of barrens habitat to croplands, pasture, or development, appear to have changed very little since listing. However, the risk that those threats pose for
At the time of listing, we did not fully understand that
Of the 287 sites where
The Alabama and Tennessee State Departments of Transportation are working with us to develop and maintain roadside mowing regimes that would benefit existing
TNC in Kentucky owns a site known as Baumberger Barrens, which contains one population of
TNC of Kentucky and the State of Kentucky each own 50 percent of a site known as Eastview Barrens. One population of
The large increase in new
B.
C.
D.
Section 9(a)(2)(B) of the Act prohibits removal and possession of endangered plants from areas under Federal jurisdiction. Kentucky has 4 populations and Tennessee has 11 populations of
On public lands in Tennessee and Kentucky, on which 27 populations (composed of 126 of the 287 known sites, and including the 15 populations on Federal lands just discussed) of the plants are found,
The Act protects plants on private lands only if the actions which might adversely impact them are conducted, permitted, or funded by a Federal agency, or constitute criminal trespass or theft of the plants. The limited protection afforded by the Act under these circumstances would be lost through delisting, and other existing regulations do not provide complete protection to all existing habitat on private lands. However, we believe the significant protections afforded to the 27 populations occurring on public lands are adequate to ensure those populations of
E.
According to 50 CFR 424.11(d), a species may be delisted if the best scientific and commercial data available substantiate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened because of (1) extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) error in the original data for classification of the species.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by
This rule will revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to remove
Once this species is removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, Endangered Species Act protection will no longer apply. Removal of
The 1988 amendments to the Act (section 4(g)(1)) require us to implement a system, in cooperation with the States, to monitor all species that have been delisted due to recovery for at least 5 years following delisting. The purpose of this post-delisting monitoring (PDM) is to verify that a species that is delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction after it no longer has the protections of the Act. If the species does not remain secure, we can use the emergency listing authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires cooperation with the States in development and implementation of PDM programs. However, we are responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and must remain actively engaged in all phases of the PDM.
The Service has drafted a PDM plan for Eggert's sunflower and is making it available for review and comment in a separate notice in this issue of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment, as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
The primary author of this proposed rule is Timothy Merritt (see
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason retention limit adjustment.
NMFS has determined that the daily Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) retention limits for the Atlantic tunas General and Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Charter/Headboat categories should be adjusted. The adjustment will allow maximum utilization of the General category September time-period subquota, and will enhance recreational BFT fishing opportunities aboard HMS Charter/Headboat vessels in the later portion of the season. Therefore, NMFS increases the daily BFT retention limits to provide enhanced commercial General category and recreational HMS Charter/Headboat fishing opportunities in all areas while minimizing the risk of an overharvest of the General and Angling category BFT quotas.
The effective dates for BFT daily retention limits are provided in Table 1 under
Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971
Pursuant to this action and the final initial 2005 BFT specifications, noted above, the daily BFT retention limits for Atlantic tunas General, HMS Charter/Headboat, and HMS Angling categories are as follows:
Under 50 CFR 635.23(a)(4), NMFS may increase or decrease the General category daily retention limit of large medium and giant BFT over a range from zero (on Restricted Fishing Days) to a maximum of three per vessel to allow for maximum utilization of the quota for BFT. On June 7, 2005 (70 FR 33039), NMFS adjusted the commercial daily BFT retention limit, in all areas, for those vessels fishing under the General category quota, to two large medium or giant BFT, measuring 73 inches (185 cm) or greater curved fork length (CFL), per vessel per day/trip. This retention limit was to remain in effect through August 31, 2005, inclusive. From September 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006, inclusive, the General category daily BFT retention limit was scheduled to revert to one large medium or giant BFT per vessel per day/trip.
The June through August time-period subquota allocation for the 2005 fishing year totaled approximately 540 metric tons (mt). As of August 5, 2005, 32.5 mt have been landed in the General
Therefore, based on a review of dealer reports, daily landing trends, available quota, and the availability of BFT on the fishing grounds, NMFS has determined that an increase in the General category daily BFT retention limit effective from September 1, 2005, through September 30, 2005, inclusive, is warranted. Thus, the general category daily retention limit of two large medium or giant BFT per vessel per day/trip (see Table 1) will be extended through September 30, 2005. Starting on October 1, 2005, through January 31, 2006, inclusive, the General category default daily BFT retention limit of one large medium or giant BFT per vessel per day/trip will apply. It is highly likely that, with a combination of the default retention limit starting on October 1, 2005, and the large amount of General category quota available, there will be sufficient quota for the coastwide General category season to extend into the winter months and allow for a southern Atlantic fishery to take place on an order of magnitude of prior years.
The intent of this adjustment is to allow for maximum utilization of the U.S. landings quota of BFT while maintaining an equitable distribution of fishing opportunities, to help achieve optimum yield in the General category BFT fishery, to collect a broad range of data for stock monitoring purposes, and to be consistent with the objectives of the HMS FMP.
A recommendation of ICCAT requires that NMFS limit the catch of school BFT, measuring 27 to less than 47 inches (69 to less than 119 cm) CFL, to no more than 8 percent by weight of the total domestic landings quota over each four-consecutive-year period. NMFS is implementing this ICCAT recommendation through annual and inseason adjustments to the school BFT retention limits, as necessary, and through the establishment of a school BFT reserve (64 FR 29090, May 28, 1999; 64 FR 29806, June 3, 1999). The ICCAT recommendation allows for interannual adjustments for overharvests and underharvests, provided that the 8 percent landings limit is not exceeded over the applicable four-consecutive-year period. The 2005 fishing year is the third year in the current accounting period. This multi-year block quota approach provides NMFS with the flexibility to enhance fishing opportunities and to collect information on a broad range of BFT size classes while minimizing the risk of overharvest of the school size class.
Implementing regulations for the Atlantic tuna fisheries at § 635.23 set the daily recreational retention limits for BFT and allow for adjustments to the daily recreational retention limits in order to provide for maximum utilization of the Angling category quota over the longest possible period of time. NMFS may increase or decrease the retention limit for any size class BFT or change a vessel trip limit to an angler limit or vice versa. Such adjustments to the retention limits may be applied separately for persons aboard a specific vessels type, such as private vessels, headboats and charter boats.
On June 7, 2005 (70 FR 33039), NMFS adjusted the daily recreational retention limit, in all areas, for vessels permitted in the HMS Charter/Headboat category, to three BFT per vessel per day/trip, consisting of BFT measuring 27 to less than 73 inches (69 to less than 185 cm) CFL in the school, large school, or small medium size classes. Of the three BFT, a maximum of two school BFT were allowed per vessel per day/trip, measuring 27 to less than 47 inches (69 to less than 119 cm) CFL. This retention limit remained in effect through July 31, 2005, inclusive. Starting on August 1, 2005, inclusive, the daily retention limit for vessels permitted in the HMS Charter/Headboat category, reverted back to one school, large school, or small medium BFT, per vessel per day/trip. This default daily retention limit was scheduled to remain in place through May 31, 2006, inclusive.
Based on available quota, historical information regarding fish migration patterns, BFT availability off the east coast, particularly off the mid-Atlantic states, and current recreational BFT catch information derived from the Maryland BFT tagging program and Automated Landing Reporting System (ALRS), NMFS has determined that a modest increase in the daily retention limit, of a limited duration, is appropriate for HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels. NMFS deemed this modest increase as appropriate because of concerns regarding how the default one BFT retention limit might impact charterboat operations late in the season particularly where long distances must be traveled to locate BFT as well as a concern that a recreational retention limit of less than three BFT per vessel per day/trip may not provide reasonable fishing opportunities for charter/headboats, which carry multiple fee-paying passengers. Thus, NMFS adjusts the daily BFT retention limit, in all areas, for vessels permitted in the HMS Charter/Headboat category, effective September 1, 2005, through September 30, 2005, inclusive, to three BFT per vessel per day/trip, consisting of BFT measuring 27 to less than 73 inches (69 to less than 185 cm) CFL in the school, large school, or small medium size classes. Of the three BFT, a maximum of two school BFT are allowed per vessel per day/trip, measuring 27 to less than 47 inches (69 to less than 119 cm) CFL.
Effective October 1, 2005, through May 31, 2006, the default daily recreational retention limit of one school, large school, or small medium BFT measuring 27 to less than 73 inches (69 to less than 185 cm) CFL, per vessel per day/trip will apply in all areas, for all vessels permitted in the HMS Charter/Headboat category.
For privately owned and operated recreational vessels, permitted in the HMS Angling category, the daily recreational retention limit will remain at one school, large school, or small medium BFT measuring 27 to less than 73 inches (69 to less than 185 cm) CFL, per vessel per day/trip effective June 1, 2005 through May 31, 2006, inclusive.
NMFS selected the daily retention limits and their duration after examining current and previous fishing year catch and effort rates, taking into consideration public comment on the options to achieve the ICCAT recommended four-year average 8 percent tolerance on harvest of school BFT, and inseason management measures for the General and HMS Charter/Headboat categories received during the 2005 BFT quota specifications rulemaking process, and analyzing the available quota for the 2005 fishing year. NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely through dealer landing reports, the ALRS, state harvest tagging programs in North Carolina and Maryland, and the Large Pelagics Survey. Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional retention limit adjustments are necessary to ensure available quota is not exceeded or, to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. Additionally, NMFS may determine that an allocation from the school BFT reserve is warranted to further fishery management objectives.
Closures or subsequent adjustments to the daily retention limits, if any, will be published in the
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action.
NMFS has recently become aware of increased availability of large medium and giant BFT on the New England fishing grounds. This increase in abundance provides the potential to increase General category landings rates for the New England fishery if participants are authorized to harvest two large medium or giant BFT per day. Also, since the end of the 2005 BFT specification comment period to the present day, the HMS Management Division has continued to receive more information refining its understanding of both the commercial and charter/headboat sectors' specific needs regarding BFT retention limits. The regulations implementing the HMS FMP provide for inseason retention limit adjustments in order to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Adjustment of retention limits is also necessary in order to avoid excessive quota rollovers to subsequent General category time-period subquotas.
Recreational size class BFT traditionally start to migrate during the early fall and are currently available in the northern area. NMFS has already provided a window of enhanced fishing opportunities to HMS Charter/Headboat vessels operating off the coast of mid-Atlantic states from mid-June through July. In order to balance concerns regarding continued utilization of available quota with not exceeding allotted amounts providing for reasonable fishing opportunities along the entire Atlantic coast, NMFS needs to act promptly to provide enhanced fishing opportunities to northern area fishermen similar to those previously provided to the mid-Atlantic area. Preliminary recreational BFT data also show that a limited increase in the recreational BFT retention limit is possible for the HMS Charter/Headboat fleet while minimizing risks of exceeding the ICCAT allocated quota and the school limit recommendation.
Delays in increasing the retention limits would be contrary to the public interest. Such delays would adversely affect those General and HMS Charter/Headboat category vessels that would otherwise have an opportunity to harvest more than one BFT per day and would further exacerbate the problem of quota rollovers, and/or lack of booked charters. Limited opportunities to access the respective quotas may have negative social and economic impacts to U.S. fishermen that either depend on catching the available quota within the time-periods designated in the HMS FMP, or depend on multiple BFT retention limits to attract individuals to book charters. For both the General and the HMS Charter/Headboat sectors, an adjustment to the retention limits needs to be done as expeditiously as possible for the impacted sectors to benefit from the adjustment.
Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, and because this action relieves a restriction (i.e., current, default retention limit is one fish per vessel/trip but this action relaxes that limit and allows retention of more fish), there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
This action is being taken under 50 CFR 635.23(a)(4) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 971
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the regulations governing the importation of meat and other edible animal products by allowing, under certain conditions, the importation of whole cuts of boneless beef from Japan. We are proposing this action in response to a request from the Government of Japan and after conducting an analysis of the risk that indicates that such beef can be safely imported from Japan under the conditions described in this proposal.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 19, 2005.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• EDOCKET: Go to
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. 05-004-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 05-004-1.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
Dr. Gary Colgrove, Director, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-4356.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA or the Department) regulates the importation of animals and animal products into the United States to guard against the introduction of animal diseases. The regulations in 9 CFR parts 93, 94, 95, and 96 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals, birds, poultry, meat, other animal products and byproducts, hay, and straw into the United States in order to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), a chronic degenerative disease affecting the central nervous system of cattle.
Section 94.18 of the regulations prohibits or restricts the importation into the United States of meat and certain other edible products due to BSE. Paragraph (a)(1) of § 94.18 lists regions in which BSE is known to exist. Paragraph (a)(2) of § 94.18 lists regions that present an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States because their import requirements are less restrictive than those that would be acceptable for import into the United States and/or because the regions have inadequate surveillance for BSE. Paragraph (a)(3) of § 94.18 lists regions that present a minimal risk of introducing BSE into the United States. Except for certain controlled transit movements, § 94.18(b) prohibits the importation of meat, meat products, and most other edible products of ruminants that have been in any region listed in § 94.18(a)(1) or (a)(2) and restricts the importation of those commodities from any region listed in § 94.18(a)(3).
In an interim rule published in the
Immediately following the detection of the BSE-infected cow, the Government of Japan initiated an epidemiological investigation and took a series of measures to detect and control BSE in Japan, including measures to ensure that tissues that have the potential to carry infectious levels of the BSE agent are removed from cattle at slaughter, a ban on the feeding of mammalian protein to ruminants is in place, and increase BSE surveillance.
The Government of Japan has requested that APHIS consider allowing the resumption of trade in beef from Japan to the United States. Prior to the 2001 ban on the importation of ruminants and ruminant products from Japan, Japan primarily exported to the United States boneless cuts of beef from cattle born, raised and slaughtered in Japan. Therefore, in response to Japan's request, we considered allowing the importation of whole cuts of boneless beef derived from cattle that were born, raised, and slaughtered in Japan and analyzed the animal health risks associated with that product.
Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301
In this proposed rule, we will first provide some background on BSE. Next, we discuss the scientific evidence that provides a basis for the proposed conditions, then discuss the proposed conditions in further detail. Finally, we will briefly discuss the proposed conditions as they relate to international guidelines on BSE.
BSE is a progressive and fatal neurological disorder of cattle that results from an unconventional transmissible agent. BSE belongs to the family of diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). All TSEs affect the central nervous system of infected animals. However, the distribution of infectivity in the body of the animal and mode of transmission differ according to the species and TSE agent. In addition to BSE, TSEs include, among other diseases, scrapie in sheep and goats, chronic wasting disease (CWD) in deer and elk, and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans.
The agent that causes BSE has yet to be fully characterized. The theory that is most accepted in the international scientific community is that the agent is an abnormal form of a normal protein known as cellular prion protein. The BSE agent does not evoke a traditional immune response or inflammatory reaction in host animals. BSE is confirmed by post-mortem microscopic examination of an animal's brain tissue or by detection of the abnormal form of the prion protein in an animal's brain tissues. The pathogenic form of the protein is both less soluble and more resistant to degradation than the normal form. The BSE agent is resistant to heat and to normal sterilization processes. BSE is not a contagious disease; according to internationally accepted research, the only confirmed, natural route of transmission of BSE in cattle is the consumption of animal feed containing protein from ruminants infected with BSE.
BSE was first documented in the United Kingdom in 1986 and has since been confirmed in native-born cattle in 22 European countries in addition to the United Kingdom, and in some non-European countries, including Japan, Israel, Canada, and the United States. Since November 1986, there have been more than 186,000 confirmed cases of BSE in cattle worldwide. As of July 2005, Japan had reported a total of 20 cases of BSE, including the initial case of BSE in September 2001 and two cases that are currently under further investigation.
In the United States, there have been two confirmed cases of BSE, one an imported cow and one a native cow. The first case of BSE in the United States was identified in a dairy cow in Washington State on December 23, 2003. The epidemiological investigation and DNA test results confirmed that the infected cow was not indigenous to the United States, but rather was born and most likely became infected in Alberta, Canada, before Canada's 1997 implementation of a ban on feeding most mammalian protein to ruminants, which prevents the use of most mammalian protein in cattle feed. The second case of BSE in the United States was confirmed in an approximately 12-year-old beef cow in Texas on June 29, 2005. This animal was born well before the United States instituted a mammalian-to-ruminant feed ban in August 1997.
Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), a chronic and fatal neurodegenerative disease of humans, has been linked since 1996 through epidemiological, neuropathological, and experimental data to exposure to the BSE agent, most likely through consumption of cattle products contaminated with the agent before BSE control measures were in place. To date, approximately 170 probable and confirmed cases of vCJD have been identified worldwide. The majority of these cases have either been identified in the United Kingdom or were linked to exposure that occurred in the United Kingdom, and all cases have been linked to exposure in countries with native cases of BSE. Some studies estimate that more than 1 million cattle may have been infected with BSE throughout the epidemic in the United Kingdom. This number of infected cattle could have introduced a significant amount of infectivity into the human food supply. Yet, the low number of cases of vCJD identified to date indicates that there is a substantial species barrier that protects humans from widespread illness due to exposure to the BSE agent.
Examination of naturally-occurring BSE cases and extensive well-controlled BSE challenge studies have clearly demonstrated that the primary site for BSE accumulation in cattle is the central nervous system (brain, spinal cord, trigeminal ganglia, dorsal root ganglia (DRG), and eye).
BSE has a long incubation period. Research demonstrates that the incubation period for BSE in cattle is linked to the infectious dose received—
This research on BSE has been used to develop effective, proven strategies for removal of these tissues from animals of appropriate age so that these tissues do not enter the food chain. In the United States, the FSIS regulations contained in 9 CFR 310.22 designate the brain, spinal cord, vertebral column
BSE infectivity has never been demonstrated in the muscle tissue of cattle experimentally or naturally infected with BSE at any stage of the disease. Studies performed using TSEs other than BSE in non-bovine animals have detected prions in muscle tissue. However, the international scientific community largely considers that these studies cannot be directly extrapolated to BSE in cattle because of the significant interactions between the host species and the prion strain involved.
Pathogenesis studies of naturally and experimentally infected cattle have not detected BSE infectivity in blood. However, transmission of BSE was demonstrated in sheep that received a transfusion of a large volume of blood drawn from other sheep that were experimentally infected with the BSE agent. The United Kingdom's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) and the European Commission's Scientific Steering Committee (SSC), which are scientific advisory committees, evaluated the implication of this finding in relation to food safety.
Based on this information, APHIS concludes that whole cuts of boneless beef do not present a BSE risk, provided that certain measures are in place to avoid contamination of the beef with potentially infectious tissues.
The most significant risk management strategy for ensuring the safety of whole cuts of boneless beef is the prevention of cross-contamination of the beef with SRMs during stunning and slaughter of the animal. Control measures that prevent contamination of such beef involve the establishment of procedures for the removal of SRMs, prohibitions on air-injection stunning and pithing, and splitting of carcasses. These potential pathways for contamination and the control measures that prevent contamination are described in detail in the risk analysis for this rulemaking.
To mitigate these risk factors, we are proposing to require the conditions discussed below to ensure that whole cuts of boneless beef exported to the United States from Japan are free of BSE contamination.
This proposal would allow the importation of whole cuts of boneless beef that are derived from cattle born, raised, and slaughtered in Japan, provided that the following conditions have been met:
• The beef is prepared in an establishment that is eligible to have its products imported into the United States under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601
• The beef is derived from cattle that were not subjected to a pithing process at slaughter.
• An authorized veterinary official of the Government of Japan certifies on an original certificate that the above conditions have been met.
Following is a further description of and rationale for each of these proposed conditions.
This proposal would require that the beef be prepared in an establishment that is eligible to have its products imported into the United States under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA)
As required under the FMIA, FSIS ensures that imported meat in the U.S. marketplace is safe, wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled by (1) Determining if foreign countries and their establishments have implemented food safety system and inspection requirements equivalent to those in the United States and (2) reinspecting imported meat and poultry products from those countries through random sampling of shipments. The FSIS regulations in 9 CFR 327.2 provide that countries eligible to export meat to the United States must have a meat inspection system determined by FSIS to be equivalent to the U.S. meat inspection system. The FSIS equivalency determination is based on a review of the foreign country's relevant laws and regulations and an on-site audit of the foreign country's inspection system. FSIS has determined that Japan's meat inspection system is equivalent and that Japan is eligible to export meat and meat products to the United States.
Once a country is listed as eligible to export meat and meat products to the United States, it is responsible for certifying individual exporting establishments to FSIS and for providing annual recertification documentation. FSIS regularly conducts on-site audits of the eligible foreign inspection systems to ensure they remain equivalent to the U.S. system.
This proposal would also require that the beef meet all other applicable requirements of the FMIA and regulations thereunder (9 CFR chapter III), including the requirements for removal of SRMs and the prohibition on the use of air-injection stunning devices prior to slaughter on cattle from which the beef is derived.
As mentioned above, one potential pathway for cross-contamination of muscle tissue of cattle is if potentially infectious tissue debris accumulates in the carcass splitting saw and is transferred to subsequent carcasses. FSIS has developed procedures to verify that cross-contamination of edible tissue with SRMs is reduced to the maximum extent practical in facilities that slaughter cattle, or process carcasses or parts of carcasses of cattle.
This proposal would prohibit the use of pithing processes on the cattle from which the beef is derived. This requirement addresses the potential risk posed by pithing, which may force pieces of brain and other CNS tissue into the circulatory system of stunned cattle.
We conclude that whole cuts of boneless beef derived from cattle born, raised, and slaughtered in Japan can be safely imported from Japan into the United States, provided the above-mentioned mitigation measures are met, as certified to on an original certificate issued by an authorized veterinary official of the Government of Japan.
International guidelines for trade in animal and animal products are developed by the World Organization for Animal Health (formerly known as the Office International des Epizooties (OIE)), which is recognized by the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the international organization responsible for the development of standards, guidelines, and recommendations with respect to animal health and zoonoses (diseases that are transmissible from animals to humans). The OIE guidelines for trade in terrestrial animals (mammals, birds, and bees) are detailed in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code (available on the internet at http://www.oie.int). The guidelines on BSE are contained in Chapter 2.3.13 of the Code and supplemented by Appendix 3.8.4 of the Code.
The 2005 OIE guidelines on BSE provide for three possible BSE classifications for an exporting country, zone, or compartment (referred to below as a region): Negligible risk, controlled risk, and undetermined risk.
The OIE guidelines for negligible risk regions apply to those regions where either (1) there has been no indigenous cases of BSE or any imported cases of BSE have been completely destroyed, or (2) the last indigenous case of BSE was reported more than 7 years ago. In addition, a region may be considered a negligible risk for BSE if it has demonstrated, through an appropriate level of control and audit, that meat-and-bone meal and greaves derived from ruminants have not been fed to ruminants for at least 8 years, among other criteria. Controlled risk regions, in contrast, include regions where an indigenous case of BSE was reported within the last 7 years and regions that cannot demonstrate that a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban has been in place for at least 8 years. The OIE guidelines for undetermined risk regions apply to those regions that do not meet the recommended criteria for any other category.
The export conditions contained in the OIE guidelines grow increasingly stringent as the status of a region moves from negligible risk through controlled risk to undetermined risk. For controlled risk regions, the OIE guidelines recommend that meat and meat products not contain SRMs and mechanically separated meat from the skull and vertebral column from cattle over 30 months of age, and that the meat and meat products be derived from cattle that received ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections and that the cattle were not subjected to an air-injection stunning or pithing process at slaughter, among other criteria.
The proposed import conditions for whole cuts of boneless beef from Japan, including the requirements that the beef come from an establishment eligible to export meat to the United States under the FMIA and FSIS regulations, are consistent with the criteria for controlled risk regions. We believe this is appropriate, given that Japan has reported indigenous cases of BSE within
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Under the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8301
This proposed rule would amend the regulations governing the importation of meat and other edible animal products by allowing, under certain conditions, the importation of whole cuts of boneless beef derived from cattle born, raised, and slaughtered in Japan. We are proposing this action in response to a request from the Government of Japan and after conducting an analysis of the risk that indicates that such beef can be safely imported from Japan under the conditions described in this proposal.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the impact of this proposed rule on small entities.
This proposal would allow the importation of whole cuts of boneless beef derived from cattle that were born, raised, and slaughtered in Japan, provided that certain conditions are met. We expect that this proposal would have little or no economic impact on the majority of consumers and beef producers in the United States because the volume of beef imported from Japan is likely to be small and have only a minor impact on the overall domestic beef market.
In 2001, APHIS placed a ban on the importation of ruminants and most ruminant products from Japan following the confirmation of one case of BSE in a native-born animal in that country. Prior to that ban, U.S. imports of boneless beef from Japan were negligible when compared to total imports of that commodity. Over the 4-year period, 1997-2000, for example, the volume of U.S. imports of boneless beef from Japan—reported to be entirely fresh/chilled, as opposed to frozen—averaged a little less than 9 metric tons per year. This amount was less than 0.005 percent of average annual U.S. imports of fresh/chilled boneless beef world-wide for the same period (202,540 metric tons).
Based on the unit price of beef imported into the United States from Japan prior to the 2001 ban on the importation of ruminants and most ruminant products from Japan, it is assumed that all of the boneless beef imported from Japan prior to the ban was Wagyu beef. (The term “Wagyu,” which literally translates to Japanese cattle, refers to purebred Japanese Black or Japanese Brown breeds of cattle. Wagyu beef is a high-priced specialty meat widely acclaimed for its flavor and tenderness. “Kobe beef” refers to Wagyu beef that is produced in the Kobe area of Japan.) Japan also produces Holstein breed dairy cattle, but it is unlikely that Japan would try to compete in the U.S. import market for lower-grade beef from culled dairy cattle. Accordingly, we expect only Wagyu beef to be imported under the proposed rule.
We expect that Japan would continue to be a minor supplier of beef to the United States if this proposal were adopted. We estimate that the volume of imports is likely to range between about 8 metric tons and 15 metric tons per year, a quantity aligned with import levels in the years immediately prior to the ban. There are three reasons for the small import volume. First, the demand for Japanese Wagyu beef in the United States would likely be small, because the beef is expensive. In October 2004, for example, the average actual selling price of Wagyu sirloin in Japanese supermarkets was just under $50 per pound.
Second, Japanese agricultural officials have indicated to APHIS staff that they would expect the volume of Wagyu exports to the United States to be approximately 10 metric tons per year. This quantity aligns with historic import levels, as described above, and would be well below the annual tariff rate quota for Japan of 200 metric tons.
Finally, Japan's boneless beef exports to countries other than the United States have also been minor. Over the 4-year period 1997-2000, Japan's exports of boneless beef to the world—both fresh/chilled and frozen—averaged only 81 metric tons per year, and the largest export volume in any one of those years was 95 metric tons (in 1999). For fresh/chilled boneless beef alone, the 4-year annual average was 37 metric tons, with no one year exceeding 47 metric tons.
Because we expect that Japan would export only Wagyu beef if this proposal
Given the high price and small quantity of Wagyu beef expected to be imported, the proposed rule is likely to have little impact for most U.S. consumers. A relatively small segment of beef consumers would benefit because they would be allowed, once again, to buy this product in the United States. Importers, brokers and others in the United States who would participate in the importation of Wagyu beef from Japan also stand to benefit, due to the increased business activity.
U.S. beef producers, in general, would not be affected by the proposed rule; demand is expected to remain low reflecting pre-ban consumption patterns, with a minor impact on less expensive domestically produced beef. Any producer impact of the rule would likely fall upon producers of Kobe-style beef, and then only to the extent that the commodities would be competing for the same niche market.
In general, trade of a commodity increases social welfare. To the extent that consumer choice is broadened and the increased supply of the imported commodity leads to a price decline, gains in consumer surplus will outweigh losses in domestic producer surplus.
We do not expect that this proposal would have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As discussed above, the proposed rule has the potential to primarily affect farmers and ranchers in the United States who produce Kobe-style beef. The number of these producers is unknown, but it is believed to be very small. The American Wagyu Association, a Wagyu breeder group, lists approximately 75 members in the United States.
The size distribution of Kobe-style beef producers in the United States is also unknown, but it is reasonable to assume that most are small, under the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) standards. This assumption is based on composite data for all beef producers in the United States. In 2002, there were 664,431 U.S. farms in North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 112111, a classification comprised of establishments primarily engaged in raising cattle. Of the 664,431 farms, 659,009 (or 99 percent) had annual receipts that year of less than $500,000.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed importation of whole cuts of boneless beef from Japan, we have prepared an environmental assessment. The environmental assessment was prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
The environmental assessment may be viewed on the EDOCKET Web site (see
This proposed rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. For information pertinent to GPEA compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 94 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 94 would continue to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
2. In § 94.18, paragraph (b) would be revised to read as follows:
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section or in §§ 94.19 or 94.27, the importation of meat, meat products, and edible products other than meat (except for gelatin as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, milk, and milk products) from ruminants that have been in any of the regions listed in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited.
3. A new § 94.27 would be added to read as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, whole cuts of boneless beef derived from cattle that were born, raised, and slaughtered in Japan may be imported into the United States under the following conditions:
(a) The beef is prepared in an establishment that is eligible to have its products imported into the United States under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601
(b) The beef is derived from cattle that were not subjected to a pithing process at slaughter.
(c) An authorized veterinary official of the Government of Japan certifies on an original certificate that the above conditions have been met.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes. This proposed AD would require replacing the very high frequency (VHF) antenna located in position 1 of the fuselage with a new, improved VHF antenna. This proposed AD results from a report of the loss of all voice communications due to a lightning strike damaging all the VHF antennas. We are proposing this AD to prevent the loss of voice communication, which when combined with the complexity of the national airspace system, could result in reduced flightcrew situational awareness, increased flightcrew workload, and increased risk of human error, and consequent reduced ability to maintain safe flight and landing of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 19, 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.
• 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.
Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil for service information identified in this proposed AD.
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1175; fax (425) 227-1149.
We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Include the docket number “FAA-2005-22125; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-130-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
The Departmento de Aviacao Civil (DAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Brazil, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on all EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes. The DAC advises that there was a report of the loss of all voice communications due to a lightning strike that damaged
EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 170-23-0005, dated December 29, 2004. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the VHF antenna located in position 1 of the fuselage with a new, improved VHF antenna. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DAC mandated the service information and issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005-04-04, dated April 30, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Brazil.
This airplane model is manufactured in Brazil and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously except as discussed under “Difference Between Proposed AD and Foreign AD.”
Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005-04-04, dated April 30, 2005, is applicable to “all EMBRAER ERJ-170( ) aircraft models in operation.” However, this does not agree with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-23-0005, dated December 29, 2004, which states that only certain EMBRAER Model ERJ 170 airplanes are affected and identifies them by serial number. This proposed AD would be applicable only to the airplanes identified in the service bulletin. This difference has been coordinated with the DAC.
This proposed AD would affect about 43 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts would cost $654. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $33,712, or $784 per airplane.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
(a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September 19, 2005.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to EMBRAER Model ERJ 170-100LR, -100 STD, -100SE, and -100 SU airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 170-23-0005, dated December 29, 2004.
(d) This AD results from a report of the loss of all voice communications due to a lightning strike damaging all the very high frequency (VHF) antennas. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of voice communication, which when combined with the complexity of the national airspace system, could result in reduced flightcrew situational awareness, increased flightcrew workload, and increased risk of human error, and consequent reduced ability to maintain safe flight and landing of the airplane.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Within 700 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace the VHF antenna located in position 1 of the fuselage with a new, improved VHF antenna in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 170-23-0005, dated December 29, 2004.
(g) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate,
(h) Brazilian airworthiness directive 2005-04-04, dated April 30, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40 and -50 series airplanes, and Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), and DC-9-82 (MD-82) airplanes. That AD currently requires installing a water drain system for the slant pressure panels in the left and right wheel wells of the main landing gear (MLG). This proposed AD would also require inspecting the seal assemblies of the overwing emergency exit doors for defects and constant gap; replacing defective door seals; performing repetitive operational checks of the water drain system auto drain valve and corrective actions if necessary; and, for certain airplanes, modifying the insulation blankets on the slant pressure panels in the left and right MLG wheel wells. This proposed AD is prompted by reports of water runoff from the slant pressure panels in the left and right MLG wheel wells, which subsequently froze on the lateral control mixer and control cable assemblies. We are proposing this AD to prevent ice from forming on the lateral control mixer and control cable assemblies, which could reduce controllability of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 3, 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.
• 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, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).
You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at
Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5324; fax (562) 627-5210.
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
On June 29, 1993, we issued AD 93-13-07, amendment 39-8620 (58 FR 38511, July 19, 1993), for certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40 and -50 series airplanes, Model DC-9-81 and DC-9-82 airplanes, and Model C-9 (Military) airplanes. That AD requires installing a water drain system for the slant pressure panels in the left and right wheel wells of the main landing gear (MLG). That AD was prompted by reports of water freezing on the control cables. We issued that AD to prevent water from draining into the wheel wells and subsequently freezing, which could restrict the movement of the control cables and lead to reduced controllability of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 93-13-07, we received a report of in-flight loss of aileron control on a Model DC-9-32 airplane. Investigation revealed that, due to failure of the auto drain valve in the drain system installed by AD 93-13-07, water accumulated at the slant pressure panels and subsequently froze, forming ice around the aileron control cables and pulleys in the MLG wheel wells.
We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-53-179, Revision 2, dated May 27, 2004 (the original issue, dated January 18, 1985, is referenced as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing AD 93-13-07). The procedures described in Revision 2 of the service bulletin are essentially the same, except for the addition of procedures for performing a visual inspection for defects and constant gap of the seal assemblies of the overwing emergency exit doors, and replacing defective door seals with new door seals. The service bulletin also describes procedures for revising the maintenance program by adding on-aircraft maintenance program reports (OAMP) relating to repetitive operational checks of the auto drain valve of the water drain system in the slant pressure panel.
Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-53-179, Revision 2, specifies prior or concurrent accomplishment of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-268, on certain airplanes.
We have reviewed McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-268 R01, Revision 01, dated July 18, 1996, which describes procedures for modifying the insulation blankets on the slant pressure panels in the left and right wheel wells of the MLG.
Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
The unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 93-13-07. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also require inspecting the seal assemblies of the overwing emergency exit doors for defects and constant gap; replacing defective door seals; performing repetitive operational checks of the water drain system auto drain valve and corrective actions if necessary; and, for certain airplanes, modifying the insulation blankets on the slant pressure panels in the left and right MLG wheel wells. This proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions, except as discussed under “Differences Between the Proposed AD and Referenced Service Bulletins.”
Although the service bulletins recommend accomplishing the modifications “* * * at the earliest practical maintenance period * * *,” we have determined that this imprecise compliance time would not address the identified unsafe condition in a timely manner. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, we considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation, but the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the modifications. In light of all of these factors, we find a compliance time of 24 months for completing the required actions to be warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.
Where Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-53-179, Revision 2, specifies prior or concurrent accomplishment of McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-268 R01 on certain airplanes, this proposed AD would, under certain circumstances, allow accomplishment of Service Bulletin DC9-53-268 R01 within 24 months after the effective date of this proposed AD. We find that this compliance time would prevent the immediate grounding of any airplane.
As discussed under “Relevant Service Information,” Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-53-179, Revision 2, describes procedures for adding certain OAMPs to the maintenance programs. These OAMPs relate to repetitive operational checks of the auto drain valve and replacing any auto drain valve found to be obstructed or inoperative with a new auto drain valve. This proposed AD would not require you to revise the maintenance programs as described; rather, this proposed AD would require you to perform the repetitive operational checks and any auto drain valve replacement, in accordance with a method approved by the FAA. Chapter 51-10-01 of the Boeing MD-80 Aircraft Maintenance Manual is one approved method of performing these actions.
The service information specifies to “inspect” the seal assemblies of the overwing emergency exit doors for defects and constant gap. To prevent any confusion about the proper type of inspection, this proposed AD would require a general visual inspection. We have included a definition of this type of inspection in this proposed AD.
We have revised the applicability of the existing AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models.
There are about 2,025 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. There are about 1,131 airplanes of U.S. registry that would be affected by this proposed AD. The following table provides the estimated costs, using an average labor rate of $65 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-8620 (58 FR 38511, dated July 19, 1993) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
(a) The Federal Aviation Administration must receive comments on this AD action by October 3, 2005.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 93-13-07, amendment 39-8620.
(c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-11, DC-9-12, DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-15, DC-9-15F, DC-9-21, DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, DC 9-32F (C-9A, C-9B), DC-9-41, DC-9-51, DC-9-81 (MD-81), and DC-9-82 (MD-82) airplanes; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-53-179, Revision 2, dated May 27, 2004; certificated in any category.
(d) This AD was prompted by reports of water runoff from the slant pressure panels in the left and right main landing gear (MLG) wheel wells, which subsequently froze on the lateral control mixer and control cable assemblies. We are issuing this AD to prevent ice from forming on the lateral control mixer and control cable assemblies, which could reduce controllability of the airplane.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Within 24 months after August 18, 1993 (the effective date of AD 93-13-07), install a water drain system in the slant pressure panel, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 53-179, dated January 18, 1985, as amended by Service Bulletin Change Notification 53-179 CN1, dated February 28, 1985, and Service Bulletin Change Notification 53-179 CN2, dated May 30, 1985; or in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC-9-53-179, Revision 01, dated March 30, 1999; or Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-53-179, Revision 2, dated May 27, 2004. After the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-53-179, Revision 2, dated May 27, 2004, may be used.
(g) For all airplanes: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, perform a general visual inspection of the seal assemblies of the overwing emergency exit doors for defects and constant gap, and, before further flight, replace any defective door seal with a new door seal; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-53-179, Revision 2, dated May 27, 2004.
For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
(h) Inspections accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-179, Revision 01, dated March 30, 1999; are considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(i) For all airplanes: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, perform an operational check of the auto drain valve of the slant pressure panel water drain system and repeat this check every 24 months. If any auto drain valve is found to be obstructed or inoperative, before further flight, replace the auto drain valve with a new auto drain valve according to a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Chapter 51-10-01 of the Boeing MD-80 Aircraft Maintenance Manual is one approved replacement method.
After an operator complies with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD, paragraph (h) does not require that operators subsequently record accomplishment of those requirements each time a auto drain valve is checked or replaced according to that operator's FAA-approved maintenance inspection program.
(j) For airplanes identified in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-268 R01, Revision 01, dated July 18, 1996: At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, modify the insulation blankets on the slant pressure panels in the left and right wheel wells of the MLG, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(1) For airplanes which have been modified, as specified in paragraph (f) of this AD, prior to the effective date of this AD: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes which have not been modified, as specified in paragraph (f) of this AD, prior to the effective date of this AD: Prior to or concurrently with the accomplishment of paragraph (f) of this AD.
(k)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) AMOCs approved previously according to AD 93-13-07 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding requirements of this AD.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations during the “Liberty Grand Prix”, a power boat race to be held on the waters of the Delaware River adjacent to Philadelphia, PA and Camden, NJ. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic between the Walt Whitman and Benjamin Franklin bridges in the Delaware River during the power boat race.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 2, 2005.
You may mail comments and related material to Commander (oax), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, hand-deliver them to Room 119 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, or fax them to (757) 398-6203. The Auxiliary and Recreational Boating Safety Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the above address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Auxiliary and Recreational Boating Safety Branch, at (757) 398-6204.
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 (CGD05-05-097), 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
In order to provide notice and an opportunity to comment before issuing an effective rule, we are providing a shorter than normal comment period. A 15-day comment period is sufficient to allow those who might be affected by this rulemaking to submit their comments because the regulations have a narrow, local application, and there will be local notifications in addition to the
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the address listed under
On September 24 and 25, 2005, the Offshore Performance Association, Inc. will conduct the “Liberty Grand Prix”, on the waters of the Delaware River, between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Camden, New Jersey. The event will consist of approximately 40 V-hull and twin-hull inboard hydroplanes racing in heats counter-clockwise around a oval race course. A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated to gather nearby to view the competition. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Delaware River adjacent to Philadelphia, PA and Camden, NJ. The regulated area includes a section of the Delaware River approximately two miles long, and bounded in width by each shoreline, the course is bounded to the south by the Walt Whitman Bridge and bounded to the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. The temporary special local regulations will be enforced from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on September 24 and 25, 2005, and will restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the power boat race. The Coast Guard, at its discretion, when practical will allow the passage of vessels when races are not taking place. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel will be allowed to enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.
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.
Although this proposed regulation will prevent traffic from transiting a segment of the Delaware River adjacent to Philadelphia, PA and Camden, NJ during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be enforced. Extensive advance notifications will be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, area newspapers and local radio stations, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Vessel traffic
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Delaware River during the event.
This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This proposed rule would be in effect for only a limited period. Although the regulated area will apply to the entire width of the Delaware River between the Walt Whitman and Benjamin Franklin bridges, traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol commander. In the case where the patrol commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the address 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 an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We 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 proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add a temporary
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.
(4) When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course.
(d)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document proposes to amend Part 567 to require that, in addition to the vehicle identification number, additional information be recorded on the certification label of each bus manufactured in two or more stages. The information would identify the bus body manufacturer and various vehicle attributes. This document also proposes to add a new Part 584 to require manufacturers of bus bodies for buses manufactured in two or more stages to obtain a manufacturer's identifier and to provide information to NHTSA about the bus bodies manufactured.
Comments must be received on or before October 17, 2005.
You may submit comments identified by the docket number 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 Federal Holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. Charles Hott, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at 202-366-0247;
You may send mail to these officials at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
On November 2, 1999, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued recommendations to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop standard definitions and classifications for each of the different bus body types and to include these definitions and classifications in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs).
In 1 year and in cooperation with the bus manufacturers, complete the development of standard definitions and classifications for each of the different bus body types, and include these definitions and classifications in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). (H-99-43)
Once the standard definitions and classifications for each of the different bus types have been established in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, in cooperation with the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives, amend the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria's bus configuration coding to incorporate the FMVSS definitions and standards. (H-99-44)
The recommendations were a result of the NTSB September 1999 safety study “Bus Crashworthiness.” During that study, NTSB experienced difficulty determining detailed descriptive characteristics of buses manufactured in two or more stages from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database. Although bus body manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles meet the FMVSSs, they are not required to encode in the certification label affixed to the completed vehicle any descriptive information about the body they install.
When buses are involved in crashes, the police report and FARS record the vehicle identification number (VIN). The name of the manufacturer is required to be on the certification label, but this information is not typically recorded on the police accident report form. For vehicles manufactured in one stage, the type of vehicle and bus body information is already encoded into the VIN. However, for buses manufactured in more than one stage, the VIN only identifies the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. The final stage manufacturer name and bus model are not encoded in the VIN and are not recorded in the police accident reports.
NTSB recommended that descriptive information be captured on police accident report forms, thereby greatly simplifying identification work when conducting investigations or analyses of FARS. NTSB believes that “the incorporation of bus identification into the VIN and expansion of the use category will correct some of the inaccuracies in FARS data.”
In June and August of 2000, meetings were held between the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Federal Transit Administration, NTSB, bus manufacturers, and industry association representatives. At the meetings, the parties discussed whether bus configuration or bus use would be appropriate determining factors in devising a coding scheme for the final stage manufacturers' certification labels and police accident report forms.
At the meetings, it was suggested that in-service bus uses vary considerably and often change, and therefore, it would be impractical to develop bus definitions based on use. Instead, attendees suggested that basic descriptive information such as length, seating configuration, or accessibility features for persons with disabilities, could be provided to better identify the type of bus body installed on the chassis.
It was also suggested that, in addition to the VIN, descriptive information could be encoded on the final stage manufacturer's certification label. Because the final stage bus manufacturers already routinely record a body number on the certification label, this would not be a complex or controversial task. We have considered the issues raised at the meetings in preparing this proposal.
Currently, the FARS records fatalities in the following bus type categories: intercity, transit, school, other, and unknown. Little is known about the type of buses involved in the fatalities that appear in “other” and “unknown” bus type categories. These buses are typically specialty type buses that are manufactured in two or more stages. They include the buses that are used for shuttle services to and from airports, transit systems for transporting the medically fragile and mobility impaired, churches to transport people to and from religious events, and businesses to shuttle people from location to location. These buses typically incorporate a cutaway chassis provided by an incomplete vehicle manufacturer. The bus body is typically manufactured and installed by a final stage manufacturer.
The last five years of FARS data reveal that there are about twelve fatalities per year that fall within the “other” or “unknown” bus type categories. There is no way to identify in the FARS database buses that are manufactured in two or more stages and are involved in fatal crashes. The current system requires that the VIN be recorded on the police accident report filed by the state. Although the final stage manufacturer name must be recorded on the certification label, the current system does not require that police record this information on the police accident report. If this proposal is adopted, it would give researchers and analysts the ability to determine the descriptive information about the defined characteristics of the bus body without the need to perform a study of each crash. This information could be used by researchers and others to better define safety improvements to reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries in bus crashes.
Although some buses are manufactured in a single stage by a single manufacturer, many smaller buses are manufactured in multiple stages by a series of manufacturers. For example, an incomplete vehicle manufacturer may provide chassis and engine, while the final stage manufacturer would install a body, thus completing the bus. Under the current requirements in 49 CFR Part 565, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer assigns the VIN. The VIN and other required information is sent with the incomplete vehicle document (IVD) that is required by 49 CFR part 568,
This NPRM proposes to amend Part 567 to require that a new ten-digit suffix be appended to the VIN on the
NHTSA believes that the proposed coding scheme would provide the minimum necessary information so that when it is recorded on the police incident report and in FARS or National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS/GES), crash investigators and analysts would have sufficient information to ascertain the type of bus as well as other make and model information such as bus length and seat configuration. We believe the proposed final stage manufacturer suffix should be kept as simple as possible to reduce the chance that it will be improperly recorded at the scene of the incident or crash. NHTSA believes that a ten-digit descriptor would be large enough to capture this information.
The first three digits would identify the final stage bus manufacturer. These digits would be alphanumeric characters, 0-9, and A-Z. This would allow for as many as 46,656 manufacturers in the database. This should be a sufficient number of digits to allow for many years of expansion. The fourth digit would be an alphanumeric character and would identify the manufacturer's model number. This allows for as many as 36 different models within a given manufacturer. The fifth digit would identify the as-built gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. The sixth digit would be an alphanumeric character that identifies the bus body length and seating configuration. The manufacturer would assign the sixth digit in accordance with Table 1. The last four digits, digits seven through ten, would consist of a sequence number that would identify the body production sequence.
The “Manufacturer's Identification” would require that each manufacturer of a bus that is manufactured in two or more stages have a unique identifier. NHTSA would assign these manufacturer identification numbers and would maintain a database. Manufacturers would write to the agency to have an identification code assigned.
The manufacturer assigns the “Model” digit. This would identify the particular model that the manufacturer assigns to the bus. Having this number recorded would allow a researcher or investigator to contact the manufacturer to find out the specifics of the bus.
The “GVWR” digit would identify the GVWR in the as-built configuration. If the manufacturer does not change the GVWR provided in the IVD, then they need only to provide an identification code for that value. If the manufacturer changes the GVWR that is provided in the IVD, then they would have to identify that value.
The “Body Length and Seat Configuration” digit identifies the bus body length and seating configuration. The bus body length is defined as the overall length of the vehicle and is modeled after the National Truck Equipment Association s Mid-Size Bus Manufacturers Association specifications. This specification identifies five categories for bus lengths:
Currently, school buses are the only buses that have known seating configurations. School buses are required to have all the passenger seats forward facing. Other buses, such as airport shuttles, rental car shuttles and transit buses, typically have forward facing and side facing seats. Some specialty buses have “social seating.” Social seating is defined herein as having sets of two rows of seats that face each other in the fore and aft direction of the bus body,
NHTSA believes that a scheme that encodes the body length and seating configuration would be beneficial in assessing the safety of the various seating configurations used in today's buses. Seating configuration can be grouped into four categories: forward facing, rear facing, side facing and combination. The combination category would include buses that have seats arranged in more than one seating direction. NHTSA proposes the letter codes shown in Table 1 above, that will uniquely identify the bus body length and seating configurations.
The last four digits would indicate a manufacturer sequence number. This number could be the model sequence number or the body production sequence that manufacturers currently assign and provide.
We are proposing to make the proposed rule effective 18 months after publication of a final rule.
This rulemaking does not have any directly attributable benefits. However, indirect derivative benefits for future safety improvements from this proposal are possible since it would provide crash investigators information about the bus manufacturer and other information related to the construction of the bus body. The unique descriptor would assist investigators, analysts, the public, and industry by providing new safety-related information that identifies the manufacturer and other specifics about buses that are manufactured in two or more stages.
NHTSA believes that there would be a one-time administrative cost for the
NHTSA also believes that adding more numbers to the label would result in an additional cost of approximately $0.01 per bus. Using the information for the 2003 production year for school buses and mid-sized buses, NHTSA estimates that there are approximately 43,000 buses manufactured in two or more stages annually. Therefore, NHTSA estimates that the recurring cost to all the manufacturers would be $430 (43,000 X $0.01). NHTSA estimates that it would take manufacturers one-hour ($40) to prepare the paper work for annual submission for a annual cost of $3,200 (80 X $40) for a total annual recurring cost of $3,630 ($430 + $3,200).
Most, if not all, manufacturers of buses built in two or more stages are small businesses. Although we expect additional costs to be minimal, we seek comment on what impact this added data recording would have on manufacturers of buses built in two or more stages.
We request comments on the following issues:
1. Because the primary purpose of the police officer on the scene of a fatal crash is to secure the crash site for the safety of other motorists on the highway, we are seeking comment on the burden recording this final stage manufacturer suffix, in addition to the VIN, would impose on the police investigator.
2. Benefits from this rulemaking may be limited by mistakes made in the transcription of the new ten-digit suffix. NHTSA has been concerned about errors in the FARS data as a result of transcription errors when recording the VIN. The same risk of transcription errors exists in the context of recording the final stage manufacturer suffix. We are seeking comment on the likelihood that the final stage manufacturer suffix would be recorded at the crash scene by the police officers and then transcribed in the FARS database correctly.
3. To address the problem of transcription errors, many of the larger vehicle manufacturers are placing universal product codes (bar codes) on the certification label, and in some police jurisdictions each officer has a bar code reader for reading drivers license information and vehicle information electronically at the scene to reduce the chance for error. We seek comment about what proportion of police investigators of fatal crashes would have such technology. Given that transcription errors do exist, in the FARS database, should NHTSA require that buses built in two or more stages place bar code information on the certification label? In the event that NHTSA decided to require the manufacturers to provide the certification label information in a bar code format, NHTSA is also seeking information on the cost of bar code equipment and associated software.
4. NHTSA proposes that the new ten-digit suffix identifying the bus body manufacturer and certain attributes about the bus type be included in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria's (MMUCC) document. The MMUCC is the document that States use as a template for the police accident reports used to collect information at the crash scene. The MMUCC is produced through a committee process involving the States. The States then voluntarily incorporate these model codes into their accident report forms.
If the States incorporate this new information into the MMUCC, manufacturer information and descriptive information about buses manufactured in two or more stages would be available in the FARS database. Achieving the full potential benefits of this rulemaking would be dependent upon State adoption of the revised MMUCC. We are seeking comment from State and local government regarding whether they would voluntarily change their police accident reports to include this information, and if so, what would be the burden to record the additional information.
5. There may be other possible methods to obtain information about fatalities in buses manufactured in two or more stages. Given that the population for bus crashes in the “other” and “unknown” categories is very small, 12 fatalities a year, there may be non-regulatory solutions to make this data readily available so it can be used by researchers, investigators, analysts, the public, and the industry when conducting safety investigations or studies. NHTSA seeks comments regarding other approaches to obtaining information about buses manufactured in two or more stages that have been involved in fatal crashes.
One possible solution would be to perform a study of buses involved in fatal crashes each year and produce a publicly available report. Researchers and other parties could review this report and make inquiries to the manufacturer about the attributes of the bus body if needed for their research. Currently, FMCSA performs such a study annually. Given that FMCSA produces an annual report, we are seeking comment about what value requiring this description information on the certification label would add.
Another possible solution would be to record final stage manufacturer information on the police accident reports. With the name of the final stage manufacturer and the VIN, researchers could contact bus manufacturers and obtain the necessary information regarding the vehicle's configuration. Currently, the investigative police officer at the crash scene completes a police accident report (PAR) that includes the VIN and other information required by the state for fatal crashes. The PAR information is then transcribed by the state analyst into the FARS database and submitted to NHTSA annually. Given that the name of the final stage manufacturer is already required on the certification label, what is the viability of having the police officer record the name of the final stage bus manufacturer on the PAR?
NHTSA seeks any other suggestions for capturing information on buses manufactured in two or more stages for researchers and analysts to perform safety research. NHTSA requests public comments on specific suggestions.
6. We are proposing to add a new Part 584 to Chapter 49. However, we are also considering incorporating these proposed requirements into one or more existing regulations, such as Part 566. Comments are invited on this issue.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments in response to this request for comments. For easy reference, the agency has consecutively numbered its questions. We request that commenters respond to each question by these numbers and provide all relevant factual information of which they are aware to support their conclusion or opinions, including but not limited to statistical data and estimated cost and benefits, and the source of such information.
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (
On that page, click on “search.”
On the next page (
On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may download the comments.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rulemaking document under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This rulemaking is not considered significant under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This proposed rule would impose minimal costs on regulated parties or on the American public since it would merely require final stage bus manufacturers to print ten additional digits on a label that the manufacturers are already required to produce.
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” The agency has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Although, the agency would seek voluntary cooperation by the States in the gathering and reporting of information, the final rule, if issued, would have no substantial effects on the States, or on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local officials. Nevertheless, the agency seeks comment from State and local officials regarding this rulemaking.
The proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceeding would not be a prerequsite to an action seeking judicial review of a final rule. If adopted as a final rule, the regulation would preempt state laws and regulations that are in actual conflict with the Federal regulation.
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
This rulemaking is not economically significant.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This proposed rule would introduce new collection of information requirements in that the proposal, if made final, would require new information to be provided on existing NHTSA specified labels and Standard Forms. If made final, this proposed rule would result in the following changes to two collections of information for which NHTSA has obtained Collection of Information Clearances from OMB.
The first OMB approved collection of information that may be affected would be OMB Clearance No. 2127-0510 “Consolidated VIN Requirements and Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standards.” The clearance expires on March 21, 2008, and OMB has approved NHTSA to collect 1,535,249 hours (affecting 23,000,000 responses) under Clearance No. 2127-0510. As earlier stated, if made final, this proposed rule would require the affected 80 bus manufacturers to go through the process of creating VIN suffixes. Each of the bus manufacturers would obtain a manufacturer identifier, learn the final rule and change their certification label system. There would be the following one-time costs: one hour (at $40 an hour) to apply for the number, and eight hours (at $40 an hour) to learn the final rule; plus three days for a software programmer to set up the system (at $80 an hour). The total cost of this effort per bus manufacturer is $2,280 [(9 hours multiplied by $40 per hour = $360) + (24 hours multiplied by $80 per hour = 1,920) = $2,240]. NHTSA estimates the total one-time cost to be 80 manufacturers times $2,280 or $182,400.
NHTSA further estimates that adding more numbers to the VIN and certification labels will result in an additional cost of approximately $0.01 per bus and 1/3600 burden hours (one second) per bus. Using the information for the 2003 production year for school buses and mid-sized buses, NHTSA estimates that there are approximately 43,000 buses manufactured in two or more stages annually. Therefore, NHTSA estimates that if this proposed rule is made final, the total recurring cost to all bus manufacturers would be an increase of $430 (43,000 × $0.013) and approximately 12 hours (43,000 divided by
The second OMB approved collection of information that may be affected would be OMB Clearance No. 2127-0006 “Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).” The clearance expires on March 31, 2008, and OMB has approved NHTSA to collect 82,364 hours (affecting 38,309 responses) under Clearance No. 2127-0006. This clearance includes OMB approval for Standard Forms HS-214, HS-214A, HS-214B, and HS-214C.” As earlier stated, if made final, this proposed rule would require extra data to be collected on the approximately twelve bus crashes occurring each year that result in fatalities to bus passengers.
If this rule is made final, NHTSA would amend one or more of the approved Standard Forms to include the bus attributes earlier described in this notice. Those collecting the information at the crash site would include the extra information about the attributes of the bus in which a passenger died as a result of a crash. NHTSA believes that it would take the person filling out the report an extra minute to provide information about the bus attributes. Therefore, NHTSA estimates that if this proposed rule is made final, the total recurring collection of information burden on all those collecting information pursuant to FARS would be approximately 12 minutes (1 minute multiplied by 12 crashes) per year under Clearance No. 2127-0006.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary consensus standards
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). The final rule, if issued, would not require the expenditure of resources above and beyond $100 million annually.
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Please note that 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,
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
1. The authority citation for Part 567 would continue to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166, 32502, 32504, 33101-33104, 33108, and 33109; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 567.5 would be amended by adding new paragraph (c)(10) to read as follows:
(c)(10) In the case of a bus, the final stage manufacturer's descriptor in accordance with Part 584 of this chapter.
A new Part 584 would be added to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30141, 30146, 30166, and 30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
This part specifies format and content requirements for a suffix to the vehicle identification number (VIN) to simplify the identification of particular types of buses, facilitate the retrieval, comparison, and analysis of crash data, and increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns.
This part applies to buses manufactured in two or more stages.
(a) Each bus manufactured in two or more stages shall have a suffix to the vehicle identification number that is assigned by the bus body manufacturer.
(b) Each character in the final stage manufacturer suffix shall be one of the letters in the set: [ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ] or a numeral in the set: [0123456789]
Manufacturers and alterers of buses manufactured in two or more stages shall affix a unique (within the model type for each manufacturer) suffix after the VIN. This suffix shall be separated by a hyphen and be placed after the VIN on the vehicle certification label as shown in figure 1.
The final stage manufacturer's descriptor shall consist of 10 alphanumeric characters that shall be grouped as shown in figure 2:
(a) The first section shall consist of three alphanumeric characters that occupy positions one through three (1-3) in the final stage manufacturer suffix. This section shall uniquely identify the final stage manufacturer.
(b) The second section shall consist of a single alphanumeric character that occupies position four (4) in the final stage manufacturer suffix. This identifies the manufacturer's model and is assigned by the final stage manufacturer.
(c) The third section shall consist of a single digit that represents the gross vehicle weight rating of the bus in the as built configuration.
(d) The fourth section shall consist of a single alphanumeric character that occupies position six (6) in the final stage manufacturer suffix. This identifies the bus body length and seating configuration and is assigned by the manufacturer as per Table 1.
(e) The fifth section shall consist of sequence number that occupies positions seven through ten (7-10). This sequence identifies the body production sequence as assigned by the bus manufacturer.
(a) All requests for assignments of a final stage manufacturer identifier should be forwarded directly to: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, Attention: Bus Manufacturer's Coordinator.
(b) Manufacturers of vehicles subject to this part shall submit to NHTSA, either directly or through an agent, the unique descriptor for each make and model of vehicle it manufacturers at least 60 days before affixing the label to the first bus using the identifier.
(c) Manufacturers of vehicles subject to this part shall submit to NHTSA the information necessary to decipher the characters contained in its final stage manufacturer suffix. The agency will not routinely provide written approvals of these submissions, but will contact the manufacturer should any corrections to these submissions be necessary.
(d) The information required under paragraph (c) of this section shall be submitted at least 60 days prior to offering for sale the first bus identified by a final stage manufacturer suffix containing that information. The information shall be addressed to: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, Attention: Bus Manufacturer's Coordinator.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final notice.
This document proposes to adopt as a final notice add to the recommended manufacturing milk requirements (Recommended Requirements) by providing provisions for sheep milk, adding follow-up procedures used when plant-commingled milk in storage tanks exceeds the maximum allowable bacterial estimate, and providing a definition for heat-treated cream. The notice to add to the recommended manufacturing milk requirements (Recommended Requirements) was initiated at the request of the Dairy Division of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) and developed in cooperation with NASDA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), dairy trade associations, and producer groups. This document also proposes certain other changes to the Recommended Requirements for clarity and consistency.
Submit written or electronic comments on or before October 17, 2005.
You may use any of the following methods to file comments on this action:
Comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the
The current Recommended Requirements are available either from the above mailing address or by accessing the following internet address:
Reginald Pasteur, Marketing Specialist, Standardization Branch, Dairy Programs, AMS, USDA, telephone (202) 720-7473 or e-mail
Under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), the United States Department of Agriculture maintains a set of model regulations relating to quality and sanitation requirements for the production and processing of manufacturing grade milk. These Recommended Requirements are developed by AMS and recommended for adoption and enforcement by the various States that regulate manufacturing grade milk. The purpose of the model requirements is to promote uniformity in State dairy laws and regulations relating to manufacturing grade milk.
In consultation with representatives from NASDA, State regulatory agencies, FDA, and dairy industry trade associations, the Department prepared the Recommended Requirements to promote uniformity in State dairy laws and regulations for manufacturing grade milk. To accommodate changes that have occurred in the dairy industry, NASDA and various State officials have from time to time requested USDA to update the Recommended Requirements.
During its July 2003 annual meeting, the Dairy Division of NASDA passed resolutions requesting USDA to provide provisions for sheep milk, add follow-up procedures used when plant-commingled milk in storage tanks exceeds the maximum allowable bacterial estimate, and providing a definition for heat-treated cream. AMS reviewed these resolutions and developed a draft that identified the changes associated with this request. This draft was provided to State regulatory officials and dairy trade association representatives for informal discussion prior to publication in the
The requirements of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, were considered in developing this notice, and it has been determined that this action does not have federalism implications as defined under the executive order. This action does not have substantial effects on the States (the relationship between the national government and the States or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government). The adoption of the Recommended Requirements by State regulatory agencies is voluntary. States maintain the responsibility to establish dairy regulations and continue to have the option to establish regulations that are different from the Recommended Requirements. A State may choose to have requirements less restrictive or more stringent than the Recommended Requirements. Their decision to have different requirements would not affect the ability of milk producers to market milk or of procession plants to produce dairy products in their state. AMS is publishing this notice with a 60-day comment period to provide a sufficient time for interested persons to comment on the changes.
Based on the recommended requirements which were published in the
The definition of sheep milk will be to include:
The definition of water buffalo milk will be to include:
The definition of lactating animals will be to include: Section B2(l)(5)—Lactating animals are cows, goats, sheep, and water buffalo producing milk for manufacturing purposes.
The term “milk” will be to include:
The requirements for sheep milk somatic cell count will be to include:
The requirements for abnormal sheep milk will be to include:
The requirements for a sheep milking facility will include:
Ramps and platforms used to elevate the sheep for milking must be constructed of an impervious material such as steel (wooden platforms and ramps are not allowed). Rubber cow mats may be used as long as they are not placed over a wooden platform. Sheep are generally housed in a loose housing building near the milking parlor. This area should be kept reasonably clean. No excessive accumulation of manure is allowed. Complete separation between the sheep housing area and the sheep milking parlor is required if sheep milker units are stored in the parlor. Hogs and fowl shall not be housed with sheep.
The requirements for sheep milking procedure will include:
The requirements for cooling sheep milk will include:
A. Milk in plastic bags shall be cooled to 40 °F or lower within two hours of milking. Sheep milk shall be cooled to 45 degrees Fahrenheit or less within two (2) hours of milking. Cooling water used in bulk tanks in which bags of sheep milk are cooled shall be chlorinated. If milk is cooled by pouring into plastic bags and then floating the bags of milk in cooling water, the process must preclude contamination of the milk by the water. All water must be safe and of sanitary quality in accordance to Section D7.
B. Bags used to store frozen sheep milk shall be constructed of plastic that is listed under the NCIMS Certified Manufacturers of Single-Service Containers and Related Products.
C. Bags may be up to 5 gallons in size.
Each bag shall be numbered, dated, and identified with a patron name or number.
D. Frozen sheep milk should remain frozen at 0°F or less for a period not to exceed 12 months.
The requirements will include:
Natural and/or artificial light shall be provided in all working areas for conducting milkhouse operations. At least 20 foot candles of artificial light are required in a milking parlor. Parlors must be properly ventilated in order to prevent excessive condensation and odors. Light fixtures shall not be installed directly above bulk milk tanks, areas where milk may be strained, or areas where equipment is stored.
Requirements will include:
All containers and utensils must be free from breaks and corrosion, and points must be free from pits or cracks. Bulk tank and freezer thermometers should be accurate within ±2 degrees Fahrenheit.
All milk containers and equipment, including milking machine vacuum hoses, must be stored in the milkhouse. Milking equipment must be stored to assure complete drainage. Filters and single-service plastic bags shall be stored in the original container inside a protective box. Bags for milk storage must be stored in a manner which protects them from contamination. It is recommended they be stored in an enclosed cabinet.
Requirements will include:
A. All milk shall be held and processed under conditions and at temperatures that will avoid contamination and rapid deterioration. Drip milk from can washers or any other source shall not be used for the manufacture of dairy products. Bulk milk in storage tanks within the dairy plant shall be handled in such a manner as to minimize bacterial increase and shall be maintained at 45 degrees Fahrenheit or lower until processing begins. This does not preclude holding milk at higher temperatures for a period of time, where applicable to particular manufacturing or processing practices.
B. The bacterial estimate of commingled milk in plant storage tanks shall be 1 million per milliliter or lower.
C. During any consecutive six months, at least four samples of commingled raw milk for processing shall be taken by the regulatory agency from each plant.
D. A laboratory test of these samples to determine the bacterial estimate shall be performed at a laboratory approved by the regulatory agency.
E. Whenever a bacterial estimate of commingled milk in a plant indicates the presence of more than 1 million per milliliter, the following procedures shall be applied:
1. The regulatory agency shall notify plant management with a warning of excessive bacterial estimate and recommend that appropriate action be taken to eliminate the bacterial problem.
2. Whenever two of the last four consecutive commingled milk bacterial estimates exceed 1 million per milliliter, the regulatory agency shall notify plant management with a written warning notice. The notice shall be in effect so long as two of the last four consecutive samples exceed 1 million per milliliter. Plant management should continue to work to eliminate the bacterial problem.
3. An additional sample shall be taken by the regulatory agency after a lapse of 3 days but within 21 days of the notice required in paragraph (e)(1) of this section. If this sample also exceeds 1 million per milliliter, the plant license shall be suspended. A temporary status may be assigned to the plant by the appropriate regulatory agency when an additional sample of commingled milk is tested and found satisfactory. The plant shall be assigned a full reinstatement status when three out of four consecutive commingled bacterial estimates do not exceed 1 million per milliliter. The samples shall be taken at a rate of not more than two per week on separate days within a 3-week period.
The definition of heat-treated cream will be added to include:
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection in support of the regulations issued under the Animal Welfare Act governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research institutions, exhibitors, carriers, and intermediate handlers
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 17, 2005.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
• EDOCKET: Go to
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. 05-064-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 05-064-1.
For information regarding the regulations for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research institutions, exhibitors, carriers, and intermediate handlers, contact Dr. Jerry DePoyster, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234; (301) 734-7586. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.
The Act and regulations are enforced by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which performs unannounced inspections of regulated facilities. A significant component of the inspection process is review of records that must be
Facilities must make and maintain records that contain official identification for all dogs and cats and certification of those animals received from pounds, shelters, and private individuals. These records are used to ensure that stolen pets are not used for regulated activities. Dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities that acquire animals from nonlicensed persons are required to have the owners of the animals sign a certification statement verifying the owner's exemption from licensing under the Act. Records must also be maintained for animals other than dogs and cats when the animals are used for purposes regulated under the Act.
Research facilities must also make and maintain additional records for animals covered under the Act that are used for teaching, testing, and experimentation. This information is used by APHIS personnel to review the research facility's animal care and use program.
APHIS needs the reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in 9 CFR part 2 to enforce the Act and regulations. APHIS also uses the collected information to provide a mandatory annual Animal Welfare Enforcement report to Congress.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection technologies,
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Forest Service, USDA
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The USDA, Forest Service, will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effect of timber harvest and watershed restoration activities in the Yakus Creek project area on the Lochsa Ranger District of the Clearwater National Forest. The Yakus Creek project area is located in the Yakus Creek drainage, a tributary to Lolo Creek, approximately 12 air-miles eat of the town of Kamiah, Idaho.
This project was previously scoped in February 2004, and the comments received will be included in the documentation for the EIS. A 45-day public comment period will follow the release of the draft environmental impact statement that is expected in December 2005. The final environmental impact statement is expected in May 2006.
Written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of this project should be sent to Cindy Land (
George Harbaugh (
The Yakus Creek project area contains approximately 7,900 acres, of which 5,240 acres are National Forest lands and 2,660 acres are other ownership (State, timber companies, and private). The legal location is in portions of Sections 1, 2, 12, and 13, T33N, R5E; Sections 3-9, 17, and 18, T33N, R6E; Sections 25, 26, 35, and 36, T34N, R5E; and Sections 30-33, T34N, R6E, Boise Meridian, Idaho County, Idaho. The proposed actions would occur on National Forest lands and are all outside the boundaries of any inventoried roadless area or any areas considered for inclusion to the National Wilderness System as recommended by the Clearwater National Forest Plan or by any past or present legislative wilderness proposals.
Purpose and Need for Action is to: (1) Improve forest health and start the shift towards desired patch sizes by: (1) Shifting species composition from grand fir to white pine and western larch; (b) reducing tree densities in immature stands; (c) regenerating decadent mature stands; (d) regenerating stands with insect and root rot problems; (e) creating desired patches (300-500 acres) with timber harvest; and (f) connecting existing seedling/sapling stands, where possible; (2) restore watershed function to improve soil productivity and instream conditions; and (3) manage the landscape to provide for goods and services deemed important to society.
The Proposed Action would harvest timber through regeneration harvest and commercial thinning on approximately 670 acres of forestland within the Yakus Creek drainage. Regeneration harvest (520 acres) would leave approximately 20-25 trees per acre as individual trees and in groups, where feasible, to provide future snags and down woody material for wildlife habitat. Commercial thinning (150 acres) would reduce the basal area in dense timbered stands down to about 160-180 square feet. There is also an opportunity to precommercial thin approximately 1,620 acres of young stands scattered throughout the project area. Use of existing, temporary and permanent roads would be needed to access timber harvest areas. An estimated 1.8 miles of existing roads would be reconstructed in addition to 1.2 miles of new specified
The Possible Alternatives the Forest Service will consider include the “no action” alternative in which none of the proposed activities would be implemented. Additional alternatives being considered examine varying levels and locations for the proposed activities to achieve the proposal's purpose and need, as well as to respond to the issues and other resource concerns.
The Responsible Official is the Forest Supervisor of the Clearwater National Forest, 12730 Highway 12, Orofino, ID 83544. The Responsible Official will decide if the proposed project will be implemented and will document the decision and reasons for the decision in a Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations. The responsibility for preparing the DEIS and FEIS has been delegated to Cindy Lane, District Ranger, Lochsa Ranger District, Rt. 1 Box 398, Kooskia, ID 83539.
The Scoping Process was initiated with the release of a Scoping Letter on February 10, 2004. Comments received as a result of that effort will be included in the documentation for the EIS. Additional scoping will follow the release of the DEIS, expected in December 2005. This proposal also includes openings greater than 40 acres. A 60-day public review period and approval by the Regional Forester for exceeding the 40 acre limitation will occur prior to the signing of the Record of Decision. The 60-day public review period is initiated with this Notice of Intent.
Preliminary Issues that could be affected by proposal activities include: air quality; economics; grazing; heritage resources; old growth habitat; recreation access; risk of landslides; scenic quality; size of openings; snag habitat; spread of noxious weeds; threatened, endangered and sensitive species of wildlife, fish and plants; tribal treaty rights; and water quality.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency 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 draft environmental impact statements 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 environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.
Rural Telephone Bank, USDA.
Notice of Board approval of liquidation and dissolution of the Rural Telephone Bank.
In a meeting held August 4, 2005, the Board of Directors (Board) of the Rural Telephone Bank (Bank) approved resolutions to liquidate and dissolve the Bank, subject to lifting of the current statutory restriction limiting the amount of Government-owned Class A stock that the Bank can redeem. This notice is being published to ensure that all interested parties are informed of the details of the resolutions approved by the Board.
Jonathan P. Claffey, Assistant Secretary, Rural Telephone Bank, STOP 1590—Room 5151, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1590. Telephone: (202) 720-9556.
In a special meeting held on March 11, 2005, and during its regularly scheduled meeting held on May 4, 2005, the Board discussed the possibility of liquidating and dissolving the Bank. In its meeting on August 4, 2005, a resolution to liquidate and dissolve the Bank was passed unanimously by the Board. The full text of the resolution is presented with this notice including two attachments referenced within the resolution.
Additional information regarding the progress of the liquidation and dissolution of the Bank can be found at the Bank's Web site at
A request has been made to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Nevada Development Authority, grantee of FTZ 89, to remove certain zone-restricted merchandise (carpets from Iran - HTS 5701.10) from the zone to U.S. Customs territory. It was filed on August 5, 2005.
The Foreign-Trade Zones Board regulations provide that merchandise which has been given zone-restricted status (export only status) may be returned to the Customs territory of the United States if the FTZ Board
Public comment on the request is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses below:
1.
2.
The closing period for their receipt is October 17, 2005.
Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to November 1, 2005.
A copy of the request will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at address No.1 listed above and at Nevada Development Authority, 3733 Howard Hughes Pkwy., Suite 140 South, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board), by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 49, requesting authority to expand its zone to include a site in Kearny, New Jersey, within the Newark/New York Customs port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filed on August 9, 2005.
FTZ 49 was approved on April 6, 1979 (Board Order 146, 44 FR 22502, 4/16/79) and expanded on May 26, 1983 (Board Order 211, 48 FR 24958, 6/3/83); on October 23, 1987 (Board Order 365, 52 FR 41599, 10/29/87); on April 19, 1990 (Board Order 470, 55 FR 17478, 4/25/90); and, on December 15, 1999 (Board Order 1067, 64 FR 72642, 12/28/99).
The general-purpose zone project currently consists of five sites:
The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the general-purpose zone to include a site (407 acres, Proposed Site 6) within a 441-acre industrial area located at 100 Central Avenue in Kearny (Hudson County). The site is partially developed and is comprised of buildings totaling 5,500,000 square feet, and is used primarily for manufacturing, warehousing and distribution activities. The majority of the site is owned by River Terminal Properties, Inc. No specific manufacturing requests are being made at this time. Such requests would be made to the Board on a case-by-case basis.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses:
1.
2.
The closing period for the receipt is October 17, 2005. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to November 1, 2005).
A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available during this time for public inspection at the address Number 1 listed above, and at the U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 744 Broad Street, Suite 1505, Newark, NJ 07102.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by Jackson County, Oregon, grantee of FTZ 206, requesting special-purpose subzone status with manufacturing authority (X-ray film, color paper, digital media, inkjet paper, entertainment imaging, and health imaging) for the facilities of the Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak), located in White City and Medford, Oregon. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on August 5, 2005.
The facilities for which subzone status is proposed are on three sites (83.4 acres total; 359,901 sq. ft. of enclosed space) at the following locations: Site # 1 - 8124 Pacific Avenue in White City; Site # 2 - 2065 Lars Way in Medford; and Site # 3 - 2190 Joseph Street in Medford. The facilities (approximately 430 full- and part-time employees) would be used initially under FTZ procedures for manufacturing, processing, warehousing, and distributing “Dryview Laser Imaging Film” in bulk rolls and in packaged form (HTSUS categories 3921.90 and 9018.90, respectively, with duty rates ranging from duty-free to 4.2%
The application also requests authority to include a broad range of inputs and final products that the plant may produce under FTZ procedures in the future within the categories of X-ray film, color paper, digital media, inkjet paper, entertainment imaging (i.e., motion picture film, consumer film and related chemicals), and health imaging (
Zone procedures would exempt Kodak from Customs duty payments on foreign components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Kodak would be able to choose the lower duty rate that applies to the finished products for foreign components, when applicable. Kodak would also be able to avoid duty on foreign inputs which become scrap/waste, estimated at five percent of FTZ-related savings. Kodak may also realize logistical/procedural and other benefits from subzone status. All of the above-cited savings from zone procedures could help improve the plant's international competitiveness.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses:
The closing period for their receipt is October 17, 2005. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to November 1, 2005.
A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at address Number 1 listed above and at Jackson County, Office of the County Administrator, Room 214, 10 South Oakdale, Medford, Oregon 97501.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by CODEZOL, C.D., grantee of FTZ 163, requesting authority to expand FTZ 163, in the Ponce, Puerto Rico area, adjacent to the Ponce Customs port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filed on August 8, 2005.
FTZ 163 was approved on October 18, 1989 (Board Order 443, 54 FR 46097, 11/01/89) and expanded on April 18, 2000 (Board Order 1091, 65 FR 24676, 4/27/00) and June 9, 2005 (Board Order 1397, 70 FR 36117, 6/22/05). The zone project currently consists of the following sites in the Ponce, Puerto Rico, area:
The applicant is requesting authority to expand the zone to include an additional site in Cataño, located 5 miles from San Juan:
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses below:
1.
2.
The closing period for their receipt is October 17, 2005. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to November 1, 2005).
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at address No. 1 listed above and CODEZOL, C.D., 3309 Avenida Santiago de los Caballeros, Ponce, Puerto Rico 00734.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of August 2005.
Attest:
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to expand FTZ 167 is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and further subject to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall zone project.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of August 2005.
Attest:
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
August 18, 2005.
We preliminarily determine that imports of superalloy degassed chromium from Japan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. We will make our final determination within 75 days after the date of this preliminary determination.
Janis Kalnins or Minoo Hatten, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1392 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.
On March 24, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the antidumping investigation of superalloy degassed chromium from Japan.
On March 31, 2005, the Department issued quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to nine potential respondents. On April 19, 2005, we issued a memorandum to the file including the responses of eight of the nine companies from which we requested Q&V information.
On April 21, 2005, the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued its affirmative preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from Japan of superalloy degassed chromium.
On April 29, 2005, we issued Sections A, B, C, D, and E
The period of investigation is January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004.
The product covered by this investigation is all forms, sizes, and grades of superalloy degassed chromium from Japan. Superalloy degassed chromium is a high-purity form of chrome metal that generally contains at least 99.5 percent, but less than 99.95 percent, chromium. Superalloy degassed chromium contains very low levels of certain gaseous elements and other impurities (typically no more than 0.005 percent nitrogen, 0.005 percent sulphur, 0.05 percent oxygen, 0.01 percent aluminum, 0.05 percent silicon, and 0.35 percent iron). Superalloy degassed chromium is generally sold in briquetted form, as “pellets” or “compacts,” which typically are 11/2 inches x 1 inch x 1 inch or smaller in size and have a smooth surface. Superalloy degassed chromium is currently classifiable under subheading 8112.21.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This investigation covers all chromium meeting the above specifications for superalloy degassed chromium regardless of tariff classification.
Certain higher-purity and lower-purity chromium products are excluded from the scope of this investigation. Specifically, the investigation does not cover electronics-grade chromium, which contains a higher percentage of chromium (typically not less than 99.95 percent), a much lower level of iron (less than 0.05 percent), and lower levels of other impurities than superalloy degassed chromium. The investigation also does not cover “vacuum melt grade” (VMG) chromium, which normally contains at least 99.4 percent chromium and contains a higher level of one or more impurities (nitrogen, sulphur, oxygen, aluminum and/or silicon) than specified above for superalloy degassed chromium.
Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
In accordance with the preamble to our regulations (
On May 24, 2005, Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc. (Mitsui), submitted timely scope comments in which it argued that the Department should revise the language of the scope to clarify that chromium metal with a chromium content either below 99.5 percent or equal to or above 99.95 percent is excluded from the scope. On June 3, 2005, Eramet Marietta Inc. and Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (the petitioners) submitted rebuttal comments to Mitsui's scope comments. The petitioners argue that Mitsui's “proposed changes are contrary to the intent of the petition and would permit wholesale circumvention.” On June 10, 2005, Mitsui submitted rebuttal comments arguing that, contrary to the petitioners' assertions, creating a more finite scope definition is necessary to counteract circumvention. On June 24, 2005, the petitioners submitted rebuttal comments to Mitsui's June 10, 2005, submission, arguing against Mitsui's proposed changes to the scope of this investigation.
On May 24, 2005, Tosoh Corporation and Tosoh Specialty Material Corporation (collectively, Tosoh) submitted scope comments in which it argued that the following products produced and/or exported by Tosoh are outside the scope of the proceeding on superalloy degassed chromium: certain chromium sputtering targets and spent sputtering targets without a metal backing plate; certain chromium sputtering targets with a metal backing plate; certain chromium ingots; non-degassed chromium metal flakes. Tosoh claimed that the petitioners agreed with their assertion. In their June 1, 2005, submission, the petitioners agreed with Tosoh that it would be appropriate for the Department to determine that the above-mentioned products are outside the scope of the investigation. On August 4, 2005, the petitioners provided additional clarification with respect to their position on Tosoh's scope-clarification request.
We do not have the technical information at this time to determine whether clear chromium-content parameters exist which define superalloy degassed chromium. As such, we have not made a decision with respect to Mitsui's scope comments. Further, we continue to evaluate the scope comments with respect to Tosoh's scope-clarification request and the petitioners' August 4, 2005, suggested scope language.
The Department invites all interested parties to submit comments with respect to the scope by September 1, 2005, and rebuttal comments by September 7, 2005. Comments should be addressed to Import Administration's Central Records Unit at Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The period of scope consideration is intended to provide the Department with ample opportunity to consider all comments and consult with parties prior to the issuance of the final determination.
For the reasons discussed below, we determine that the use of adverse facts available (AFA) is appropriate for the preliminary determination with respect to JFE Material.
Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides that, if an interested party withholds information requested by the administering authority, fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information and in the form or manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in 782(i), the administering authority shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the administering authority determines that a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the administering authority shall promptly inform the responding party and provide an opportunity to remedy the deficient submission. Section 782(e) of the Act further states that the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.
In this case, JFE Material did not provide pertinent information we requested that is necessary to calculate an antidumping margin for the preliminary determination. Specifically, JFE Material did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, which is necessary for the Department to complete its calculations. Thus, in reaching our preliminary determination, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act, we have based JFE Material's dumping margin on facts otherwise available.
In applying the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the administering authority finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the administering authority, in reaching the applicable determination under this title, the administering authority may use an inference adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.
Adverse inferences are appropriate “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.”
Where the Department applies AFA because a respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to rely on information derived from the petition, a final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record.
When using facts otherwise available, section 776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on secondary information (such as the petition), it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal.
The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value.
For the purposes of this investigation, to the extent appropriate information was available, we reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition during our pre-initiation analysis.
For this preliminary determination, we examined evidence supporting the calculations in the petition to determine the probative value of the margins in the petition. In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we examined the key elements of the export-price and normal-value calculations on which the margins in the petition were based. We find that the estimated margin we set forth in the
Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or
Because the petition contained only one estimated dumping margin and the sole respondent did not provide a questionnaire response, there are no additional estimated margins available with which to create the all others rate.
In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of superalloy degassed chromium from Japan that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value. If our final antidumping determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine whether the imports covered by that determination are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the U.S. industry. The deadline for the Commission's determination would be the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the date of our final determination.
Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than 30 days after the publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs must be filed within five days after the deadline for submission of case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes.
Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in an investigation, the hearing normally will be held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. We will make our final determination within 75 days after the date of this preliminary determination.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of inquiry.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is seeking public comment on whether the operation of the Propane Education and Research Council (PERC), in conjunction with the cumulative effects of market changes and Federal programs, has had an effect on residential, agricultural, process and nonfuel users of propane. This notice of inquiry is part of an effort to collect information to fulfill requirements under the Propane Education and Research Act of 1996 that established PERC and requires the Secretary of Commerce to assess the impact of PERC's activities on propane consumers.
Comments on this notice must be submitted on or before September 19, 2005.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
E-mail:
Fax: (202) 482-0170 (Attn: Shannon Fraser);
Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Shannon Fraser, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Ave., NW., Suite 4053, Washington, DC 20230.
For questions on the submission of comments or to request copies of submitted comments, contact Shannon Fraser by telephone at (202) 482-3609, or e-mail at
The Propane Education and Research Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-284) established the Propane Education and Research Council to enhance consumer and employee safety and training, to provide for research and development of clean and efficient propane utilization equipment, and to inform and educate the public about safety and other issues associated with the use of propane.
Section 12 of the Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to prepare and submit to Congress and the Secretary of Energy a report examining whether operation of the Council, in conjunction with the cumulative effects of market changes and Federal programs, has had an effect on propane consumers, including residential, agriculture, process, and nonfuel users of propane. The Secretary of Commerce shall consider and, to the extent practicable, shall include in the report submissions by propane consumers, and shall consider whether: (1) There have been long-term and short-term effects on propane prices as a result of the Council's activities and Federal programs; and (2) whether there have been changes in the proportion of propane demand attributable to various market segments. If the Secretary of Commerce concludes that there has been an adverse effect related to the Council's activities, the Secretary of Commerce shall make recommendations for correcting the situation.
In order to assist in the preparation of this study, the Department is seeking public comment on the effect of PERC's operation, market changes and Federal programs on propane consumers. For information on the operation and programs of PERC, you may visit PERC's Web site at
The Department encourages interested persons who wish to comment to do so at the earliest possible time. The period for submission of comments will close on September 19, 2005. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them. All comments submitted in response to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying. All comments must be submitted to the Department through one of the methods listed under
The office does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. If you would like to view any comments received in response to this solicitation, please contact the individual listed in
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt of application and proposed authorization for an incidental take authorization; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Jacksonville District (Corps) for authorizations to take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to expanding and deepening the Port Sutton Navigation Channel in Tampa Harbor, FL (Port Sutton project). Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue a 1-year Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the Corps to incidentally take, by harassment, bottlenose dolphins (
Comments and information must be received no later than September 19, 2005.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Steve Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Species, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Md 20910. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments on this action is
Layne Bolen, NMFS, (301) 713-2289, ext 117.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and provided that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA now defines “harassment” as:
any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].
Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals.
On February 26, 2004, NMFS received a request from the Corps for an authorization to take bottlenose dolphins incidental to using blasting during enlargement of the Port Sutton Navigation Channel, a part of the Tampa Harbor Federal Navigation Project, in the northern portion of Tampa Bay, Hillsborough County, Florida. The purpose of the project is to enlarge the navigation channel to accommodate larger vessels and incorporate an additional channel segment into the Federal channel. Completion of the dredging project may employ blasting and/or a clamshell or cutterhead dredge. The dredging will remove approximately 900,000 cubic yards of material from the existing navigation channel and extension. The Corps proposes to widen the 3,930-ft (1,198-m) long navigation channel to 290 feet (88 m) bottom-width, deepen to 42 feet (13 m) at mean low-low water (mllw), and lengthen the channel to 6,195 ft (1,888 m) in length with the previously discussed dimensions. Material removed from the dredging will be placed in the existing upland dredged material management area CMDA-2D. The project is proposed to start in March, 2006 and last approximately 18 months.
The Corps expects the contractor to employ underwater confined blasting and dredging to construct the project. Blasting may have adverse impacts on bottlenose dolphins and manatees (
While the Corps does not presently have a blasting plan from the contractor, which will specifically identify the number of holes that will be drilled, the amount of explosives that will be used for each hole, the number of blasts per day (usually no more than 3/day), or the number of days the construction is anticipated to take to complete, the Corps submitted a description of a completed project in San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico as an example. For that project, the maximum weight of the explosives used for each event was 375 lbs (170 kg) and the contractors detonated explosives once or twice daily from July 16 to September 9, for a total of 38 individual detonations. Normal practice is for each charge to be placed approximately 5 - 10 ft (1.5 - 3 m) deep within the rock substrate, depending on how much rock needs to be broken and how deep a channel depth is authorized. The charges are placed in the holes and tamped with rock. Therefore, if the total explosive weight needed is 375 lbs (170 kg) and they have 10 holes, they would average 37.5 lbs (17.0 kgs)/hole. However, a more likely weight for this project may be only 90 lbs (41 kgs) total and, therefore, 9 lbs (4.1 kg)/hole. Charge weight and other determinations are expected to be made by the Corps and the contractor approximately 30-60 days prior to commencement of the construction project. Because the charge weight and other information is not presently available, NMFS will require the Corps to provide this information to NMFS, including calculations for impact/mitigation zones to protect marine mammals from injury, prior to commencing work. However, as described later in this document, mitigation measures will require the Corps to limit detonations to the minimum level necessary to accomplish the task and the larger the charge weight, the greater the safety zone that will be required to protect marine mammals.
While the Corps was coordinating with NMFS on the application and issuance of an IHA for the Miami Turning Basin in early 2003 (see 68 FR 32016, May 29, 2003), the Corps identified several additional Federal navigation projects that might need similar MMPA authorizations within the next few years, if confined blasting is used as a construction technique. To ensure consistency across MMPA authorizations for these dredging projects, and efficiency for both agencies, NMFS recommended that the Corps apply for these authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, instead of individually under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. This request was received on December 1, 2003. At this time the Miami Turning Basin project, the Alafia River project (see 69 FR 29693, May 25, 2004) and this project are proposed to be covered by the section 101(a)(5)(A) rulemaking. This rule, if implemented, and Letters of Authorization (LOA) issued under that rule, would replace the IHA process for these activities in the Jacksonville District. Each application for an LOA for additional projects within the Jacksonville District for confined blasting within the District would require separate public review and comment, prior to issuance of an LOA.
General information on marine mammal species found off the east coast of the United States can be found in Waring et al. (2001, 2002). These reports are available on the Internet at the following location:
Bottlenose dolphins and West Indian manatees are the only marine mammal species expected in the activity area. However, take authorizations for manatees are issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are not covered by this proposed IHA or any future rulemaking for LOAs issued by NMFS. Wang
The best estimate is that the Tampa Bay bottlenose dolphin population (which includes any dolphins within the Port Sutton project area) consists of 559 individuals (Wang
According to the Corps, bottlenose dolphins and other marine mammals have not been documented to be directly affected by dredging activities and therefore the Corps does not anticipate any incidental harassment of bottlenose dolphins by dredging. However, potential impacts to marine mammals from explosive detonations include both lethal and non-lethal injury, as well as Level B harassment. Marine mammals may be killed or injured as a result of an explosive detonation due to the response of air cavities in the body, such as the lungs and bubbles in the intestines. Effects are likely to be most severe in near-surface waters where the reflected shock wave creates a region of negative pressure called “cavitation.” This is a region of near total physical trauma within which no animals would be expected to survive. A second possible cause of mortality or lethal injury is the onset of extensive lung hemorrhage. Extensive lung hemorrhage is considered debilitating and potentially fatal. Suffocation caused by lung hemorrhage is likely to be the major cause of marine mammal death from underwater shock waves. The onset of extensive lung hemorrhage for marine mammals will vary depending upon the animal's weight, with the smallest mammals having the greatest potential hazard range.
NMFS has also established criteria for determining non-lethal injury (Level A harassment)and non-injurious harassment (Level B harassment) from underwater explosions (see 66 FR 22450, May 4, 2001). For non-lethal injury from explosives the criteria are established as the peak pressure that will result in: (1) the onset of slight lung hemorrhage, or (2) a 50-percent probability level for a rupture of the tympanic membrane. These are injuries from which animals would be expected to recover on their own.
Although each of the tamped charges are fairly small (probably less than the 37 lbs (16.8 kg) per drilled hole used in Puerto Rico) and detonation staggered to reduce total pressure, the maximum horizontal extent for mortality/lethal injury and non-lethal injury (Level A harassment), estimated based on the total charge weight (375 lbs in the case of Puerto Rico) would be less than 1875 ft (571 m) and 3750 ft (1143 m) respectively. As these distances are based on an open-water charge calculation, and as stemmed/confined blasts result in a significant decrease in the strength of the pressure wave released as compared to an open water blast, the zones for mortality and non-serious injury would be significantly less than these distances. As a result of these small impact zones, the relatively shallow waters for blasting, and the nature of bottlenose dolphins to remain in surface waters, the biological monitoring (aerial- and vessel-based) is expected to be effective in locating all marine mammals prior to them entering an area where injury or mortality might result and thereby preventing any takes by injury or mortality.
NMFS has also established dual criteria for what constitutes Level B acoustic harassment for all marine mammals by large scale detonations: (1) an energy-based temporary threshold shift (TTS) from received sound levels of 182 dB re 1 microPa
The Corps proposes to establish and monitor caution- and safety-zone radii to ensure that bottlenose dolphins will not be injured or killed during blasting and that impacts will be at the lowest level practicable. In the absence of acoustic measurements of the shock and pressure waves emanating from the detonations (due to the high cost and complex instrumentation needed), the following equations have been proposed by the Corps for blasting projects to determine zones for injury or mortality from an open water explosion and to
with radius (R) = 260 times or 520 times the cube root of the weight (W) of the explosive charge where R = radius of the zone in feet and W = weight of the explosive charge in lbs/delay. The Caution Zone represents the radius in feet from the detonation beyond which mortality would not be expected from an open-water blast. The Safety Zone is the approximate distance in feet beyond which injury (Level A harassment) is unlikely from an open-water explosion. These zones will be used for implementing mitigation measures to protect both marine mammals and sea turtles, although this activity area apparently does not include known sea turtle habitat.
These equations are believed to be conservative because they are based on (1) humans, who are more sensitive to the effects from the pressure wave of the detonation than are dolphins, and (2) unconfined charges while the proposed blasts in the Port Sutton channel will be confined (stemmed) charges (i.e., placed in a hole drilled in rock and tamped with rock). Studies (e.g., Nedwell and Thandavamoorthy, 1992) have shown that stemmed/confined blasts have a greater than 90 percent decrease in the strength of the pressure wave released as compared to an open water blast.
In the area where explosives are required to obtain channel design depth for each explosive charge, the Corps proposes that detonation will not occur if a marine mammal is sighted within the Safety Zone by a member of the marine mammal observer program.
Although the Caution Zone is considered to be an area for potential mortality, the Corps and NMFS believe that because all explosive charges will be stemmed, the true areas for potential mortality and injury will be significantly smaller than this area and, therefore, for reasons mentioned previously, it is unlikely that even non-serious injury will occur. This is particularly true in this case, since bottlenose dolphins are commonly found on the surface of the water and implementation of a mitigation/ monitoring program is unlikely to miss bottlenose dolphins in such a small area.
Additional mitigation measures that will significantly lower potential impacts to marine mammals (and sea turtles) include: (1) confining the explosives in a hole with drill patterns restricted to a minimum of 8 ft (2.44 m) separation from any other loaded hole; (2) restricting the hours of detonation from 2 hours after sunrise to 1 hour before sunset to ensure adequate observation of marine mammals in the safety zone; (3) staggering the detonation for each explosive hole in order to spread the explosive's total overpressure over time, which in turn will reduce the radius of the caution zone; (4) capping the hole containing explosives with rock in order to reduce the outward potential of the blast, thereby reducing the chance of injuring a dolphin or manatee; (5) matching, to the extent possible, the energy needed in the “work effort” of the borehole to the rock mass to minimize excess energy vented into the water column; and (6) conducting a marine mammal watch with no less than two qualified observers from a small water craft and/or an elevated platform on the explosives barge, at least 30 minutes before and continuing for 30 minutes after each detonation to ensure that there are no dolphins, manatees or sea turtles in the area at the time of detonation.
The Corps proposes to implement aerial and vessel-based observer monitoring programs. The vessel-based observer program will take place in a circular area at least three times the radius of the above described Caution Zone (called the watch zone). Detonation will not occur if a marine mammal or sea turtle is sighted within the safety zone and will be delayed until the animal(s) move(s) out of the safety zone on its own volition. The aerial and vessel-based marine mammal watch is proposed to be conducted for at least a half hour before and after the time of each detonation.
NMFS proposes to require the Corps to submit a report of activities 120 days before the expiration of the proposed IHA if the proposed work has started. This report will include the status of the work being undertaken, marine mammals sighted during the monitoring period, any behavioral observations conducted on bottlenose dolphins and any delays in detonation due to marine mammals being within the safety zone.
In the unlikely event a marine mammal or sea turtle is injured or killed during blasting, the Contractor shall immediately notify the NMFS Southeast Regional Office.
Under section 7 of the ESA, the Corps has determined that the Port Sutton blasting activities will have no effect on listed species. This finding is supported by documentation provided in the Corps' Port Sutton Environmental Assessment (EA).
The Corps prepared an EA on the Navigation Study for Tampa Harbor-Port Sutton Channel, Florida in September 2000 and made a finding of no significant impact (FONSI)on October 11, 2000. In addition, NMFS completed an EA and made a FONSI on the impacts of blasting activities in Florida waters on marine life, particularly bottlenose dolphins. Therefore, preparation of an EIS on this action is not required by section 102(2) of the NEPA or its implementing regulations. A copy of the NMFS EA and FONSI are available upon request (see
NMFS has preliminarily determined that the Corps' proposed action, including mitigation measures to protect marine mammals, should result, at worst, in the temporary modification in behavior by small numbers of bottlenose dolphins including temporarily vacating the Port Sutton Channel area to avoid the blasting activity and the potential for minor visual and acoustic disturbance from dredging and detonations. This action is expected to have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock of marine mammals. In addition, no take by injury or death is anticipated, and harassment takes will be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation measures described in this document.
NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the Corps for the harassment of small numbers of bottlenose dolphins incidental to expanding and deepening the Port Sutton Channel in Tampa Harbor, FL, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed activity would result in the harassment of only small numbers of bottlenose dolphins and will have no more than a negligible impact on this marine mammal stock.
NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments and information concerning this proposed IHA and the application for regulations request (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee will hold a public meeting.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Renaissance Philadelphia Airport, 500 Stevens Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19113; telephone 610-521-5900.
Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: 302-674-2331, ext. 19.
The purpose of this meeting is to solicit the Scientific and Statistical Committee's advice on technical information and management support tools, as well as, input on methods to acquire public assistance in goal setting for ecosystem based approaches to fisheries management.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Jan Saunders (302-674-2331 ext: 18) at the Council Office at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of public meeting.
The Council/BOF Interim Joint Protocol Committee will meet on August 30, 2005, in Anchorage, AK.
August 30, 2005, 10:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Hawthorn Suites, Ltd, 1110 West 8th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501
Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.
Council staff, Phone: 907-271-2809.
(1) Approval of the previous meetings minutes,
(2) Review of the State of Alaska's proposed pollock trawl fishery in the Jude Island area, and
(3) Committee discussion and recommendations for Council and Board of Fisheries action.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen at 907-271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Ad Hoc Groundfish Habitat Technical Review Committee will hold a working meeting on September 8-9. The meeting is open to the public.
The Ad Hoc Groundfish Habitat Technical Review Committee working meeting will begin Thursday, September 8 at 8 a.m. and may go into the evening or until business for the day is completed. The meeting will reconvene from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Friday, September 9.
The meetings will be at the following address: DoubleTree Hotel Seattle Airport, Cascade 13, 18740 International Blvd., Seattle, WA 98188; telephone 206-246-8600.
Dr. Christopher Dahl, NEPA Specialist, 503-820-2280.
The purpose of the Ad Hoc Groundfish Habitat Technical Review Committee meeting is to provide a technical review of the habitat suitability data used to support alternatives and analyses in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan Essential Fish Habitat Designation and Minimization of Adverse Impacts Final Environmental Impact Statement, currently in preparation by National Marine Fisheries Service. By holding a public meeting, the committee will provide opportunity for public participation in the review process. The committee will only consider technical and scientific questions and will not engage in policy discussions as part of its mission.
The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at 503-820-2280 at least 7 days prior to the meeting date.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
This collection has been split from collection 0651-0009 Trademark Processing to reflect the Trademark business processes and to make the collection smaller and more manageable. This collection will contain submissions regarding correspondence and regarding attorney representation.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by any of the following methods:
• E-mail:
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before September 19, 2005, to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
11 a.m., Friday, September 2, 2005.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, September 9, 2005.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, September 16, 2005.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
11 a.m., Friday, September 23, 2005.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
1 a.m., Friday, September 30, 2005.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance Matters.
Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
Notice; Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission—open meeting to receive public comment on the possible closure or realignment of Oceana Naval Air Station and various other base closure and realignment recommendations (Washington, DC).
Notice is hereby given that the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission will hold an open meeting on August 20, 2005 from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. at Senate Hart Hearing Room 216, Constitution Avenue, Washington DC 20510. The delay of this notice resulted from the short time-frame established by statute for the operations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, recent developments related to the possible closure or realignment of Oceana Naval Air Station, and the necessity of coordinating this meeting with a variety of Federal, State and local government officials. The Commission requests that the public consult the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Web site,
The Commission will meet to receive comment on the possible closure or realignment of Oceana Naval Air Station, Virginia Beach, Virginia, and various other recommendations for closure or realignment of installations. This meeting will be open to the public, subject to the availability of space.
August 20, 2005 from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Senate Hart Hearing Room 216, Constitution Avenue, Washington DC 20510.
Please see the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Web site,
Department of Defense, DOD.
Notice; Correction,
The Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment Project published a notice of meetings in the
LTC Rene Bergeron,
In the
August 17, 2005-1 p.m. to 6 p.m.
In the
LTC Rene Bergeron,
Department of Education.
The Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 17, 2005.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Information Management Case Services Team, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at her e-mail address
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 September 12, 2005.
A.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 12, 2005.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 1, 2005.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 12, 2005.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), 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 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
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access the HHS Web site address at
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 371-5983 or send an e-mail to
An Evaluation Survey on the Use and Effectiveness of Internet SAMMEC, (0920-0624)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Since 1987, CDC has used the Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Morbidity, and Economic Costs (SAMMEC) software to estimate the disease impact of smoking for the nation, states, and large populations. The Internet version of the SAMMEC software was released in 2002, and it contains two distinct computational programs, Adult SAMMEC and Maternal and Child Health SAMMEC, which can be used to estimate the adverse health outcomes and disease impact of smoking on adults and infants.
Since the release of Internet SAMMEC, more than 1,230 tobacco control professionals in the State health departments and other tobacco control institutions in the country have used SAMMEC to generate the data they need for their projects. Some of them have provided comments and sent requests for assistance. Of those using SAMMEC, 1,000 will be recruited for each of the 2 surveys planned over a three year period. Therefore, an average of 667 respondents will complete the survey annually.
The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the use and effectiveness of the SAMMEC software and identify ways to improve the system so that it will better meet the needs of the users in tobacco control and prevention. There are no costs to the respondents except for their time in completing the questionnaire. The estimated total annualized burden is 167 hours.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 371-5983 or send an e-mail to
Model Performance Evaluation Program (MPEP), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) MPEP OMB No. 0920-0680—Revision—Division of Laboratory Systems, Center for Health Information and Services (CoCHIS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
To support our mission of improving public health and preventing disease through continuously improving laboratory practices, the Model Performance Evaluation Program (MPEP), Division of Public Health Partnerships, Coordinating Center for Health Information and Services, in collaboration with the Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, intends to provide a new SARS-associated Coronavirus testing Model Performance Evaluation Program (SARS MPEP). This program will offer external performance evaluation (PE) for SARS antibody (Ab) testing and SARS Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) Reverse Transcriptase—Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing. A SARS outbreak or epidemic could recur at any time. Therefore, it is imperative that the CDC ensure all state public health department laboratories, Laboratory Response Network laboratories and other laboratories designated by CDC remain proficient in performing SARS testing. For this reason, it is of critical public health importance at this time, that the CDC develop and maintain a performance evaluation program for SARS. Participation in PE programs is expected to lead to improved SARS testing performance because participants have the opportunity to identify areas for improvement which will help to ensure accurate testing as a basis for development of SARS prevention and intervention strategies.
This external quality assessment program will be made available at
(1) assuring that the laboratories/testing sites are providing accurate tests through external quality assessment,
(2) improving testing quality through self-evaluation in a nonregulatory environment,
(3) testing well characterized samples from a source outside the test kit manufacturer,
(4) discovering potential testing problems so that laboratories/testing sites can adjust procedures to eliminate them,
(5) comparing individual laboratory/testing site results to others at state level, and
(6) consulting with CDC staff to discuss testing issues.
Participants in the MPEP SARS will be required to submit results twice a year after testing mailed performance evaluation samples.
There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 18.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-371-5983 and send comments to Seleda Perryman, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an e-mail to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
Nurse-Delivered Risk Reduction Intervention for HIV-Infected Women-New-National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Approximately 550 women will be screened for eligibility to participate in the study, and a minimum of 330 women from one or two sites will be recruited and administered baseline and follow-up behavioral risk assessments in a randomized wait-list comparison design with a 6-month follow-up period. That is, the intervention and comparison group will complete an assessment at the baseline and in 6 months a follow-up assessment will be conducted to compare behavior change. Six months after the intervention group has been provided the intervention and follow-up, women in the comparison group will receive the intervention. The assessments will capture information on demographics, risk behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge related to HIV/STD transmission and prevention. Semi-structured qualitative interviews will be conducted with a subgroup of 25-30 young, recently-diagnosed participants following their participation in the intervention study. These interviews will explore behavioral, social, and contextual conditions that may have contributed to the women's risk for HIV infection and ideas about preventing other women from becoming infected. The two behavioral assessments will take about 1 hour each to complete, the nurse-delivered intervention will take about 1 hour to complete, and the qualitative interviews will take about 2 hours to complete. The screening interview will take about 10 minutes to complete. There is no cost to respondents other than the time it takes them to participate.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-371-5983 and send comments to Seleda Perryman, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an e-mail to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden 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. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Adult and Pediatric HIV/AIDS Confidential Case Reports (OMB Control No. 0920-0573)—Revision-National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHSTP), Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC is seeking a 3-year approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to continue data collection of the HIV/AIDS case reports. CDC is proposing to collect additional data on testing history for improved monitoring of HIV incidence (HIV testing history pre-test and post-test data collection forms), on specimen quality and
The National Adult and Pediatric HIV/AIDS Confidential Case Reports are collected as part of the HIV/AIDS Surveillance System. CDC in collaboration with health departments in the states, territories, and the District of Columbia, conducts national surveillance for cases of HIV infection and AIDS, the end-stage of disease caused by infection with HIV. HIV/AIDS surveillance data collection by CDC is authorized under Sections 301 and 306 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241 and 242k).
Currently, 59 areas (states/territories/possessions) mandate and collect AIDS surveillance data. In addition, 43 areas currently mandate and collect confidential name-based surveillance data on HIV cases which have not progressed to AIDS in adults/adolescents and/or children using the HIV case report forms. We anticipate that over the next 3 years additional areas will mandate collection of name-based HIV surveillance data. Therefore, the estimated burden for the next 3 years is based on HIV case reporting in 59 areas. Respondents in this data collection are state, local, and territorial health departments. The purpose of HIV/AIDS surveillance data is to monitor trends in HIV/AIDS and describe the characteristics of infected persons (e.g., demographics, modes of exposure to HIV, clinical and laboratory markers of HIV disease, manifestations of severe HIV disease, and deaths due to AIDS). Because HIV infection results in untimely death and most often infects younger adults in the prime years of life, large amounts of federal, state, and local government funding have been allocated to address all aspects of HIV infection, including prevention and treatment. HIV/AIDS surveillance data are widely used at all government levels to assess the impact of HIV infection on morbidity and mortality, to allocate medical care resources and services, and to guide prevention and disease control activities.
HIV/AIDS reports are sent to state/local health departments by laboratories, physicians, hospitals, clinics, and other health care providers using standard adult and pediatric case report forms. Areas use a microcomputer system developed by CDC (the HIV/AIDS Reporting System, HARS) to store and analyze data, as well as transmit encrypted data to CDC. A Public Health Information Network (PHIN) compliant HIV reporting system is currently in development and is scheduled to replace HARS by 2007.
This request to OMB includes one modification to both the Adult/Adolescent and Pediatric HIV/AIDS confidential case report forms. The forms to be used during this period will include an additional blank space in the top and bottom portions of the forms. Areas could then have the option of using this space to assign a form number. This form number would be for local use only and not be reported to CDC.
The burden estimate for this renewal includes estimated burden for evaluations of HIV/AIDS surveillance based on these forms. In addition, the burden estimate also includes forms that will be used to collect additional data on testing history for the purpose of estimating HIV incidence. The availability of a serologic testing algorithm for recent HIV seroconversion (STARHS) allows surveillance systems to determine how many among a group of new diagnoses are from new infections. In order to derive a population-based estimate of HIV incidence based on data from those individuals who choose to have an HIV antibody test and who test positive (those reported to HIV surveillance systems), additional data are needed to assign statistical weights to individual STARHS results. These additional data include information on individual's reason for testing, the frequency with which he/she tests, place where he/she was tested, when he/she was most recently tested, when he/she was first tested, whether he/she has ever tested negative, and questions regarding use of HIV-related medicines.
The table also includes burden estimates of additional information on specimen quality and genotyping test results for drug resistance and HIV-1 subtypes as part of variant, atypical and resistant HIV surveillance (VARHS). These data will be reported to CDC by participating health departments for the purpose of calculating population-based estimates of prevalence of HIV drug resistance and HIV-1 subtypes among individuals with newly diagnosed HIV. These data are provided routinely by the testing laboratory to health departments requiring no additional data collection form.
No other Federal agency collects this type of national HIV/AIDS data. In addition to providing technical assistance for use of the case report forms, CDC also provides reporting areas with technical support for the HARS software. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
This program is authorized under Sections 301(a) and 307 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 241 and 242l], as amended, and under Public Law 108-25 (United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003) [U.S.C. 7601].
At present, confidential CT services in Rwanda are restricted primarily to health facilities, with limited availability in non-clinical settings. Schools have great potential to function as community resource centers for HIV/AIDS, particularly in those cases where, for multiple reasons, individuals are not presenting themselves for HIV testing at hospitals or health centers. When it has been used, mobile, confidential CT has proven to be a very effective approach in Rwanda; single-day testing campaigns have yielded as many as 12,000 persons tested.
With assistance from the World Bank, the United Kingdom, Department for International Development (DFID), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and other donors, the Rwandan Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) has recently completed the development of primary- and secondary-school curricula that integrate HIV/AIDS and life-skills lessons at each level of instruction. The Rwandan National Curriculum Development Center has approved the curricula and incorporated them into the training modules at Rwanda's teacher training colleges (TTC). The new textbooks will be distributed to schools in the near future. This is a valuable first step in ensuring that all students in Rwanda have an adequate knowledge base appropriate to their stage of physical, intellectual, and emotional development, with respect to HIV/AIDS prevention.
Under the Healthy Schools Initiative, HHS will introduce free, confidential mobile HIV testing to secondary schools through a culturally appropriate public campaign to target teachers, upper level secondary-school students, their families and community members. Building on the enthusiasm expressed by the Rwandan Minister of Education about a sector-wide confidential CT campaign, the mobile testing intervention will roll out in a top-down fashion, by starting with public HIV tests for the Minister and other MINEDUC officials and then branching out to secondary schools through Free CT days. Free CT days will involve dispatching a mobile CT unit to secondary schools to provide free, confidential testing for teachers, students, their families and community members. Prior to offering confidential CT at secondary schools, community preparation campaigns in school catchment areas will foster acceptance of community- and youth-centered confidential CT, and for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA).
Both a “prevention for negatives” component and linkages to the national care and treatment program for HIV infected persons will facilitate appropriate follow-up for all individuals tested through the initiative. Age-appropriate information, Education, and Communication (IEC) materials that emphasize behavior change will go out to all individuals who test negative in an effort to encourage abstinence and faithfulness as the best means of prevention. The program will forge linkages with the Rwandan national care and treatment program to ensure access to care and treatment for individuals who test positive. Specifically, local referrals to clinics providing care and treatment to HIV infected individuals, and anti-retroviral therapy (ART) to those who are eligible, will be provided to any individual who tests positive for HIV at any testing site. In addition, educational materials on HIV, ARTs, and strategies for reducing transmission of HIV will be provided to individuals testing positive.
Given that Rwandan law and government policy currently require parental consent for the testing of youth under the age of 18, it is crucial that the program develop appropriate linkages between the initiative's prevention and confidential CT interventions to engender parental support for youth CT. Such linkages might include the integration of a module on confidential CT into the parent-child communication curriculum, extracurricular sensitization activities with parents about the importance of knowing one's serostatus at any age, or national advocacy activities coordinated with MINEDUC's HIV/AIDS unit.
As part of the President's Emergency Plan, HHS seeks to build on MINEDUC's achievements in developing primary and secondary HIV curricula by introducing a culturally and age-appropriate competence-based behavior-change curriculum to emphasize abstinence and parent-child communication about HIV/AIDS. The curriculum will be founded on the conviction that the key to behavior change lies in: (1) The delivery of innovative, age- and culturally appropriate messages about HIV/AIDS behavior change; (2) the continual
HHS will be directly implementing the confidential CT component of the Healthy Schools Initiative: purchasing a mobile CT unit, test kits and client resource materials; providing fuel and per diem for mobile, confidential CT; and hiring and housing local confidential CT project staff within the HHS-Rwanda office. The grantee's involvement with the CT component will focus primarily on integrating awareness of confidential CT into the behavior-change curriculum through the development of a confidential CT module to target students and parents. The grantee will also work with HHS and USAID to harmonize deployment of the prevention and confidential CT components.
The Treatment and Research AIDS Center (TRAC) is the agency responsible for ensuring the quality of HIV CT services throughout Rwanda. The grantee will work with HHS and TRAC's voluntary counseling and testing (VCT) unit to organize and execute the mobile CT intervention in a manner that complies fully with Rwandan national norms and standards. HHS and the MINEDUC will consult with TRAC's care and treatment unit on the creation of linkages between the CT component and the Rwandan national care and treatment program, as well as on the development of reference materials for individuals who test positive.
Secondary-school teacher-trainers and peer educators will be key actors in the execution and delivery of the prevention and CT interventions. They will be chiefly responsible for communicating and reinforcing the culturally and age-appropriate behavior change messages; assisting students and parents in building core competencies (independent decision-making, abstinence negotiation, effective communication); and soliciting involvement of students and parents in extra-curricular activities relating to prevention and CT. The technical assistance provider will orient and train teacher-trainers in local languages in the delivery of the behavior change curriculum and train peer educators from anti-AIDS clubs to develop their skills as school and community advocates for behavior change and CT.
• Number of individuals trained in providing CT: Five
• Number of individuals who receive CT: 2,750
• Number of service outlets (schools) that provide CT: Ten
The prevention intervention will rollout at no fewer than 30 secondary schools in Year 1. The following targets have been set for prevention:
• Number of individuals reached through culturally and age-appropriate (school/community) outreach HIV/AIDS prevention programs that promote abstinence: 20,250.
• Number of individuals (teacher-trainers, teachers or peer educators) trained to deliver culturally and age-appropriate HIV/AIDS prevention programs that promote abstinence: 1,150.
HHS Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with one (or more) of the following performance goal(s) for the National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHSTP): Reduce the percentage of HIV/AIDS-related risk behaviors among school-aged youth through dissemination of HIV prevention education programs and, by 2010, work with other countries, international organizations, the U.S. Department of State, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and other partners to achieve the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS goal of reducing prevalence among persons 15 to 24 years of age.
Over the same time period, as part of a collective national response, the Emergency Plan goals specific to Rwanda are to treat at least 50,000 HIV-infected individuals and care for 250,000 HIV-affected individuals, including orphans.
This announcement is only for non-research activities supported by HHS. If applicant proposes research, we will not review the application. For the definition of research, please see the HHS/CDC web site at the following Internet address:
Applicants should describe activities in detail as part of a four-year action plan (U.S. Government Fiscal Years 2005-2008 inclusive) that reflects the policies and goals outlined in the five-year strategy for the President's Emergency Plan.
The awardee will produce an annual operational plan in the context of this four-year plan, which the U.S. Government Emergency Plan team on the ground in Rwanda will review as part of the annual Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Country Operational Plan review and approval process managed by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator. The awardee may work on some of the activities listed below in the first year and in subsequent years, and then progressively add others from the list to achieve all of the Emergency Plan performance goals, as cited in the previous section. HHS/CDC, under the guidance of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, will approve funds for activities on an annual basis, based on documented performance toward achieving Emergency Plan goals, as part of the annual Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Country Operational Plan review and approval process.
Awardee activities for this program are as follows:
1. Work closely with key partners and stakeholders in Rwanda, including the MINEDUC HIV/AIDS unit, TRAC, and HHS, to develop an implementation plan for the pilot phase of the initiative. This will require:
a. Identifying which schools/districts will participate in the CT and prevention interventions.
b. Determining the scope of work of each of the actors (school inspectors, teacher-trainers, teachers, peer educators) involved in the prevention intervention.
c. Determining the scope of work of each of the actors, TRAC, health educators, anti-AIDS clubs, involved in the promotion and execution of the CT intervention.
d. Developing a detailed work plan complete with interventions, milestones and a timeline for achieving prevention and CT targets.
2. Hire a local unit to manage the initiative. This unit will be responsible for the day-to-day implementation and management of CT and prevention activities at secondary schools and will report to the MINEDUC HIV/AIDS unit on a monthly basis.
Counseling and Testing:
1. Develop materials for distribution by health educators during Free CT days:
a. IEC materials promoting behavior change (individuals who test negative).
b. Reference materials on care and treatment options in Rwanda (individuals who test positive).
2. Collaborate with HHS, MINEDUC HIV/AIDS unit and TRAC to develop a mobile CT plan:
a. Develop a community preparation plan for schools and catchment areas.
b. Schedule and plan Free CT days at MINEDUC and ten target schools.
c. Estimate test kits, fuel and staff needed.
d. Identify and train staff needed for community preparation campaign and provide CT.
3. Initiate school- and community-based CT preparation campaign via anti-AIDS clubs and health educators in catchment areas.
Prevention:
1. Design/adapt a competence-based culturally and age-appropriate behavior change curriculum in local languages for secondary-school students that focuses on abstinence and parent-child communication about HIV, including CT.
2. Identify a cohort of teachers to serve as teacher-trainers, responsible for training all teachers at participating schools in the behavior change curriculum.
3. Train teacher-trainers in the delivery of the behavior change curriculum; ensure periodic supervision of:
a. Training for teachers and peer educators.
b. Delivery of curriculum to students and parents.
4. Assist MINEDUC in awarding small grants to anti-AIDS clubs for extra-curricular activities linked to abstinence and behavior change.
In a cooperative agreement, HHS staff is substantially involved in the program activities, above and beyond routine grant monitoring.
HHS-Rwanda will be directly managing and implementing the mobile CT component of the Healthy Schools Initiative. Principal activities to be carried out by HHS-Rwanda include the following:
1. Design and printing of resource materials for CT clients (
2. Hiring and placement of a local mobile CT management unit within the HHS-Rwanda office (this unit will consist of two youth counselor/trainers and one community mobilizer/trainer).
3. Design and execution of two-day community preparation campaigns in local languages in ten communities within Kigali City and Gitarama province (to target school administrators and teachers, local government officials and community leaders).
4. Recruitment and training of six volunteer community mobilizers and ten volunteer youth counselors.
5. Procurement of a mobile CT vehicle, test kits, and CT equipment and supplies.
6. Implementation of a pilot mobile CT campaign to target teachers, upper secondary-school students and community members in ten communities within Kigali City and Gitarama province (provision of counseling and testing services to at least 5,000 individuals).
The grantee's involvement with the CT component will focus primarily on integrating awareness of CT into the culturally and age-appropriate behavior change curriculum through the development of a CT module targeting students and parents. The grantee will also work with HHS to harmonize deployment of the prevention and CT components.
In a cooperative agreement, HHS staff is substantially involved in the program activities, above and beyond routine grant monitoring.
HHS Activities for this program are as follows:
1. Organize an orientation meeting with the grantee to brief them on applicable U.S. Government, HHS, and Emergency Plan expectations, regulations and key management requirements, as well as report formats and contents. The orientation could include meetings with staff from HHS agencies and the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
2. Review and approve the process used by the grantee to select key personnel and/or post-award subcontractors and/or subgrantees to be involved in the activities performed under this agreement, as part of the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Country Operational Plan review and approval process, managed by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
3. Review and approve grantee's annual work plan and detailed budget, as part of the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Country Operational Plan review and approval process, managed by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
4. Review and approve grantee's monitoring and evaluation plan, including for compliance with the strategic information guidance established by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
5. Meet on a monthly basis with grantee to assess monthly expenditures in relation to approved work plan and modify plans as necessary.
6. Meet on a quarterly basis with grantee to assess quarterly technical and financial progress reports and modify plans as necessary.
7. Meet on an annual basis with grantee to review annual progress report for each U.S. Government Fiscal Year, and to review annual work plans and budgets for subsequent year, as part of the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief review and approval process for Country Operational Plans, managed by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
8. Provide technical assistance, as mutually agreed upon, and revise annually during validation of the first and subsequent annual work plans. This could include expert technical assistance and targeted training activities in specialized areas, such as strategic information, project management, confidential counseling and testing, palliative care, treatment literacy, and adult learning techniques.
9. Provide in-country administrative support to help grantee meet U.S. Government financial and reporting requirements.
Either HHS staff or staff from organizations that have successfully competed for funding under a separate HHS contract, cooperative agreement or grant will provide technical assistance and training.
Throughout the project period, HHS' commitment to continuation of awards will be conditioned on the availability of funds, evidence of satisfactory progress by the recipient (as documented in required reports), and the determination that continued funding is in the best interest of the Federal Government, through the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief review and approval process for Country Operational Plans, managed by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
Domestic or foreign public, private nonprofit, and for profit organizations may submit applications, such as:
• Public, non-profit organizations
• Private, non-profit organizations
• For-profit organizations
• Small, minority, women-owned businesses
• Universities
• Colleges
• Research institutions
• Hospitals
• Community-based organizations
• Faith-based organizations
• Federally recognized Indian tribal governments
• Indian tribes
• Indian tribal organizations
• State and local governments or their Bona Fide Agents (this includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianna Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau)
• Political subdivisions of States (in consultation with States)
A Bona Fide Agent is an agency/organization identified by the state as eligible to submit an application under the state eligibility in lieu of a state application. If applying as a bona fide agent of a state or local government, a letter from the state or local government as documentation of the status is required. Place this documentation behind the first page of the application form.
Matching funds are not required for this program. Although matching funds are not required, preference will go to organizations that can leverage additional funds to contribute to program goals.
If you request a funding amount greater than the ceiling of the award range, HHS will consider your application non-responsive, and it will not enter into the review process. We will notify you that your application did not meet the submission requirements.
• HHS/CDC will consider late applications non-responsive. See section “IV.3. Submission Dates and Times” for more information on deadlines.
• Applications must demonstrate an overall match between the applicant's vision and experience and the program priorities as described.
• Applications must demonstrate that the applicant is capable of building effective and well-defined working relationships with local governmental and non-governmental entities, which will help ensure successful implementation of the proposed activities.
• Eligibility should be documented through an institutional capacity statement and letters of commitment from key project staff (to be included in an appendix to the application).
• Note: Title 2 of the United States Code Section 1611 states that an organization described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant, or loan.
To apply for this funding opportunity use application form PHS 5161-1.
If you do not have access to the Internet, or if you have difficulty accessing the forms on-line, contact the HHS/CDC Procurement and Grants Office Technical Information Management Section (PGO-TIM) staff at 770-488-2700. We can mail application forms to you.
• Maximum number of pages: 30. If your narrative exceeds the page limit, we will only review the first pages within the page limit. The budget and justification will not count toward the 30-page limit.
• Font size: 12 point unreduced
• Double-spaced
• Paper size: 8.5 by 11 inches
• Page margin size: One inch
• Printed only on one side of page
• Held together only by rubber bands or metal clips; not bound in any other way.
Your narrative should address activities to be conducted over the entire project period, and must include the following items in the order listed:
1. Goal and Objectives
a. Provide a goal statement relating to the project.
b. Enumerate measurable objectives by which to assess the success of your program.
2. Plan of Action/Methods
a. Detail how your organization will achieve the stated goals and objectives.
3. Timeline
a. Provide a timeline for the implementation of program activities.
4. Staff
a. Provide a list of staff that will be responsible for the implementation of this project.
5. Performance Measures and Methods of Evaluation
6. Summary Budget composed by line item, along with a budget justification. (This will not be counted against the stated page limit).
You may include additional information in the application appendices. The appendices will not be counted toward the narrative page limit. This additional information includes the following:
• Curriculum Vitas (CVs)/Resumes
• Organizational Charts
• Job descriptions of proposed key positions to be created for the activity
• Quality-Assurance, Monitoring-and-Evaluation, and Strategic-Information Forms
• Applicant's Corporate Capability Statement
• Letters of Support
• Evidence of Legal Organizational Structure
You must have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the Federal government. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access
For more information, see the HHS/CDC web site at:
If your application form does not have a DUNS number field, please write your DUNS number at the top of the first page of your application, and/or include your DUNS number in your application cover letter.
Additional requirements that could require you to submit additional documentation with your application are listed in section “VI.2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements.”
Explanation of Deadlines: Applications must be received in the CDC Procurement and Grants Office by 4 p.m. Eastern Time on the deadline date.
You may submit you application electronically at
If you submit your application electronically through Grants.gov (
If you submit your application by the United States Postal Service or commercial delivery service, you must ensure that the carrier will be able to guarantee delivery by the closing date and time. If HHS/CDC receives the submission after the closing date because: (1) Carrier error, when the carrier accepted the package with a guarantee for delivery by the closing date and time; or (2) significant weather delays or natural disasters, you will have the opportunity to submit documentation of the carrier's guarantee. If the documentation verifies a carrier problem, HHS/CDC will consider the submission as having been received by the deadline.
If you submit a hard copy application, HHS/CDC will not notify you upon receipt of the submission. If you have a question about the receipt of the application, first contact the carrier. If you still have a question, contact the PGO-TIM staff at (770) 488-2700. Before calling, please wait two to three days after the submission deadline. This will allow time for us to process and log submissions.
This announcement is the definitive guide on application content, submission address, and deadline. It supersedes information provided in the application instructions. If your submission does not meet the deadline above, it will not be eligible for review, and we will discard it. We will notify you that you did not meet the submission requirements.
Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program.
Restrictions, which you must take into account while writing your budget, are as follows:
• Funds may not be used for research.
• Reimbursement of pre-award costs is not allowed.
• Funds may be spent for reasonable program purposes, including personnel, travel, supplies, and services. Equipment may be purchased if deemed necessary to accomplish program objectives; however, prior approval by HHS/CDC Rwanda officials must be requested in writing.
• All requests for funds contained in the budget shall be stated in U.S. dollars. Once an award is made, HHS/CDC will not compensate foreign grantees for currency exchange fluctuations through the issuance of supplemental awards.
• The costs that are generally allowable in grants to domestic organizations are allowable to foreign institutions and international
• The applicant may contract with other organizations under this program; however, the applicant must perform a substantial portion of the activities (including program management and operations, and delivery of prevention services for which funds are required).
• You must obtain annual audit of these HHS/CDC funds (program-specific audit) by a U.S.-based audit firm with international branches and current licensure/ authority in-country, and in accordance with International Accounting Standards or equivalent standard(s) approved in writing by HHS/CDC.
• A fiscal Recipient Capability Assessment may be required, prior to or post award, in order to review the applicant's business management and fiscal capabilities regarding the handling of U.S. Federal funds.
• Needle Exchange—No funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
Any entity that receives, directly or indirectly, U.S. Government funds in connection with this document (“recipient”) cannot use such U.S. Government funds to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be construed to preclude the provision to individuals of palliative care, treatment, or post-exposure pharmaceutical prophylaxis, and necessary pharmaceuticals and commodities, including test kits, condoms, and, when proven effective, microbicides.
A recipient that is otherwise eligible to receive funds in connection with this document to prevent, treat, or monitor HIV/AIDS shall not be required to endorse or utilize a multisectoral approach to combating HIV/AIDS, or to endorse, utilize, or participate in a prevention method or treatment program to which the recipient has a religious or moral objection. Any information provided by recipients about the use of condoms as part of projects or activities that are funded in connection with this document shall be medically accurate and shall include the public health benefits and failure rates of such use.
In addition, any recipient must have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. The preceding sentence shall not apply to any “exempt organizations” (defined as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the World Health Organization and its six Regional Offices, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative or to any United Nations agency).
The following definition applies for purposes of this clause:
• Sex trafficking means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act. 22 U.S.C. 7102(9).
All recipients must insert provisions implementing the applicable parts of this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities,” in all subagreements under this award. These provisions must be express terms and conditions of the subagreement, must acknowledge that compliance with this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities,” is a prerequisite to receipt and expenditure of U.S. government funds in connection with this document, and must acknowledge that any violation of the provisions shall be grounds for unilateral termination of the agreement prior to the end of its term. Recipients must agree that HHS may, at any reasonable time, inspect the documents and materials maintained or prepared by the recipient in the usual course of its operations that relate to the organization's compliance with this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities.”
All prime recipients that receive U.S. Government funds (“prime recipients”) in connection with this document must certify compliance prior to actual receipt of such funds in a written statement that makes reference to this document (
Recipients' compliance with this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities,” is an express term and condition of receiving U.S. Government funds in connection with this document, and any violation of it shall be grounds for unilateral termination by HHS of the agreement with HHS in connection with this document prior to the end of its term. The recipient shall refund to HHS the entire amount furnished in connection with this document in the event HHS determines the recipient has not complied with this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities.”
You may find guidance for completing your budget on the HHS/CDC Web site, at the following Internet address:
HHS/CDC recommends that you submit your application to Grants.gov early enough to resolve any unanticipated difficulties prior to the deadline. You may also submit a back-up paper submission of your application. We must receive any such paper submission in accordance with the requirements for timely submission detailed in Section IV.3. of the grant announcement. You must clearly mark the paper submission: “BACK-UP FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION.”
The paper submission must conform to all requirements for non-electronic submissions. If we receive both electronic and back-up paper submissions by the deadline, we will consider the electronic version the official submission.
We strongly recommended that you submit the grant application by using Microsoft Office products (
Applicants must provide measures of effectiveness that will demonstrate the accomplishment of the various identified objectives of the cooperative agreement. Measures of effectiveness must relate to the performance goals stated in the “Purpose” section of this announcement. Measures must be objective and quantitative, and must measure the intended outcome. Applicants must submit these measures of effectiveness with the application and they will be an element of evaluation.
Your application will be evaluated against the following criteria:
Does the applicant demonstrate an understanding of the national cultural and political context and the technical and programmatic areas covered by the project? Does the applicant display knowledge of the five-year strategy and goals of the President's Emergency Plan, such that it can build on these to develop a comprehensive, collaborative project to reach underserved populations in Rwanda and meet the goals of the Emergency Plan? Is the plan well-articulated and adequate to carry out the proposed objectives? How realistic and appropriate is the plan, given local conditions and challenges? Does the plan include process and outcome indicators? Does the application include an overall design strategy, including measurable time lines, clear monitoring and evaluation procedures, and specific activities for meeting the proposed objectives?
Are the proposed methods feasible? Do they reflect a spirit of cooperation with other key agencies and organizations in Rwanda? Does the applicant describe a plan to progressively build the capacity of local organizations and of target beneficiaries and communities to respond to the epidemic?
Do the staff members have relevant programmatic experience working in resource-limited settings and the ability to work in local languages? Are staff roles clearly articulated? As described, will the staff be sufficient to accomplish the program goals?
Does the applicant provide a clear plan for the administration and management of the proposed activities, to manage the resources of the program, prepare reports, monitor and evaluate activities and audit expenditures?
The HHS/CDC Procurement and Grants Office (PGO) staff will review applications for completeness, and HHS Global AIDS program will review them for responsiveness. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not advance through the review process. Applicants will receive notification that their application did not meet submission requirements.
An objective review panel will evaluate complete and responsive applications according to the criteria listed in the “V.1. Criteria” section above. All persons who serve on the panel will be external to the U.S. Government Country Program Office. The panel may include both Federal and non-Federal participants.
In addition, the following factors could affect the funding decision:
While U.S.-based organizations are eligible to apply, we will give preference to existing national/Rwandan organizations. It is possible for one organization to apply as lead grantee with a plan that includes partnering with other organizations, preferably local. Although matching funds are not required, preference will be go to organizations that can leverage additional funds to contribute to program goals.
Applications will be funded in order by score and rank determined by the review panel. HHS/CDC will provide justification for any decision to fund out of rank order.
Anticipated award date: September 15, 2005.
Successful applicants will receive a Notice of Award (NoA) from the HHS/CDC Procurement and Grants Office. The NoA shall be the only binding, authorizing document between the recipient and HHS/CDC. An authorized Grants Management Officer will sign the NoA, and mail it to the recipient fiscal officer identified in the application.
Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review by mail.
For more information on the Code of Federal Regulations, see the National Archives and Records Administration at the following Internet address:
The following additional requirements apply to this project:
• AR-4 HIV/AIDS Confidentiality Provisions
• AR-5 HIV Program Review Panel Requirements
• AR-6 Patient Care
• AR-8 Public Health System Reporting Requirements
• AR-12 Lobbying Restrictions
• AR-14 Accounting System Requirements
• AR-15 Proof of Non-Profit Status
• AR-21 Small, Minority, and Women-Owned Business
• AR-23 States and Faith-Based Organizations
Applicants can find additional information on the requirements on the HHS/CDC Web site at the following Internet address:
You need to include an additional Certifications form from the PHS5161-1 application in the Grants.gov electronic submission only. Please refer to
You must provide HHS/CDC with an original, plus two hard copies of the following reports:
1. Interim progress report, due no less than 90 days before the end of the budget period. The progress report will serve as your non-competing continuation application, and must contain the following elements:
a. Current Budget Period Activities Objectives.
b. Current Budget Period Financial Progress.
c. New Budget Period Program Proposed Activity Objectives.
d. Budget.
e. Measures of Effectiveness, including progress against the numerical goals of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief for Rwanda.
f. Additional Requested Information.
2. Annual progress report, due 60 days after the end of the budget period. The progress report will follow the format developed jointly by the U.S. Government and the Government of Rwanda, consisting of interventions, milestones, timelines, status explanations and budget expenditures to date.
3. Financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period.
4. Final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
Recipients must mail these reports to the Grants Management or Contract Specialist listed in the “Agency Contacts” section of this announcement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this announcement.
For general questions, contact: Technical Information Management Section, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-2700.
For program technical assistance, contact: Valerie Koscelnik, Project Officer, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, Address: HHS/CDC/US Embassy, Kigali, Rwanda, Telephone: +250 08303986, E-mail:
For financial, grants management, or budget assistance, contact: Shirley Wynn, Grants Management Specialist, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-1515, E-mail:
Applicants can find this and other HHS funding opportunity announcements on the HHS/CDC web site, Internet address:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the intent to fund fiscal year (FY) 2005 funds for a cooperative agreement program to provide improved HIV prevention, care, and treatment in Vietnam through support and development of national laboratory systems, and implementation of surveillance and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this program is 93.067.
Assistance will be provided only to the Vietnamese National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology (NIHE). No other applications are solicited.
The award specifically aims to use existing capacity through NIHE to aid in providing Viet Nam with increased laboratory capability, including developing a national reference laboratory and quality-assurance and quality-control systems (QA/QC); improving national surveillance and M&E through routine and special projects; and developing a national action plan, and other surveillance activities, as necessity dictates. Currently, the NIHE is the single institute in Viet Nam sanctioned by the Vietnamese Government to conduct laboratory activities, and, thus, the only appropriate and qualified organization to conduct this specific set of activities supportive of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
In addition, NIHE is uniquely positioned in terms of legal authority and credibility among Vietnamese health institutions to provide national surveillance and laboratory leadership in the area of HIV/AIDS prevention and control. NIHE has already established mechanisms to provide national laboratory leadership, and national surveillance and M&E activities, which enables it to immediately become engaged in the activities listed in this announcement.
NIHE is organizationally within the Vietnamese MOH, and can effectively coordinate and implement HIV prevention and care activities supported by the MOH and its other agencies. Although other Vietnamese Government Ministries are involved in HIV prevention and care, currently most activities occur through the MOH.
Approximately $500,000 is available in FY 2005 to fund this award September 15, 2005, and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to five years. Funding estimates may change.
For general comments or questions about this announcement, contact: Technical Information Management, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone: 770-488-2700.
For program technical assistance, contact: S. Patrick Chong, Deputy Director, Global AIDS Program [GAP], Vietnam National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], U.S. Embassy Hanoi, 7 Lang Ha, Hanoi, Vietnam, Telephone: +84 (4) 831-4580, ext. 215, E-mail:
For financial, grants management, or budget assistance, contact: Vivian Walker, Grants Management Specialist, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Mail stop: E-14, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-2724, E-mail:
This program is authorized under sections 301(a) and 307 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 241 and 2421], as amended, and under Public Law 108-25 (United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003) [U.S.C. 7601].
Over the same time period, as part of a collective national response, the Emergency Plan goals specific to Zambia are to treat at least 120,000 HIV-infected individuals and care for 600,000 HIV-affected individuals, including orphans.
The HIV/AIDS epidemic poses a health and developmental crisis for Zambia. The prevalence of infection in the general population was estimated at 16 percent in the last Demographic and Health Survey, though infection rates vary from more than 23 percent in urban areas to 11 percent in rural areas. It is estimated that more than 900,000 Zambians are currently living with HIV, and more than 200,000 are in need of specific anti-retroviral treatment (ART). The Government of Zambia has instituted an ART program in the public sector, and has set a goal of 100,000 on ART by the end of 2005. There are over 22,000 people currently on ART in Zambia in both the public and private sectors, with support of co-operating partners such as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Emergency Plan), the Global Fund and the World Bank. However, for the majority of Zambians living with HIV, the primary type of HIV/AIDS care and support available is psychosocial support, non-ART health care and home-based care.
Tuberculosis (TB) represents a major public health problem in Zambia, and notification rates in the country have increased more than fivefold in the last 20 years. According to the World Health Organization, the estimated notification rate for TB in Zambia is 668/100,000, which makes it one of the countries with the highest burden of the disease. The increase in cases stems, in the main part, from co-infection with HIV. Based on studies carried out in Lusaka, the capital city, HIV co-infection rates for newly diagnosed pulmonary TB cases are 50-70 percent, with much higher rates of infection in extra-pulmonary cases.
The Government of Zambia has adopted the Directly Observed Treatment Strategy (DOTS) for the management of TB. Direct observation of treatment occurs through health facilities in close collaboration with community members, who function as treatment supporters. Logistical problems, such as shortage of trained health personnel; long distances to health centers, especially in rural areas; poor road and transportation networks; and a high proportion of bed-ridden TB patients from co-infection with HIV make this method of supervising treatment the most practical.
With the more widespread availability of ART, the role of community treatment supporters for TB is a possible mechanism to provide support to patients on ART, to enhance adherence to treatment. The Zambian Central Board of Health, with technical and financial support from HHS, has developed a manual for the training of community treatment supporters. To increase the number of treatment supporters, the winning applicant will implement a training-of-trainers program, with specific emphasis on the mission hospitals that provide over 50 percent of formal health care in rural Zambia. The trainers will, in turn, train community members to support TB/HIV patients. Logistical support will go to the treatment supporters to enable them to carry out their supportive activities, along with support to the mission hospitals to improve the care and treatment provided to people living with HIV/AIDS.
Under the leadership of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, as part of the President's Emergency Plan, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) works with host countries and other key partners to assess the needs of each country and design a customized program of assistance that fits within the host nation's strategic plan.
The purpose of the program is to enhance the role and involvement of community-level DOTS volunteers in supporting the treatment and management of TB/HIV co-infected patients and people living with HIV/AIDS in rural health facilities.
The U.S. Government seeks to reduce the impact of HIV/AIDS in specific countries within sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and the Americas through the President's Emergency Plan. Through this initiative, the HHS Global AIDS Program (GAP) will continue to work with host countries to strengthen capacity and expand activities in the areas of: (1) Primary HIV prevention; (2) HIV care, support, and treatment; and (3) capacity and infrastructure development. Focus countries represent those with the most severe epidemics and the highest number of new infections. They also represent countries where the potential for impact is greatest and where U.S. Government agencies are already active. Zambia is one of these focus countries.
To carry out its activities in these countries, HHS is working in a collaborative manner with national governments and other agencies to develop programs of assistance to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. As part of the President's Emergency Plan, HHS' mission in Zambia is to work with the Ministry of Health (MOH) and its partners to develop and apply effective interventions to prevent and treat HIV infection and associated illnesses and death from AIDS.
Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with one (or more) of the following performance goal(s) for the National Center for HIV, Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) and Tuberculosis (TB) Prevention (NCHSTP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within HHS: By 2010, work with other countries, international organizations, the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other partners to achieve the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS goal of reducing prevalence among young people 15 to 24 years of age. In addition, the measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with the goals of the President's Emergency Plan to prevent seven million new HIV infections, provide care for ten million people including orphans and vulnerable children, and place two million people on anti-retroviral treatment.
This announcement is only for non-research activities supported by HHS, including the CDC. If an applicant proposes research activities, HHS will not review the application. For the definition of research, please see the HHS/CDC Web site at the following Internet address:
Applicants should describe activities in detail as part of a four-year action plan (U.S. Government Fiscal Years 2005-2008 inclusive) that reflects the policies and goals outlined in the five-year strategy for the President's Emergency Plan.
The awardee will produce an annual operational plan in the context of this four-year plan, which the U.S. Government Emergency Plan team on the ground in Zambia will review as part of the annual Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Country Operational Plan review and approval process managed by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator. The awardee may work on some of the activities listed below in the first year and in subsequent years, and then progressively add others from the list to achieve all of the Emergency Plan performance goals, as cited in the previous section. HHS/CDC, under the guidance of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, will approve funds for activities on an annual basis, based on documented performance toward achieving Emergency Plan goals, as part of the annual Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Country Operational Plan review and approval process.
Awardee Activities for this program are as follows:
1. Improve the capacity for rural hospitals and health care centers to provide quality treatment for TB/HIV through promoting the supervision of TB treatment and ART by using trained community volunteers.
2. Train a core of trainers for the community treatment supporters in the districts.
3. Provide on-going supportive supervision in local languages to the community treatment supporters to ensure quality care and adherence to treatment protocols.
4. Provide logistics, such as bicycles and home-based care kits, to support the community treatment supporters in their provision of care in the community.
In a cooperative agreement, HHS staff is substantially involved in the program activities, above and beyond routine grant monitoring.
HHS Activities for this program are as follows:
1. Organize an orientation meeting with the grantee to brief them on applicable U.S. Government, HHS, and Emergency Plan expectations, regulations and key management requirements, as well as report formats and contents. The orientation could include meetings with staff from HHS agencies and the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
2. Review and approve the process used by the grantee to select key personnel and/or post-award subcontractors and/or subgrantees to be involved in the activities performed under this agreement, as part of the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Country Operational Plan review and approval process, managed by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
3. Review and approve grantee's annual work plan and detailed budget, as part of the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Country Operational Plan review and approval process, managed by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
4. Review and approve grantee's monitoring and evaluation plan, including for compliance with the strategic information guidance established by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
5. Meet on a monthly basis with grantee to assess monthly expenditures in relation to approved work plan and modify plans as necessary.
6. Meet on a quarterly basis with grantee to assess quarterly technical and financial progress reports and modify plans as necessary.
7. Meet on an annual basis with grantee to review annual progress report for each U.S. Government Fiscal Year, and to review annual work plans and budgets for subsequent year, as part of the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief review and approval process for Country Operational Plans, managed by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
8. Provide technical assistance, as mutually agreed upon, and revise annually during validation of the first and subsequent annual work plans. This could include expert technical assistance and targeted training activities in specialized areas, such as strategic information, project management, confidential counseling and testing, palliative care, treatment literacy, and adult learning techniques.
9. Provide in-country administrative support to help grantee meet U.S. Government financial and reporting requirements.
Either HHS staff or staff from organizations that have successfully competed for funding under a separate HHS contract, cooperative agreement or grant will provide technical assistance and training.
Throughout the project period, HHS' commitment to continuation of awards will be conditioned on the availability of funds, evidence of satisfactory progress by the recipient (as documented in required reports), and the determination that continued funding is in the best interest of the Federal Government, through the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief review and approval process for Country Operational Plans, managed by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
To meet the eligibility criteria for this program announcement, applicants must be indigenous to Zambia and have at least 10 years experience providing health care.
Applicants must be umbrella bodies of non-governmental organizations that have the role of representation and advocacy, resource mobilization, technical support as well as administrative and logistical support for affiliated organizations, including faith-based organizations.
Applicants must have demonstrated experience in managing an AIDS care and prevention program in faith-based hospitals and run other related programs such as a TB program, malaria control program as well as a Primary Health Care program that includes the training of community health workers and traditional birth attendants.
Applicants must have a Grant Management Unit that manages sub-grants and capacity building of NGOs that work in remote and under-served districts in partnership with the Zambian District Health Management teams.
Preference will go to applicants that have a demonstrated track record of successfully managing funds from the Global Fund and other multilateral and bilateral donors.
Matching funds are not required for this program.
If you request a funding amount greater than the ceiling of the award range, HHS will consider your application non-responsive, and it will not enter into the review process. We will notify you that your application did not meet the submission requirements.
• HHS/CDC considers late applications non-responsive. See section “IV.3. Submission Dates and Times” for more information on deadlines.
• Note: Title 2 of the United States Code Section 1611 states that an organization described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant, or loan.
To apply for this funding opportunity use application form PHS 5161-1.
If you do not have access to the Internet, or if you have difficulty accessing the forms on-line, contact the HHS/CDC Procurement and Grants Office Technical Information Management Section (PGO-TIM) staff at 770-488-2700. We can mail application forms to you.
• Maximum number of pages: 25. If your narrative exceeds the page limit, we will only review the first pages within the page limit.
• Font size: 12 point unreduced.
• Double spaced.
• Paper size: 8.5 by 11 inches.
• Page margin size: One inch.
• Printed only on one side of page.
• Held together only by rubber bands or metal clips; not bound in any other way.
• Application must be written in English.
The narrative should address activities to be conducted over the entire project period, and must include the following items in the order listed:
• Goals and Objectives, including Project Contribution to the Goals and Objectives of the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
• Work Plan and Description of Project Components and Activities.
• Timeline.
• Staffing Plan, with Level of Effort.
• Performance Measures and Methods of Evaluation.
• Summary Budget composed by line item, along with a budget justification. (This will not be counted against the stated page limit).
You may include additional information in the application appendices. The appendices will not count toward the narrative page limit. This additional information includes:
• Curriculum Vitas (CVs)/Resumes.
• Organizational Charts.
• Job descriptions of proposed key positions to be created for the activity.
• Quality-Assurance, Monitoring-and-Evaluation, and Strategic-Information Forms.
• Applicant's Corporate Capability Statement.
• Letters of Support.
• Evidence of Legal Organizational Structure.
You must have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the Federal government. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access
For more information, see the HHS/CDC Web site at:
If your application form does not have a DUNS number field, please write the DUNS number at the top of the first page of the application, and/or include the DUNS number in the application cover letter.
Additional requirements that could require you to submit additional documentation with the application are listed in section “VI.2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements.”
You may submit your application electronically at
If you submit your application electronically through Grants.gov (
If you submit your application by the United States Postal Service or commercial delivery service, you must ensure the carrier will be able to
If you submit a hard copy of the application, HHS/CDC will not notify you upon receipt of the submission. If you have a question on the receipt of the application, first contact your courier. If you still have a question, contact the PGO-TIM staff at (770) 488-2700. Before calling, please wait two to three days. This will allow time for us to process and log submissions.
This announcement is the definitive guide on application content, submission address, and deadline. It supersedes information provided in the application instructions. If your submission does not meet the deadline above, it will not be eligible for review, and we will discard it. We will notify you that you did not meet the submission requirements.
Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program.
Restrictions, which you must take into account while writing your budget, are as follows:
• Funds may not be used for research.
• Reimbursement of pre-award costs is not allowed.
• Funds may be spent for reasonable program purposes, including personnel, travel, supplies, and services. Equipment may be purchased if deemed necessary to accomplish program objectives; however, prior approval by HHS/CDC officials must be requested in writing.
• All requests for funds contained in the budget shall be stated in U.S. dollars. Once an award is made, HHS/CDC will not compensate foreign grantees for currency exchange fluctuations through the issuance of supplemental awards.
• The costs that are generally allowable in grants to domestic organizations are allowable to foreign institutions and international organizations, with the following exception: With the exception of the American University, Beirut, and the World Health Organization, Indirect Costs will not be paid (either directly or through sub-award) to organizations located outside the territorial limits of the U.S. or to international organizations, regardless of their location.
• The applicant may contract with other organizations under this program; however the applicant must perform a substantial portion of the activities (including program management and operations, and delivery of prevention services for which funds are required).
• You must obtain an annual audit of these HHS/CDC funds (program-specific audit) by a U.S.-based audit firm with international branches and current licensure/authority in-country, and in accordance with International Accounting Standards or equivalent standards(s) approved in writing by HHS/CDC.
• A fiscal Recipient Capability Assessment may be required, prior to or post award, in order to review the applicant's business management and fiscal capabilities regarding the handling of U.S. Federal funds.
• Funds received from this announcement will not be used for the purchase of antiretroviral drugs for treatment of established HIV infection (with the exception of nevirapine in Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission (PMTCT) cases and with prior written approval), occupational exposures, and non-occupational exposures and will not be used for the purchase of machines and reagents to conduct the necessary laboratory monitoring for patient care.
• No funds appropriated under this act shall be used to carry out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
The U.S. Government is opposed to prostitution and related activities, which are inherently harmful and dehumanizing, and contribute to the phenomenon of trafficking in persons.
Any entity that receives, directly or indirectly, U.S. Government funds in connection with this document (“recipient”) cannot use such U.S. Government funds to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be construed to preclude the provision to individuals of palliative care, treatment, or post-exposure pharmaceutical prophylaxis, and necessary pharmaceuticals and commodities, including test kits, condoms, and, when proven effective, microbicides.
A recipient that is otherwise eligible to receive funds in connection with this document to prevent, treat, or monitor HIV/AIDS shall not be required to endorse or utilize a multisectoral approach to combating HIV/AIDS, or to endorse, utilize, or participate in a prevention method or treatment program to which the recipient has a religious or moral objection. Any information provided by recipients about the use of condoms as part of projects or activities that are funded in connection with this document shall be medically accurate and shall include the public health benefits and failure rates of such use.
In addition, any recipient must have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. The preceding sentence shall not apply to any “exempt organizations” (defined as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the World Health Organization and its six Regional Offices, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative or to any United Nations agency).
The following definition applies for purposes of this clause:
• Sex trafficking means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act. 22 U.S.C. 7102(9).
All recipients must insert provisions implementing the applicable parts of this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities,” in all subagreements under this award. These provisions must be express terms and conditions of the subagreement, must acknowledge that compliance with this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities,” is a prerequisite to receipt and expenditure of U.S. government funds in connection with this document, and must acknowledge that any violation of the provisions shall be grounds for unilateral termination of the agreement prior to the end of its term. Recipients must agree that HHS may, at any reasonable time, inspect the documents and materials maintained or prepared by the recipient in the usual course of its operations that relate to the organization's compliance with this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities.”
All prime recipients that receive U.S. Government funds (“prime recipients”) in connection with this document must certify compliance prior to actual receipt of such funds in a written statement that makes reference to this document (
Recipients' compliance with this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities,” is an express term and condition of receiving U.S. Government funds in connection with this document, and any violation of it shall be grounds for unilateral termination by HHS of the agreement with HHS in connection with this document prior to the end of its term. The recipient shall refund to HHS the entire amount furnished in connection with this document in the event HHS determines the recipient has not complied with this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities.”
You may find guidance for completing your budget on the HHS/CDC Web site, at the following Internet address:
HHS/CDC recommends that you submit your application to
You must clearly mark the paper submission: “BACK-UP FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION.”
The paper submission must conform to all requirements for non-electronic submissions. If we receive both electronic and back-up paper submissions by the deadline, we will consider the electronic version the official submission.
We strongly recommended that you submit your grant application using Microsoft Office products (
Applicants must provide measures of effectiveness that will demonstrate the accomplishment of the various identified objectives of the cooperative agreement. Measures of effectiveness must relate to the performance goals stated in the “Purpose” section of this announcement. Measures must be objective and quantitative, and must measure the intended outcome. Applicants must submit these measures of effectiveness with the application, and they will be an element of evaluation.
The application will be evaluated against the following criteria:
Does the applicant demonstrate an understanding of the national cultural and political context and the technical and programmatic areas covered by the project? Does the applicant display knowledge of the five-year strategy and goals of the President's Emergency Plan, such that it can build on these to develop a comprehensive, collaborative project to reach underserved populations in Zambia and meet the goals of the Emergency Plan? Does the applicant demonstrate a clear and concise understanding of the nature of the problems to be addressed as described in the Purpose section of this announcement? This includes a description of the planned activities to be undertaken and a detailed presentation of the objectives of the proposal.
Does the application include an overall design strategy, including measurable timelines, clear monitoring and evaluation procedures and specific activities for meeting the proposed objectives? Does the applicant describe a plan to progressively build the capacity of local organizations and of target beneficiaries and communities to respond to the epidemic?
Is the staff involved in this project qualified to perform the tasks described? CVs provided should include information that they are qualified in the following: management of HIV/AIDS prevention activities in local languages, especially confidential voluntary counseling and testing; and development of capacity-building among and collaboration between governmental and NGO partners. Are the staff roles clearly defined?
Does the applicant provide a clear plan for the administration and management of the proposed activities, to manage the resources of the program, prepare reports, monitor and evaluate activities and audit expenditures?
Does the applicant present a detailed budget with clear justifications for all line items and consistent with the proposed activities and objectives of the proposal, and with the five-year strategy and goals of the President's Emergency Plan and Emergency Plan activities in Zambia?
The HHS/CDC Procurement and Grants Office (PGO) staff will review applications for completeness, and HHS Global AIDS program will review them for responsiveness. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not advance through the review process. Applicants will receive notification that their application did not meet submission requirements.
An objective review panel will evaluate complete and responsive applications according to the criteria listed in the “V.1. Criteria” section above. All persons who serve on the panel will be external to the U.S. Government Country Program Office. The panel may include both Federal and non-Federal participants.
In addition, the following factors could affect the funding decision:
It is possible for one organization to apply as lead grantee with a plan that includes partnering with other organizations, preferably local. Although matching funds are not required, preference will be go to organizations that can leverage additional funds to contribute to program goals.
Applications will be funded in order by score and rank determined by the review panel. HHS/CDC will provide justification for any decision to fund out of rank order.
September 15, 2005.
Successful applicants will receive a Notice of Award (NoA) from the HHS/CDC Procurement and Grants Office. The NoA shall be the only binding, authorizing document between the recipient and HHS/CDC. An authorized Grants Management Officer will sign the NoA, and mail it to the recipient fiscal officer identified in the application.
Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review by mail.
For more information on the Code of Federal Regulations, see the National Archives and Records Administration at the following Internet address:
The following additional requirements apply to this project:
• AR-4—HIV/AIDS Confidentiality Provisions
• AR-6—Patient Care
• AR-10—Smoke-Free Workplace Requirements
Applicants can find additional information on these requirements on the HHS/CDC Web site at the following Internet address:
You need to include an additional Certifications form from the PHS5161-1 application needs in the Grants.gov electronic submission only. Please refer to
You must provide HHS/CDC with an original, plus two hard copies of the following reports:
1. Interim progress report, due no less than 90 days before the end of the budget period. The progress report will serve as your non-competing continuation application, and must contain the following elements:
a. Current Budget Period Activities Objectives.
b. Current Budget Period Financial Progress.
c. New Budget Period Program Proposed Activity Objectives.
d. Budget.
e. Measures of Effectiveness, including progress against the numerical goals of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief for Zambia.
f. Additional Requested Information.
2. Financial status report no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period.
3. Quarterly progress reports.
4. Final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
5. Annual progress report, due no more than 60 days after the end of the budget period. Reports should include progress against the numerical goals of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief for Zambia.
Recipients must mail these reports to the Grants Management or Contract Specialist listed in the “Agency Contacts” section of this announcement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this announcement.
For general questions, contact: Technical Information Management Section, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-2700.
For program technical assistance, contact: Marc Bulterys, Project Officer, 1600 Clifton Road MS E-04, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: 011 260 1 250 955 ext 246, E-mail:
For financial, grants management, or budget assistance, contact: Shirley Wynn, Grants Management Specialist, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770 488-1515, E-mail:
Applicants can find this and other HHS funding opportunity announcements on the HHS/CDC Web site, Internet address:
This program is authorized under Sections 301 and 307(k)(2) of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. Sections 241 and 2421)], as amended, and under Public Law 108-25 (United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003)[22 U.S.C. 7601].
Over the same time period, as part of a collective national response, the Emergency Plan goals specific to Namibia are to treat at least 23,000 HIV-infected individuals; and care for 115,000 HIV-affected individuals, including orphans.
The Namibian Government has publicly acknowledged the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and its human and societal cost. The Namibian Government has elevated the fight against HIV/AIDS to a top priority, including by rolling out anti-retroviral therapy (ART) and the
The United States Government seeks to reduce the impact of HIV/AIDS and related conditions in specific countries within sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and the Americas to strengthen capacity and expand activities in the areas of (1) HIV primary prevention; (2) HIV care, support, and treatment; and (3) capacity and infrastructure development, especially for strategic information, including surveillance. Targeted countries represent those with the most severe epidemics and the highest number of new infections. They also represent countries where the potential for impact is greatest, and where U.S. Government agencies are already active. Namibia is one of these targeted countries.
Under the leadership of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, as part of the President's Emergency Plan, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) works with host countries and other key partners to assess the needs of each country and design a customized program of assistance that fits within the host nation's strategic plan.
This program will enhance and expand nationwide access to and use of services for VCT, PMTCT, and comprehensive HIV/AIDS care, including cotrimoxazole prophylaxis, IPT TB/HIV, and ART in Namibia.
HHS focuses on two or three major program areas in each country. Goals and priorities include the following:
• Achieving primary prevention of HIV infection through activities such as expanding confidential counseling and testing programs, building programs to reduce mother-to-child transmission, and strengthening programs to reduce transmission via blood transfusion and medical injections.
• Improving the care and treatment of HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and related opportunistic infections by improving STD management; enhancing care and treatment of opportunistic infections, including tuberculosis (TB); and initiating programs to provide anti-retroviral therapy (ART).
• Strengthening the capacity of countries to collect and use surveillance data and manage national HIV/AIDS programs by expanding HIV/STD/TB surveillance programs and strengthening laboratory support for surveillance, diagnosis, treatment, disease-monitoring and HIV screening for blood safety.
The HHS cooperative agreement, with technical assistance from HHS/CDC and the MoHSS, will provide assistance to recruit suitably qualified and experienced (preferably Namibian) individuals to meet Emergency Plan objectives. A local human resource provider (HRP) identifies and recruits candidates on behalf of the interview committee, which will consist of personnel from the MoHSS and HHS/CDC.
These collaborative activities could profoundly affect the ability to meet the goals and objectives of the Third National Medium Term Plan (2004-2009) in Namibia, which is the National Strategic Plan on HIV/AIDS, and the President's Emergency Plan. Cooperative efforts could lead to greater use of confidential voluntary counseling and testing (VCT) in all areas of the country; and increase enrollment in comprehensive HIV/AIDS care, including cotrimoxazole prophylaxis, isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT), anti-retroviral therapy (ART) for adults and children, and programs to prevent mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) throughout the nation.
To carry out its activities in these countries, HHS is working in a collaborative manner with national governments and other agencies to develop programs of assistance to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. HHS” program of technical assistance to Namibia focuses on capacity-building in several areas to scale up promising prevention and care strategies, such as VCT, PMTCT, ART, Tuberculosis/HIV, and laboratory services.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC), within the Department of Health and Human Services, announces the availability of Fiscal Year 2005 funds for a cooperative agreement to assist with building human resource capacity within the Ministry of Health and Social Services (MoHSS) in Namibia for roll-out of ART and PMTCT of HIV.
Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with the numerical goals of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and one or more of the following performance goals for the CDC National Center for HIV, Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Tuberculosis Prevention (NCHSTP) within HHS: By 2010, work with other countries, international organizations, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other partners to achieve the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS goal of reducing prevalence among persons 15 to 24 years of age; reduce HIV transmission; and improve care of persons living with HIV.
This announcement is only for non-research activities supported by HHS, including the CDC. If an applicant proposes research activities, HHS will not review the application. For the definition of “research,” please see the HHS/CDC Web site at the following Internet address:
The recipient of these funds is responsible for activities in multiple program areas designed to target underserved populations in Namibia. Either the awardee will implement activities directly or will implement them through its subgrantees and/or subcontractors; the awardee will retain overall financial and programmatic management under the oversight of HHS/CDC and the strategic direction of the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator. The awardee must show a measurable progressive reinforcement of the capacity of indigenous organizations and local communities to respond to the national HIV epidemic, as well as progress towards the sustainability of activities.
Applicants should describe activities in detail as part of a four-year action plan (U.S. Government Fiscal Years 2005-2008 inclusive) that reflects the policies and goals outlined in the five-year strategy for the President's Emergency Plan.
The grantee will produce an annual operational plan in the context of this four-year plan, which the U.S. Government Emergency Plan team on the ground in Namibia will review as part of the annual Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Country Operational Plan review and approval process managed by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator. The grantee may work on some of the activities listed below in the first year and in subsequent years, and then progressively add others from the list to achieve all of the Emergency Plan performance goals, as cited in the previous section.
HHS/CDC, under the guidance of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, will approve funds for activities on an
Awardee activities for covering all program areas are as follows:
1. The HRP will advertise and recruit for a short-list of potential candidates for the positions of an estimated 27 physicians, 15 nurses, 15 pharmacists and 15 medical data-entry clerks. Specific activities are as follows:
a. Advertise and recruit for professional staff.
b. Draft advertisements for approval by HHS and the Namibian MoHSS, and advertise in local languages in three Namibian newspapers.
c. Set up interviews with a short list of candidates.
d. Develop a compensation package consistent with the MoHSS employment package.
2. Hiring of Professional Staff.
a. Hire and administer a monthly salary and benefits package for each health professional hired, using a standard employment contract in conformance with Namibian labor legislation and the hiring policies of the MoHSS.
b. Set up a computerized personnel administration file, medical aid, pension plan, and social security payments for Namibian nationals and non-Namibian nationals.
c. In concert with HHS and the Namibian MoHSS, compile the necessary documentation and process residency permits for employment of foreign nationals in Namibia.
d. Register individuals with the Namibian Social Security Commission and the Ministry of Finance for tax purposes.
e. Assist with professional registration, establishment of bank accounts, arrangements for accommodation, moving of personal effects, schooling of dependents and other settling-in activities, as required.
3. Personnel Support and Human Resource Management.
a. Maintain personnel records and addresses, with all personnel-related matters, on a professional and consistent basis.
b. Contact selected candidates and offer employment within the agreed scope of work and in accordance with the relevant Namibian labor legislation, including processing remuneration packages with copies to HHS and the Namibian MoHSS and the individual.
c. Electronic transfer of paycheck in local currency to personal banking accounts.
d. Process tax calculations and make monthly payments to the Social Security Commission.
e. Process medical aid calculations and make monthly payments to an approved medical aid fund (currently, Namibian Health Plan).
f. Process all pension calculations and benefits.
g. Provide monthly HR reports to HHS and MoHSS.
h. Issue annual Pay as You Earn (PAYE) certificates to individuals, and tax returns to the Namibian Ministry of Finance.
i. Under the guidance of the Namibian MoHSS and HHS staff, liaise with targeted health facilities as personnel are assigned to promote smooth introductions of the professionals.
j. Ensure the new recruits participate in appropriate HHS and Namibian MoHSS training, maintaining performance evaluation records, providing assistance in any disciplinary action in concert with MoHSS and reporting results to HHS and the Namibian MoHSS.
k. At the beginning and end of their contract, arrange relocation, and travel assistance for foreign nationals and their dependents with the necessary documentation, if applicable, for repatriation, and arrange transportation for airport pick-up and departures.
Based on its competitive advantage and proven field experience, the winning applicant will undertake a broad range of activities to meet the numerical Emergency Plan targets outlined in this announcement.
Awardee must comply with all HHS management requirements for meeting participation and progress and financial reporting for this cooperative agreement (see HHS Activities and Reporting sections below for details), and comply with all policy directives established by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
In a cooperative agreement, HHS staff is substantially involved in the program activities, above and beyond routine grant monitoring.
HHS activities for this program are as follows:
1. Collaborate with the applicant, the Namibian Ministry of Health and other in-country and international partners to assess, plan, implement and monitor activities under the cooperative agreement, including, but not limited to, providing technical assistance and training in monitoring and evaluation (M&E), based on the country needs, the HHS technical assistance portfolio, strategic-information guidance established by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, and HIV laboratory activities conducted by other partners.
2. Furnish consultants from HHS headquarters, the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator or other U.S. Government institutions to assist with program planning, implementation and monitoring.
3. Make available manuals, guidelines, and other related materials developed by HHS Namibia or other HHS programs for similar projects.
4. Facilitate in-country planning and review meetings for ensuring coordination of country-based program technical assistance activities.
5. Act as liaison and assist in coordinating activities as required, between the applicant and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Government of Namibia organizations, and other HHS partners.
6. Develop criteria to evaluate and select hospital sites that require designated health professionals, in collaboration with the Namibian MoHSS.
7. Actively participate in the recruitment process by assessing health professionals' skills and technical requirements.
8. Match health professionals' skills, training, and experience with specific hospitals to facilitate technically viable placements.
9. Provide technical guidelines and instructions to contracted health professionals to build capacity for VCT, PMTCT, and ART.
10. Direct HRP in adapting to the Namibian context, including, but not limited to design; program materials; quality assurance; monitoring and evaluation; and providing recommendations.
11. Direct HRP in adapting to the Namibian context, including, but not limited to design; program materials; quality assurance; monitoring and evaluation; and providing recommendations.
12. Develop performance-evaluation criteria for health professionals, including semi-annual and annual performance evaluations.
13. Monitor project and personnel performance.
14. Monitor budget to ensure cost-effective placement and timely financial reporting.
15. Organize an orientation meeting with the grantee to brief them on applicable U.S. Government, HHS, and Emergency Plan expectations, regulations and key management requirements, as well as report formats and contents. The orientation could
16. Review and approve the process used by the grantee to select key personnel and/or post-award subcontractors and/or subgrantees to be involved in the activities performed under this agreement, as part of the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Country Operational Plan review and approval process, managed by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
17. Review and approve grantee's annual work plan and detailed budget, as part of the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Country Operational Plan review and approval process, managed by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
18. Review and approve grantee's monitoring and evaluation plan, including for compliance with the strategic information guidance established by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
19. Meet on a monthly basis with grantee to assess monthly expenditures in relation to approved work plan and modify plans as necessary.
20. Meet on a quarterly basis with grantee to assess quarterly technical and financial progress reports and modify plans as necessary.
21. Meet on an annual basis with grantee to review annual progress report for each U.S. Government Fiscal Year, and to review annual work plans and budgets for subsequent year, as part of the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief review and approval process for Country Operational Plans, managed by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
22. Provide technical assistance, as mutually agreed upon, and revise annually during validation of the first and subsequent annual work plans. This could include expert technical assistance and targeted training activities in specialized areas, such as strategic information, project management, confidential counseling and testing, palliative care, treatment literacy, and adult learning techniques.
23. Provide in-country administrative support to help grantee meet U.S. Government financial and reporting requirements.
Please note: Either HHS staff or staff from organizations that have successfully competed for funding under a separate HHS contract, cooperative agreement or grant will provide technical assistance and training.
Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with the following performance goals for the Emergency Plan:
Number of individuals trained to provide HIV prevention interventions, including abstinence, faithfulness, and, for populations engaged in high-risk behaviors,
1. Abstinence (A) and Be Faithful (B).
• Number of community outreach and/or mass media (radio) programs that are A/B focused.
• Number of individuals reached through community outreach and/or mass media (radio) programs that are A/B focused.
1. Confidential counseling and testing.
• Number of patients who accept confidential counseling and testing in a health-care setting.
• Number of clients served, direct.
• Number of people trained in confidential counseling and testing, direct, including health-care workers.
2. Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC).
• Number of service outlets/programs, direct and/or indirect.
• Number of clients (OVC) served, direct and/or indirect.
• Number of persons trained to serve OVC, direct.
3. Palliative Care: Basic Health Care and Support.
• Number of service outlets/programs that provide palliative care, direct and/or indirect.
• Number of service outlets/programs that link HIV care with malaria and tuberculosis care and/or referral, direct and/or indirect.
• Number of clients served with palliative care, direct and/or indirect.
• Number of persons trained in providing palliative care, direct.
• Number of clients enrolled in ART, direct and indirect.
• Number of persons trained in providing ART, direct.
• Number of persons trained in strategic information, direct.
• Project-specific quantifiable milestones to measure the following:
a. Indigenous capacity-building.
b. Progress toward sustainability.
(This amount is an estimate, and is subject to availability of funds.)
(This amount is for the first 12-month budget period and includes direct costs.)
(This ceiling is for the first 12-month budget period.)
Throughout the project period, HHS' commitment to continuation of awards will be conditioned on the availability of funds, evidence of satisfactory progress by the recipient (as documented in required reports), and the determination that continued funding is in the best interest of the Federal Government, through the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief review and approval process for Country Operational Plans, managed by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.
As a result of the impact of the Apartheid era, local organizations must possess cultural sensitivity and awareness to work effectively with previously disadvantaged racial and cultural groups. The following type of organizations, which have been operational in Namibia for a minimum of three years, may submit applications:
• Private, non-profit organizations.
• For-profit organizations.
• Faith-based organizations.
• Community-based organizations.
No other applications are solicited.
Eligible applicants must have been operational in Namibia for a minimum of three years.
Matching funds are not required for this program. Although matching funds are not required, preference will go to organizations that can leverage additional funds to contribute to program goals.
If applicants request a funding amount greater than the ceiling of the award range, HHS/CDC will consider the application non-responsive, and it will not enter into the review process. We will notify you that your application did not meet the submission requirements.
If your application is incomplete or non-responsive to the special requirements listed in this section, it will not enter into the review process. We will notify you that your application did not meet submission requirements.
• HHS/CDC will consider late applications non-responsive. See section “IV.3. Submission Dates and Times” for more information on deadlines.
•
To apply for this funding opportunity use application form PHS 5161-1.
HHS strongly encourages you to submit the application electronically by using the forms and instructions posted for this announcement at
Application forms and instructions are available on the HHS/CDC Web site, at the following Internet address:
If you do not have access to the Internet, or if you have difficulty accessing the forms on-line, you may contact the HHS/CDC Procurement and Grants Office Technical Information Management Section (PGO-TIM) staff at: 770-488-2700. We can mail application forms to you.
• Maximum number of pages: 25. If your narrative exceeds the 25 page limit, we will only review the first pages within the page limit.
• Font size: 12 point unreduced.
• Double-spaced.
• Paper size: 8.5 by 11 inches.
• Page margin size: One inch.
• Printed only on one side of page.
• Held together only by rubber bands or metal clips; not bound in any other way.
• Must be submitted in English.
Your narrative should address activities to be conducted over the entire project period, and must include the following items in the order listed:
• Plan.
• Methods.
• Project Goals and Objectives.
• Project Contribution to the Goals and Objectives of the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
• Timeline (e.g., GANNT Chart).
• Staff.
• Project Context and Background (Understanding and Need).
• Performance Measures.
• Budget Justification.
You may include additional information in the application appendices. The appendices will not count toward the narrative page limit. This additional information includes the following:
• Curriculum Vitae or Resumes of current staff who will work on the activity.
• Organizational Charts.
• Letters of Support.
• Project Budget and Justification.
The budget justification will not count in the narrative page limit.
Although the narrative addresses activities for the entire project, the applicant should provide a detailed budget only for the first year of activities, while addressing budgetary plans for subsequent years.
You must have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the Federal Government. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access
For more information, see the HHS/CDC Web site at:
Additional requirements that could require you to submit additional documentation with your application are listed in section “VI.2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements.”
You may submit your application electronically at
If you submit your application electronically with Grants.gov, your application will be electronically time/date stamped, which will serve as receipt of submission. You will receive an e-mail notice of receipt when HHS/CDC receives the application.
If you submit your application by the United States Postal Service or commercial delivery service, you must ensure the carrier will be able to guarantee delivery by the closing date and time. If HHS/CDC receives your submission after closing because: (1) Carrier error, when the carrier accepted the package with a guarantee for delivery by the closing date and time, or (2) significant weather delays or natural disasters, you will have the opportunity to submit documentation of the carriers guarantee. If the documentation verifies a carrier problem, HHS/CDC will consider the submission as received by the deadline.
If you submit a hard copy application, HHS/CDC will not notify you upon receipt of your submission. If you have a question about the receipt of your application, first contact your courier. If you still have a question, contact the PGO-TIM staff at: 770-488-2700. Before calling, please wait two to three days after the submission deadline. This will allow time for us to process and log submissions.
This announcement is the definitive guide on application content, submission address, and deadline. It supersedes information provided in the application instructions.
If your submission does not meet the deadline above, it will not be eligible for review, and we will discard it. We will notify you that you did not meet the submission requirements.
Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program.
Restrictions, which you must take into account while writing your budget, are as follows:
• Funds may not be used for research.
• Reimbursement of pre-award costs is not allowed.
Antiretroviral Drugs—The purchase of antiretrovirals, reagents, and laboratory equipment for antiretroviral treatment projects require pre-approval from the GAP headquarters.
• Needle Exchange—No funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to carry out any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
• Funds may be spent for reasonable program purposes, including personnel, travel, supplies and services. Equipment may be purchased if deemed necessary to accomplish program objectives; however, prior approval by HHS/CDC officials must be requested in writing.
• All requests for funds contained in the budget shall be stated in U.S. dollars. Once an award is made, HHS/CDC will not compensate foreign grantees for currency exchange fluctuations through the issuance of supplemental awards.
• The costs that are generally allowable in grants to domestic organizations are allowable to foreign institutions and international organizations, with the following exception: With the exception of the American University, Beirut, and the World Health Organization, Indirect Costs will not be paid (either directly or through sub-award) to organizations located outside the territorial limits of the United States or to international organizations, regardless of their location.
• The applicant may contract with other organizations under this program; however, the applicant must perform a substantial portion of the activities (including program management and operations, and delivery of prevention services for which funds are required).
• You must obtain an annual audit of these HHS/CDC funds (program-specific audit) by a U.S.-based audit firm with international branches and current licensure/authority in-country, and in accordance with International Accounting Standards or equivalent standard(s) approved in writing by HHS/CDC.
• A fiscal Recipient Capability Assessment may be required, prior to or post award, in order to review the applicant's business management and fiscal capabilities regarding the handling of U.S. Federal funds.
The U.S. Government is opposed to prostitution and related activities, which are inherently harmful and dehumanizing, and contribute to the phenomenon of trafficking in persons.
Any entity that receives, directly or indirectly, U.S. Government funds in connection with this document (“recipient”) cannot use such U.S. Government funds to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be construed to preclude the provision to individuals of palliative care, treatment, or post-exposure pharmaceutical prophylaxis, and necessary pharmaceuticals and commodities, including test kits, condoms, and, when proven effective, microbicides.
A recipient that is otherwise eligible to receive funds in connection with this document to prevent, treat, or monitor HIV/AIDS shall not be required to endorse or utilize a multisectoral approach to combating HIV/AIDS, or to endorse, utilize, or participate in a prevention method or treatment program to which the recipient has a religious or moral objection. Any information provided by recipients about the use of condoms as part of projects or activities that are funded in connection with this document shall be medically accurate and shall include the public health benefits and failure rates of such use.
In addition, any recipient must have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. The preceding sentence shall not apply to any “exempt organizations” (defined as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the World Health Organization and its six Regional Offices, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative or to any United Nations agency).
The following definition applies for purposes of this clause:
• Sex trafficking means the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act. 22 U.S.C. 7102(9).
All recipients must insert provisions implementing the applicable parts of this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities,” in all subagreements under this award. These provisions must be express terms and conditions of the subagreement, must acknowledge that compliance with this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities,” is a prerequisite to receipt and expenditure of U.S. government funds in connection with this document, and must acknowledge that any violation of the provisions shall be grounds for unilateral termination of the agreement prior to the end of its term. Recipients must agree that HHS may, at any reasonable time, inspect the documents and materials maintained or prepared by the recipient in the usual course of its operations that relate to the organization's compliance with this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities.”
All prime recipients that receive U.S. Government funds (“prime recipients”) in connection with this document must certify compliance prior to actual receipt of such funds in a written statement that makes reference to this document (
Recipients' compliance with this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities,” is an express term and condition of receiving U.S. Government funds in connection with this document, and any violation of it shall be grounds for unilateral termination by HHS of the agreement with HHS in connection with this document prior to the end of its term. The recipient shall refund to HHS the entire amount furnished in connection with this document in the event HHS determines the recipient has not complied with this section, “Prostitution and Related Activities.”
You may find guidance for completing your budget on the HHS/CDC Web site, at the following Internet address:
HHS/CDC recommends that you submit your application to Grants.gov early enough to resolve any unanticipated difficulties prior to the deadline. You may also submit a back-up paper submission of your application. We must receive any such paper submission in accordance with the requirements for timely submission detailed in Section IV.3. of the grant announcement.
You must clearly mark the paper submission: “BACK-UP FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION.”
The paper submission must conform to all requirements for non-electronic submissions. If we receive both electronic and back-up paper submissions by the deadline, we will consider the electronic version the official submission.
We strongly recommended that you submit your grant application by using Microsoft Office products (
Submit the original and two hard copies of your application by mail or express delivery service to the following address: Technical Information Management—CDC-RFA-AA108, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341.
Applicants must provide measures of effectiveness that will demonstrate the accomplishment of the various identified objectives of the cooperative agreement. Measures of effectiveness must relate to the performance goals stated in the “Purpose” section of this announcement. Measures must be objective and quantitative, and must measure the intended outcome. Applicants must submit these measures of effectiveness with the application, and they will be an element of evaluation.
We will evaluate against the following criteria:
Does the applicant describe strategies that are pertinent and match those identified in the five-year strategy of the President's Emergency Plan and activities that are evidence-based, realistic, achievable, measurable and culturally appropriate in Nigeria to achieving the goals of the Emergency Plan? The extent to which the applicant's proposal includes an overall design strategy, including measurable time lines; the extent to which the proposal addresses regular monitoring and evaluation; and the potential effectiveness of the proposed activities in meeting the numerical objectives of the Emergency Plan?
Extent to which the applicant demonstrates a clear and concise understanding of the nature of the problem described in the Purpose section of this announcement. This specifically includes description of the public health importance of the planned activities to be undertaken and realistic presentation of proposed objectives and projects.
The extent to which the applicant documents demonstrated capability to achieve the purpose of the project. Does the applicant demonstrate knowledge of the cultural and political realities in Namibia?
The extent to which professional personnel involved in this project are qualified, including evidence of experience in working with HIV/AIDS, opportunistic infections, and HIV/STD surveillance. Are the staff roles clearly defined?
Adequacy of plans for administering the projects.
Is the plan to measure impact of interventions, and the manner in which they will be provided, adequate? Is the plan to manage the resources of this program and monitor and audit expenditures adequate?
The extent to which the itemized budget for conducting the project, along with justification, is reasonable and consistent with stated objectives and planned program activities. Is it consistent with the five-year strategy and goals of the President's Emergency Plan and Emergency Plan activities in Namibia?
The HHS/CDC Procurement and Grants Office (PGO) staff will review applications for completeness, and HHS Global AIDS program will review them for responsiveness. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not advance through the review process. Applicants will receive notification that their application did not meet submission requirements.
An objective review panel will evaluate complete and responsive applications according to the criteria listed in the “V.1. Criteria” section above. All persons who serve on the panel will be external to the U.S. Government Country Program Office in Namibia. The panel can include both Federal and non-Federal participants.
In addition, the following factors could affect the funding decision:
While U.S.-based organizations are eligible to apply, we will give preference to existing national/Namibian organizations. It is possible for one organization to apply as lead grantee with a plan that includes partnering with other organizations, preferably local. Although matching funds are not required, preference will be go to organizations that can leverage additional funds to contribute to program goals.
Applications will be funded in order by score and rank determined by the review panel. HHS/CDC will provide justification for any decision to fund out of rank order.
September 15, 2005.
Successful applicants will receive a Notice of Award (NoA) from the HHS/CDC Procurement and Grants Office. The NoA shall be the only binding, authorizing document between the recipient and HHS/CDC. An authorized Grants Management Officer will sign the NoA, and mail it to the recipient fiscal officer identified in the application.
Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review by mail.
For more information on the Code of Federal Regulations, see the National Archives and Records Administration at the following Internet address:
The following additional requirements apply to this project:
• AR-4 HIV/AIDS Confidentiality Provisions.
• AR-6 Patient Care.
• AR-8 Public Health System Reporting Requirements.
• AR-10 Smoke-Free Workplace Requirements.
• AR-14 Accounting System Requirements.
Applicants can find additional information on these requirements can be found on the HHS/CDC Web site at the following Internet address:
You need to include an additional Certifications form from the PHS5161-1 application in your Grants.gov electronic submission only. Please refer to
You must provide HHS/CDC with an original, plus two hard copies of the following reports:
1. Interim progress report, due no less than 90 days before the end of the budget period. The progress report will serve as your non-competing continuation application, and must contain the following elements:
a. Current Budget Period Activities Objectives.
b. Current Budget Period Financial Progress.
c. New Budget Period Program Proposed Activity Objectives.
d. Budget.
e. Measures of Effectiveness, including progress against the numerical goals of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief for Namibia.
f. Additional Requested Information.
2. Annual progress report, due no more than 60 days after the end of the budget period. Reports should include progress against the numerical goals of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief for Namibia.
3. Financial status report no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period.
4. Final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
Recipients must be mail these reports to the Grants Management or Contract Specialist listed in the “Agency Contacts” section of this announcement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this announcement.
For general questions, contact: Technical Information Management Section, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-2700.
For program technical assistance, contact: Leonard Floyd, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2540 Windhoek Place, Washington, DC 20521-8320, Telephone: 011 264 61224 149, E-mail:
For financial, grants management, or budget assistance, contact: Shirley Wynn, Grants Management Specialist, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-1515, E-mail:
Applicants can find this and other HHS funding opportunity announcements on the HHS/CDC Web site, Internet address:
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting:
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of organizational change.
The Coast Guard announces the stand-up of Sector Hampton Roads and its subordinate unit, Sector Field Office (SFO) Eastern Shore. Sector Hampton Roads is subordinate to the Fifth Coast Guard District Commander.
The Sector Hampton Roads Commander has the authority, responsibility, and missions of the prior Group Hampton Roads Commander, Commanding Officer Marine Safety Office Hampton Roads, Captain of the Port (COTP), Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI), Federal on Scene Coordinator (FOSC), Federal Maritime Security Coordinator (FMSC), and Search and Rescue Mission Coordinator (SMC). The Deputy Sector Commander is designated alternate COTP, FMSC, FOSC, SMC and Acting OCMI. The Deputy Sector Commander also assumes active search suspension (ACTSUS) authority in the absence of the Sector Commander. The Commander of SFO Eastern Shore is subordinate to the Sector Commander and is vested with all the rights, responsibilities, duties, and authority of a Group Commander, which includes SMC. In the absence of the SFO Commander, SMC authority may remain with the Acting Commander. However, active search suspension (ACTSUS) authority will revert to the Commander, Sector Hampton Roads. A continuity of operations order has been issued ensuring that all previous MSO Hampton Roads, Group Hampton Roads, and Group Eastern Shore practices and procedures will remain in effect until superseded by an authorized Coast Guard official and/or document. This continuity of operations order addresses existing COTP regulations, orders, directives and policies.
This change was effective July 15, 2005.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD05-05-085 and are available for inspection or copying at Fifth District Marine Safety Division, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Commander Brian Hall, Fifth District Marine Safety Division at 757-398-6520.
Sector Hampton Roads is located at 4000 Coast Guard Blvd., Portsmouth, VA 23703-2199. A command center supporting Sector Hampton Roads is located at Portsmouth, VA. A second command center operated by SFO Eastern Shore will support the SFO and the SFO's subordinate units along the Delmarva Peninsula in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Sector Hampton Roads is composed of a Response Department, Prevention Department, and Logistics Department. All existing missions and functions performed by Marine Safety Office Hampton Roads, Group Hampton Roads, and Group Eastern Shore have been realigned under this new organizational structure as of July 15, 2005. MSO Hampton Roads, Groups Hampton Roads, and Group Eastern Shore no longer exist as organizational entities. The boundary of the Sector Hampton Roads Marine Inspection, Captain of the Port Zone, and SMC Area of Responsibility (AOR) is as follows: “Beginning at the intersection of the Maryland-Delaware boundary and the coast at Fenwick Island and proceeds along the Maryland-Delaware boundary to a point 75 degrees 30.0 minutes W. longitude; thence southerly to a point 75 degrees 30.0 minutes W. longitude on the Maryland-Virginia boundary, thence westerly along the Maryland-Virginia boundary as it proceeds across the Delmarva Peninsula, Pocomoke River, Tangier and Pocomoke Sounds, and Chesapeake Bay; thence northwesterly along the Maryland-Virginia boundary as those boundaries are formed along the southern bank of the Potomac river to the intersection of Prince William County, Virginia; thence northwestwardly along the Prince William County, Virginia boundary to the intersection of Loudon County, Virginia; thence westward following the Loudon County, Virginia boundary to the intersection with Clarke County, Virginia; thence northeasterly following the Loudon County boundary to the intersection of the Clark County, Virginia-West Virginia boundaries; thence northwestward along the
The SFO Eastern Shore retains SMC responsibility for an AOR that starts on the Virginia Coast at 37 degrees 20 minutes N. latitude, 75 degrees 57 minutes W. longitude; thence proceeds east to 37 degrees 20 minutes N. latitude, 72 degrees 14 minutes W. longitude; thence northwesterly to 38 degrees 45 minutes N latitude, 75 degrees 04 minutes W. longitude; thence west to the Maryland-Delaware boundary; thence south along the Delaware state line to the southwest corner; thence east along the Delaware state line to a point at 75 degrees 30 minutes W. longitude, thence south to the Virginia-Maryland state line to a point at 75 degrees 30 minutes W. longitude; thence south to 37 degrees 20 minutes N. latitude, 75 degrees 57 minutes W. longitude.
A chart depicting this area can be found on the Fifth District Web page at
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. Sector Hampton Roads: Commander: CAPT R. R. O'Brien, Jr., Deputy Sector Commander: CDR J. S. Kenyon. Address: Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads, 4000 Coast Guard Blvd., Portsmouth, VA 23703-2199. Contact: General Number: (757) 668-5555; Chief, Prevention Department: (757) 668-6635; Chief, Response Department: (757) 638-2703; Chief, Logistics Department: (757) 483-8515; Emergency search and rescue: (757) 483-8567. Sector Field Office Eastern Shore: Commander: LCDR D. Reid. Address: Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Field Office Eastern Shore, 3823 Main St., Chincoteague, VA 23336-1809. Contact: General Number: (757) 336-2800; Emergency search and rescue: (757) 336-2889.
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations § 111.51(a), the following individual Customs broker licenses and any and all permits have been cancelled due to the death of the broker:
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
Pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1641) and the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 111.51), the following Customs broker licenses are cancelled without prejudice.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed revised information collections. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c) (2) (A)), this notice seeks comments concerning the Elevation Certificate and the Floodproofing Certificate. The Elevation Certificate is required by the NFIP to certify the elevations of the buildings to determine the proper flood insurance rate. It can also be used by communities to document to what height new buildings and substantial improvements in Special Flood Hazard Areas were elevated so that communities can verify building compliance including the lowest floor determination.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations require the elevation or floodproofing of new or substantially improved structures in designated Special Flood Hazard Areas. As part of the agreement for making flood insurance available in a community, the NFIP requires the community to adopt a floodplain management ordinance containing minimum NFIP requirements intended to reduce future flood losses. One such requirement is that the community require that buildings be elevated to or above the base flood elevation and, obtain the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new and substantially improved structures, and maintain a record of all such information. These data should be generated and retained as part of the community's permit records. The Elevation Certificate is one convenient way for a community to document building compliance; however, it is not a prescribed form. The Floodproofing Certificate may similarly be used to establish the floodproofed design elevation in those instances when floodproofing of non-residential structures is permitted.
The Elevation Certificate and Floodproofing Certificate are used in conjunction with the application in order to properly rate Post-FIRM structures in Special Flood Hazard Areas (44 CFR 61.7, 61.8) for flood insurance. Post-FIRM are those buildings constructed after publication of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). In addition, the Elevation Certificate is needed for Pre-FIRM structures being rated under Post-FIRM flood insurance rules. The standardized format of the Elevation Certificate (FEMA Forms 81-31) and Floodproofing Certificate for Non-Residential Structures (FEMA Forms 81-65) provide community officials with needed data in order to verity building elevation information and determine compliance with the community's floodplain management ordinance.
The certificates are supplied to insurance agents, community officials, surveyors, engineers, architects, and NFIP policyholders/applicants. Surveyors, engineers, and architects complete the Elevation Certificate. Engineers and architects complete the Floodproofing Certificate. Community officials are provided the building elevation information required to document and determine compliance with the community's floodplain management ordinance. NFIP policyholders/applicants provide the appropriate certificate to insurance agents. The certificate is then used in conjunction with the flood insurance application so that the building can be properly rated for flood insurance.
Interested persons should submit written comments to George S. Trotter, Acting Chief, Information Resources Management Branch, Information Technology Services Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Room 316, Washington, DC 20472.
Contact Jhun de la Cruz, Insurance Examiner, Mitigation Division, (202) 646-2650 for additional information. You may contact Ms. Anderson for copies of the proposed collection of information at telephone number (202) 646-2625 or facsimile number (202) 646-3347 or e-mail
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (we) announces the availability of the Draft Post-delisting Monitoring Plan for Eggert's Sunflower (
We will accept and consider all public comments received on or before September 19, 2005.
If you wish to comment on this proposed PDM, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods:
1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501.
2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Tennessee Field Office at the above address or fax your comments to 931/528-7075.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of this draft PDM, are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Tennessee Field Office at the above address.
Timothy Merritt at the above address (telephone 931/528-6481, extension 211).
We intend that the final PDM for
Comments may be submitted as indicated under
In making a final decision on the PDM, we will take into consideration the comments and any additional information we receive. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting information used to write the PDM, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address indicated in the
The 1988 amendments to the Act require us to implement a system, in cooperation with the States, to monitor all species that have been delisted, or removed from the list of endangered and threatened species listed under the Act, due to recovery efforts for at least 5 years following delisting (section 4(g)(1)). The purpose of this PDM is to verify that a species that is delisted, due to recovery, remains secure from risk of extinction after it no longer has the protections of the Act. If the species does not remain secure, we can use the emergency listing authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires cooperation with the States in development and implementation of PDM programs. However, we are responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and must remain actively engaged in all phases of the PDM.
By a separate rulemaking being published elsewhere in today's issue of the
There are currently 7 populations of Eggert's sunflower in Alabama, 18 populations in Kentucky, and 48 populations in Tennessee, for a total of 73, that have more than 100 flower stems. This encompasses a total of 287 currently known sites, far exceeding the 34 known at the time of the species' listing, and we continue to find more sites. As defined by the recovery plan for this plant, only 20 populations are required for this plant to be considered for delisting.
The Federal, State, and private conservation group landowners involved in recovery activities for this species (see the final delisting rule for
Given the protection afforded by landowners, the current range of this sunflower, and the number of newly discovered populations, we believe what is needed for recovery of this plant has been achieved and that the landowners involved will continue to assist us and likely extend their management agreements to protect this plant past 7 to 10 years.
Our Tennessee Field Office will coordinate with AAFB, TWRA, AGBP, MCNP, KTC, TNC, and State resource agencies to implement an effective 5-year monitoring program to track the population status of
Monitoring for
(1) Find the monitoring location using a combination of directions and a GPS unit.
(2) Evaluate the location for the presence/absence of Eggert's sunflower.
(3) Count to determine if there are ±100 flowering stems.
(4) Count the total stems.
(5) Search for evidence of any recruitment or juvenile plants and note the relative abundance.
(6) Take a GPS reading at the center of each colony and estimate its width and length.
(7) Draw the general shape of the colony and other land features.
(8) Take digital pictures of the colony from a single point such as one corner looking across the colony.
(9) Perform a visual threats assessment of each occurrence using the five following criteria: Invasive pest plants, habitat modification, succession of woody species, disease, and herbivory/insect damage. Assign ranks for each threat on the following scale: 1 = no current threat, 2 = low current threat, 3 = moderate threat, 4 = high threat, 5 = extreme immediate threat. A rank of “1” indicates that the particular threat poses no impact at the time of observation (
(10) Make qualitative notes on the general habitat conditions and any land management. Describe the status of the occurrence in general.
If we determine at the end of the 5-year post-delisting monitoring period that “recovered” status is still appropriate and factors that led to the listing of
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320 implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The primary author of this proposed rule is Timothy Merritt (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the final recovery plan for
Copies of this recovery plan are available on the Internet at
Marelisa Rivera at the above address (telephone 787/851-7297, ext. 231).
Restoring an endangered or threatened animal or plant to the point where it is again a secure, self-sustaining member of its ecosystem is a primary goal of our endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, we prepare recovery plans for most listed species. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation of the species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting them, and estimate time and cost for implementing recovery measures.
The Act requires the development of recovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act requires us to provide public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment during recovery plan development. A notice of availability of the technical agency draft recovery plan for
The objective of this recovery plan is to provide a framework for the recovery of
The information on the current number of individuals throughout the species' range, and the knowledge of biology, habitat requirements, and genetic information is limited. However, the Service has developed downlisting and delisting criteria for
Downlisting of the species from endangered to threatened status will be considered when: (1) The habitat known to support the two extant populations (St. Croix and Peñones de Melones) is enhanced and protected through landowner conservation agreements or easements; (2) extant populations are enhanced through the planting of additional propagated individuals to augment the number of adult individuals to at least 250; (3) at least one population within each of the following previously occupied habitat is found and/or established: Guánica Commonwealth Forest (PR), Susúa Commonwealth Forest (PR), Barbuda, Antigua, and Guadalupe; and (4) research is conducted on key biological and genetic issues, including effective propagation techniques, and number of individuals within a population and number of populations needed for the establishment of self-sustaining populations and a viable overall population.
In an effort to meet the recovery criteria, the following recovery actions were identified. The Recovery Plan breaks these actions down further into specific tasks.
1. Protect existing populations (St. Croix and Cabo Rojo) from current and future threats and/or limiting factors through landowner agreements and other conservation mechanisms.
2. Determine the distribution and population status of
3. Evaluate techniques and develop a plant propagation program for
4. Enhance existing populations and establish new self-sustaining populations (number of which should be determined by viability analysis) within protected areas by introducing additional individuals developed through propagation. Introduction sites may include, but are not limited to, the Guánica Commonwealth Forest, Susúa Commonwealth Forest, Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge, and Cabo Rojo National Wildlife Refuge.
5. Conduct additional scientific research on
6. Facilitate the recovery of
7. Provide technical assistance to Barbuda, Antigua, and Guadalupe for the development of conservation measures for the species.
8. Refine recovery criteria.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).
Bureau of Land Management Interior.
Notice of meetings.
The McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area (MCNCA) Advisory Council will hold its next meeting of 2005 on September 7, 2005. The meeting will begin at 3 p.m. and will be held at the Fruita City Office Building, 325 East Aspen Avenue, Fruita, CO. An additional meeting will be held on December 7, 2005 at the Mesa County Administration Building; 544 Rood Avenue, Grand Junction, CO.
The meeting will be held on September 7, 2005.
For further information or to provide written comments, please contact the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2815 H Road, Grand Junction, Colorado 81506; (970) 244-3000.
The McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area was established on October 24, 2000 when the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area was established on October 24, 2000 when the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Wilderness Act of 2000 (the Act) was signed by the President. The Act required that the Advisory Council be established to provide advice in the preparation and implementation of the CCNCA Resource Management Plan. The name was congressionally changed at the end of 2004 from Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area to McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area (MCNCA).
The MCNCA Advisory Council will meet on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 at the Fruita City Office Building, 325 East Aspen Avenue, Fruita, CO. The agenda topics for this meeting are:
(1) Status of pending Advisory Council nominations.
(2) Update on Friends of McInnis Canyons NCA.
(3) Update on NCA Implementation Plan.
(4) Cooperative management of Loma Boat Launch. (Field trip to site included.)
(5) Public comment period
(6) Agenda for next meeting
Beginning September of 2005, the MCNCA Advisory Council meetings will be held quarterly on the first Wednesday of every third month. The dates for these meetings are September 7, 2005; and December 7, 2005. Meetings for 2006 will be determined at the December meeting. Topics of discussion for future meetings will include completion of an implementation/business plan, refinement of a monitoring strategy, partnerships, interpretation, adaptive management, socioeconomic, and other issues as appropriate.
All meeting will be open to the public and will include a time set aside for public comment. Interested persons may make oral statements at the meetings or submit written statements at any meeting. Per-person time limits for oral statements may be set to allow all interested persons an opportunity to speak.
Summary minutes of all Council meetings will be maintained at the Bureau of Land Management Office in Grand Junction, Colorado. They are available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
Notice of realty action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to sell by public auction 86 parcels of Federal public land, aggregating approximately 3,197.00 acres, more or less, in the Las Vegas Valley, Nevada. The sale will be under the authority of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2343), as amended by Title IV of the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 1994) (SNPLMA). The SNPLMA sale will be subject to the applicable provisions of Sections 203 and 209 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1713 and 1719), and BLM land sale and mineral conveyance regulations at 43 CFR parts 2710 and 2720. The sale will be conducted in Las Vegas, Nevada, on November 16, 2005, using competitive bidding procedures under the regulations, at not less than the
BLM may also continue the auction of up to five additional parcels near Laughlin, Nevada (hereinafter, “the Laughlin parcels”), which remain unsold from a BLM competitive oral auction held in Laughlin, Nevada, on June 15, 2005. These five parcels aggregate approximately 1,796.65 acres and have been for sale on the Internet since the June 15, 2005, sale. If not sold on the Internet by November 16, 2005, BLM will take oral bids on these parcels at not less than the appraised fair market value of each parcel, at the proposed November 16, 2005, sale. Sealed bids may also be submitted for these parcels. These parcels are not within the SNPLMA disposal boundary and are sold solely under the authority of FLPMA. They were originally noticed for sale in the
Comments regarding the proposed SNPLMA sale of the 3,197.00 acres in the Las Vegas Valley must be received by BLM on or before October 3, 2005. Sealed bids, if applicable, must be received by BLM not later than 4:30 p.m., PST, November 9, 2005. The sale by auction will begin at 10 a.m., PST, November 16, 2005. Registration for oral bidding for those who have not pre-registered will begin at 8 a.m., PST, November 16, 2005 and will end at 10 a.m., PST. Other deadline dates for the receipt of payments, and arranging for certain payments to be made by electronic transfer, are specified in the proposed terms and conditions of sale, as stated herein.
Comments regarding the proposed sale or any sealed bid may be submitted to BLM at the following address:
More detailed information regarding the proposed sale and the SNPLMA lands and the Laughlin parcels may be reviewed during normal business hours (7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the BLM Las Vegas Field Office (LVFO).
The address for oral bidding registration, and the location of the public auction, is:
The auction will take place inside the Cashman Theater located in the southwest corner of the Cashman Center with entrance to the Theater between Parking Lots “B” and “C”. Registration will take place in the Theater Lobby. Cashman Center charges a $3 per vehicle parking fee. Parking Passes will be provided to those individuals who pre-register and pick-up a Sale Packet at the LVFO prior to the day of the sale. They will be sent with the sale packet to everyone on the sale mailing list. Give the Pass to the attendant when you enter the parking area. If you don't have a Pass you will be required to pay the fee. There will be no exceptions.
You may contact Judy Fry, Program Lead, SALES at (702) 515-5081 or by e-mail at
The following described lands in the Las Vegas Valley, Nevada, are proposed for sale and have been authorized and designated for disposal under SNPLMA. The lands will be put up for sale competitively on November 16, 2005, at an oral auction for not less than the appraised fair market value (FMV) of each parcel. These SNPLMA parcels described below will be auctioned under the terms and conditions of this Notice of Realty Action (NORA).
Consisting of 86 parcels containing 3,197.00 acres, more or less, including the North Las Vegas parcel.
A map and complete legal description of the North Las Vegas parcel (N-75980) will be available at the BLM LVFO upon finalization and recordation of the cadastral survey by the BLM prior to the auction date.
In addition to the lands described herein, the Laughlin parcels, and, possibly, other parcels that have been published in a previous NORA, and that have been previously noticed for sale, but did not sell, may be sold at this sale. The legal description of the Laughlin parcels and the terms and conditions of sale can be reviewed at 70 FR 16301.
The following SNPLMA parcels will have all mineral interests reserved to the United States; therefore, no $50 filing fee will be required as no mineral interests will be conveyed: N-79498 through N-79506, N-79511 through N-79529, N-79534 through N-79553, N-77348, N-79579 and N-79580. A legal description of the parcels associated with these BLM Serial Numbers is available at the BLM Las Vegas Field Office, or online at
For the other SNPLMA parcels, the locatable mineral interests therein will be sold simultaneously with the surface interests. Those lands have no known locatable mineral value. An offer to purchase those parcels will constitute an application for conveyance of the locatable mineral interests. In conjunction with the final payment, the applicant will be required to pay a $50.00 non-refundable filing fee for processing the conveyance of the locatable mineral interests.
The mineral interests for the Laughlin parcels will be reserved or sold as detailed in the original NORA for those parcels at 70 FR 16301.
The terms and conditions applicable to the SNPLMA sale parcels are as follows:
1. All discretionary leaseable and saleable mineral deposits on the lands in Clark County are reserved to the United States; but, permittees, licensees, and lessees of the United States retain the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such minerals owned by the United States under applicable law and any regulations that the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, together with all necessary access and exit rights.
2. A right-of-way is reserved for ditches and canals constructed by authority of the United States under the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).
3. All parcels are subject to valid existing rights. Parcels may also be subject to applications received prior to publication of this Notice if processing the application would have no adverse affect on the marketability or the federally approved Fair Market Value (FMV) of a parcel. Encumbrances of record, appearing in the BLM public files for the parcels proposed for sale, are available for review during business hours, 7:30 a.m. PST to 4:30 p.m. PST, Monday through Friday, at the BLM LVFO.
4. All parcels are subject to reservations for roads, public utilities and flood control purposes, both existing and proposed, in accordance with the local governing entities' Transportation Plans.
5. No warranty of any kind, express or implied, is given by the United States as to title, whether or to what extent the land may be developed, physical condition, future uses, or any other circumstance or condition. The conveyance of any parcel will not be on a contingency basis. However, to the extent required by law, all parcels are subject to the requirements of section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)).
6. All purchasers/patentees, by accepting a patent, covenant and agree to indemnify, defend, and hold the United States harmless from any costs, damages, claims, causes of action, penalties, fines, liabilities, and judgments of any kind or nature arising from the past, present, and future acts or omissions of the patentees or their employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or any third-party, arising out of or in connection with the patentees' use, occupancy, or operations on the patented real property. This indemnification and hold harmless agreement includes, but is not limited to, acts and omissions of the patentees and their employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or any third party, arising out of or in connection with the use and/or occupancy of the patented real property which has already resulted or does hereafter result in: (1) Violations of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations that are now or may in the future become, applicable to the real property; (2) Judgments, claims or demands of any kind assessed against the United States; (3) Costs, expenses, or damages of any kind incurred by the United States; (4) Releases or threatened releases of solid or hazardous waste(s) and/or hazardous substances(s), as defined by Federal or State environmental laws, off, on, into or under land, property and other interests of the United States; (5) Activities by which solid waste or hazardous substances or waste, as defined by Federal and State environmental laws are generated, released, stored, used or otherwise disposed of on the patented real property, and any cleanup response, remedial action or other actions related in any manner to said solid or hazardous substances or wastes; or (6) Natural resource damages as defined by Federal and State law. This covenant shall be construed as running with the parcels of land patented or otherwise conveyed by the United States, and may
7. Maps delineating the individual proposed sale parcels and current appraisals for each parcel are available for public review at the BLM LVFO.
8. (a) Parcel N-79580 will be put up for purchase and sale at the oral auction. A sealed bid for this parcel will not be accepted. If this parcel is not sold at the oral auction, it will
8. (b) Sealed bids may be presented for all other parcels. Sealed bids must be received at the BLM LVFO, no later than 4:30 p.m., PST, November 9, 2005. Sealed bid envelopes must be marked on the lower front left corner with the BLM Serial Number for the parcel and the sale date. Bids must be for not less than the federally approved FMV and a separate bid must be submitted for each parcel.
8. (c) Each sealed bid shall be accompanied by a deposit in the form of a certified check, money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable in U.S. dollars to the order of the Bureau of Land Management, for not less than 10 percent or more than 30 percent of the amount bid. The highest qualified sealed bid for each parcel will become the starting bid at the oral auction. If no sealed bids are received, oral bidding will begin at the FMV, as determined by the authorized officer. All sealed bids will be opened and recorded at 12 noon PST on November 10, 2005 at the BLM office on 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive in Las Vegas. The high sealed bid amount will be posted on the auction order list and will be the starting bid amount at the oral auction.
9. All parcels will be offered for competitive sale by oral auction beginning at 10 a.m., PST, November 16, 2005, at Cashman Theater located inside Cashman Center at 850 Las Vegas Boulevard North, Las Vegas, NV. Interested parties who will not be bidding are not required to register and may proceed directly to the Cashman Theater. If you are at the auction to conduct business with the high bidders or are there to observe the process, should seating become limited, you may be asked to relocate to the balcony or another area in order to provide seating in the theater for all bidders before the auction begins. We will try to provide an audio/visual transmission outside the theater for your convenience.
10. All oral bidders are required to register. Registration for oral bidding will begin at 8 a.m. PST on the day of the sale and will end at 10 a.m. PST. You are encouraged to pre-register by mail or fax by completing the form located in the Sale Packet. The form is also available at the BLM LVFO.
11. Prior to receiving a bidder number on the day of the sale, all registered bidders must submit a certified check, bank draft, or cashier's check in the amount of $10,000. The check must be made payable in U.S. dollars to the order of the Bureau of Land Management. On the day of the sale, pre-registered bidders may go to the Express Registration Desk, present their Photo Identification, the required $10,000 check, and receive a bidder number. All other bidders must go to the standard Registration Line where additional information will be requested along with your Photo Identification and the required $10,000 check. Upon completion of registration you will be given a bidder number. If you are a successful bidder, the $10,000 will be applied to your required deposit. For parcel N-79580 arrangements may be made for Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT) of the required 20 percent deposit by notifying BLM no later than October 31, 2005 of your intent to use EFT.
12. If you purchase one or more parcels and default on any single parcel, the default may be against all of your parcels. BLM may retain your $10,000 and the sale of
13. The highest qualifying bid for any parcel, whether sealed or oral, will be declared the high bid. The apparent high bidder, if an oral bidder, must submit a deposit of not less than 20 percent of the successful bid by 3 p.m. PST on the day of the sale in the form of cash, personal check, bank draft, cashiers check, money order or any combination thereof, made payable in U.S. dollars to the Bureau of Land Management. Funds must be delivered no later than 3 p.m. PST the day of the sale to the BLM Collection Officers at the Cashman Theater. Funds will NOT be accepted at the LVFO.
14. Oral bids will be considered only if received at the place of sale and made at least for the FMV as determined by the BLM authorized officer. For parcel N-79580 each prospective bidder will be required to present a certified check, postal money order, bank draft or cashier's check made payable in U.S. dollars to the Bureau of Land Management for an amount of money which shall be no less than 20 percent of the federally approved FMV of the designated parcel, in order to be eligible to bid on it.
15. The remainder of the full bid price for each parcel, whether sealed or oral bid, must be paid within 180 calendar days of the competitive sale date in the form of a certified check, money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable in U.S. dollars to the Bureau of Land Management.
16. All sales are made in accordance with and subject to the governing provisions of law and applicable regulations. In general, the BLM may accept or reject any or all offers, or withdraw any parcel of land or interest therein from sale, if, in the opinion of the BLM authorized officer, consummation of the sale would not be fully consistent with FLPMA or other applicable laws or is determined not to be in the public interest.
17. Federal law requires bidders to be U.S. citizens 18 years of age or older; a corporation subject to the laws of any State or of the United States; a State, State instrumentality or political subdivision authorized to hold property or an entity legally capable of conveying lands or interests therein under the laws of the State of Nevada. Certification of qualification, including citizenship or corporation or partnership, must accompany the bid deposit and is subject to verification by the BLM prior to consummation of the sale.
If not sold, any parcel described above in this Notice may be identified for sale at a later date without further legal notice. Unsold parcels, with the exception of parcel N-79580, may be offered for sale in a future online Internet auction. Internet auction procedures will be available at
In order to determine the value, through appraisal, of the parcels of land proposed to be sold, certain extraordinary assumptions may have been made of the attributes and limitations of the lands and potential effects of local regulations and policies on potential future land uses. Through publication of this Notice, the Bureau of Land Management gives notice that these assumptions may not be endorsed or approved by units of local government. It is the buyer's responsibility to be aware of all applicable Federal, State, and local government laws, regulations and policies that may affect the subject lands, including any required dedication of lands for public uses. It is also the buyer's responsibility to be aware of existing or projected use of nearby properties. When conveyed out of Federal ownership, the lands will be subject to any applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the applicable local government for proposed future uses. It will be the responsibility of the purchaser to be aware of those laws regulations, and policies, and to seek any required local approvals pursuant to them. Buyers should also make themselves aware of any Federal or State law or regulations that may impact the future use of the property. Any land lacking access from a public road or highway will be conveyed as such, and future access acquisition will be the responsibility of the buyer.
Other information concerning the sale, including the appraisals, reservations, sale procedures and conditions, CERCLA and other environmental documents will be available for review at the BLM LVFO, or by calling (702) 515-5114. Most of this information also will be available on the Internet at
Additionally, the following leases granted under the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, 43 U.S.C. 869
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Final supplementary rules.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oregon State Office is implementing supplementary rules for public lands within the states of Oregon and Washington. The rules are needed in order to protect the area's natural resources and provide for public health and safety. The rules are based on existing regulations and address camping and residency, vehicles and off-road vehicles, fire, conduct, firearms, sanitation and refuse and permits. The supplementary rules promote consistency between BLM rules on these topics and similar rules of other natural resource agencies including the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Oregon Parks and Recreation, and the Washington Department of Natural Resources.
The rules are effective August 18, 2005.
You may submit suggestions or inquiries to Recreation Program, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon, 97204, or via Internet e-mail to: h
Margaret Wolf, Oregon State Office, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon, telephone (503) 808-6061. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may contact this individual by calling the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
BLM proposed these supplementary rules in order to promote consistency between BLM (on issues of camping and occupancy, vehicles and off-road vehicles, fire, conduct, firearms, sanitation and refuse) and other land management agencies including the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Oregon State Parks and Recreation, and the Washington Department of Natural Resources. These supplementary rules will apply to the public lands within the states of Oregon and Washington. These rules are necessary to protect the area's natural resources and to provide for the public's health and safety, provide needed guidance in the areas of camping, occupancy, and recreation, and allow for the assessment of penalties that are more commensurate with the level of the prohibited acts.
The State of Oregon recently revised its requirement for ORV registration, placing the burden of requiring registration on each land owner. Supplementary rule b.5 (below) makes ORV registration a requirement on public lands, as endorsed by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department.
These rules were published as proposed supplementary rules on February 25, 2005 in the
No comments were received by e-mail, TDD, written submissions, or by telephone. Therefore, we are publishing the final supplementary rules as proposed, with the exception of editorial changes made for purposes of clarity.
These final supplementary rules are not a significant regulatory action and are not subject to review by Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. These final supplementary rules will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. They will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. These final supplementary rules will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
These final supplementary rules do not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients; nor do they raise novel legal or policy issues. They merely impose rules of conduct and impose other limitations on certain recreational activities on certain public lands to protect natural resources and human health and safety.
BLM has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) and has found that the final supplementary rules would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under section 102(2)(C) of the Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). A detailed statement under NEPA is not required. BLM has placed the EA and the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on file in the BLM Administrative Record at the address specified in the
Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. These final supplementary rules should have no effect on business entities of whatever size. They merely would impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational activities on certain public lands to protect natural resources and the environment, and human health and safety. Therefore, BLM has determined under the RFA that these final supplementary rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
These final supplementary rules are not a “major rule” as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). They would not result in an effect on the economy of $100 million or more, in an increase in costs or prices, or in significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. They would merely impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational activities on certain public lands to protect natural resources and the environment, and human health and safety.
These final supplementary rules do not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year; nor do these Final supplementary rules have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. They would merely impose reasonable restrictions on certain recreational activities on certain public lands to protect natural resources and the environment, and human health and safety. They also specifically call for compliance with State laws and regulations. Therefore, BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
The final supplementary rules do not represent a government action capable of interfering with Constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore, the Department of the Interior has determined that the rule would not cause a taking of private property or require preparation of a takings assessment under this Executive Order.
These final supplementary rules 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. These final supplementary rules in several instances call for compliance with State law. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, BLM has determined that these final supplementary rules do not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this final rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have found that these final supplementary rules do not include policies that have tribal implications.
These final rules do not contain information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The principal author of these supplementary rules is Margaret Wolf, Oregon State Office, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon.
For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authorities for supplementary rules found under 43 CFR 8365.1-6, 43 CFR 8364.1, 43 U.S.C. 1740, 16 U.S.C. 670h(c)(5), and 43 U.S.C. 315a, the Oregon/Washington State Director, Bureau of Land Management proposes to issue supplementary rules for public lands managed by the BLM in Oregon and Washington, to read as follows:
1. You must not camp longer than 14 days in a 28 day period at any one site on public land.
2. After the 14 days have been reached, you must move at least 25 air miles away from the previously occupied site.
3. You must not leave any personal property or refuse after vacating the campsite or site.
4. You must not leave personal property unattended in a day use area, campground, designated recreation area or on public lands for more than 24 hours.
5. You must not establish occupancy, take possession of, or otherwise use public lands for residential purposes except as allowed under 43 CFR 3715.2, 3715.2-1, 3715.5, 3715.6, or with prior written authorization from the BLM.
6. You must not block, restrict, place signs, or otherwise interfere with the use of a road, trail, gate or other legal access to and through public lands without prior written authorization from the BLM.
7. You must not camp in any area posted as closed to camping. Closure must be attained through a final land use planning decision, Federal Register notification, temporary closure order, or posting or positioning of a hazardous condition notice or barrier.
8. If a campsite charges fees, you must register or pay camping fees within 30 minutes of occupying the camp site.
9. Whenever camping in a developed campground or designated recreation area with established campsites, you must camp in a designated site.
10. You must crate, cage, restrain on a leash which shall not exceed six feet in length, or otherwise physically control a pet or animal at all times while in a developed recreation site.
11. You must pick up and properly dispose of pet excrement.
1. You must not park or leave a vehicle or ORV in violation of posted instructions as established through a final land use planning decision, Federal Register notification, or other planning process.
2. You must not stop or park a vehicle or ORV in a manner that obstructs or interferes with the normal flow of traffic, or creates a hazardous condition.
3. You must not exceed posted speed limits.
4. You must possess and properly display the current Oregon ORV registration sticker as required by BLM on public land in Oregon in accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS).
5. You must not operate a motorized vehicle or ORV in violation of state laws and regulations relating to use, standards, registration, operation, and inspection.
6. You must not operate an ORV on those areas, routes, and trails closed to off-road vehicle use as established through a final land use planning decision, Federal Register notification, or other planning process.
7. You must not operate your ORV without a safety flag, where required by State law.
8. You must not operate an ORV with a muffler that exceeds legal decibel levels as required by State law.
9. You must not operate an ORV without required equipment as found in 43 CFR 8343.1 and State law.
10. You must not operate an ORV carelessly, recklessly, or without regard for the safety of any person, or in a manner that endangers, or is likely to endanger, a person or property.
11. You must not operate an ORV in a manner which damages or unreasonably disturbs the land, wildlife, improvements, property, or vegetative resources.
1. You must not fail to observe state fire restrictions or regulations.
2. You must not violate fire prevention orders.
3. You must not leave a campfire unattended without fully extinguishing it.
4. You must not use or possess fireworks in violation of State or Federal fire prevention order, law, or regulation.
5. You must not allow a fire to escape from your control.
6. You must not carelessly or negligently throw or place any ignited substance that may cause a fire.
7. You must not fire any tracer bullet or incendiary ammunition.
8. You must not throw any accelerant into a fire.
9. You must not build a fire outside of fire rings or other fire structures provided by BLM, where these are present and required by fire restrictions.
1. You must not fail to disperse at the direction of an authorized officer.
2. You must not engage in fighting, threatening, abusive, indecent, obscene, or offensive behavior.
3. You must not make unreasonable noise based on location, time of day, proximity of neighbors, or in violation of posted regulations or direction from an authorized officer, or other factors that would govern the conduct of a reasonably prudent person.
4. You must not create or maintain a hazardous or physically offensive condition.
1. You must not discharge a firearm or device that is designed for and capable of expelling a projectile by use of spring, air, gas or other explosive at any time into or from any area posted as a no-shooting or a safety zone, or into or from any developed camp or recreation site. No-shooting zones are established through a final land use planning decision, Federal Register notification, or other planning process.
2. You must not discharge or possess a firearm or explosive device in violation of State law.
1. You must not dispose of any cans, bottles or other refuse except in designated places or receptacles.
2. You must not dump household, commercial, or industrial refuse onto public lands.
3. You must not possess glass containers where prohibited as established through a final land use planning decision, Federal Register notification, or other planning process.
4. You must not litter.
1. You must not violate state laws relating to the use, possession, or consumption of alcohol or controlled substances.
a. On public lands in grazing districts (see 43 U.S.C. 315a) and on public lands leased for grazing under 43 U.S.C. 315m, any person who violates any of these supplementary rules may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined no more than $500.00. Such violations may also be subject to the enhanced fines provided for by 18 U.S.C. 3571.
b. On public lands subject to a conservation and rehabilitation program implemented by the Secretary under 16 U.S.C. 670g
c. On public lands subject to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1701
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of opportunity to submit comments in connection with the seventeenth report covering 2003 and 2004; change in title of investigation.
August 12, 2005.
Walker Pollard (202-205-3228;
(1) The actual effect of CBERA on the U.S. economy generally as well as on specific domestic industries which produce articles that are like, or directly competitive with, articles being imported from beneficiary countries under the Act; and
(2) The probable future effect of CBERA on the U.S. economy generally and on such domestic industries.
Notice of institution of the investigation was published in the
The Commission has also changed the title of this investigation to delete the reference to “annual report,” since the reports are now provided biennially.
Any submissions that contain CBI must also conform with the requirements of section 201.6 of the Commission's rules (19 CFR 201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules requires that the cover of the document and the individual pages clearly be marked as to whether they are the “confidential” or “nonconfidential” version, and that the CBI be clearly identified by means of
The Commission intends to publish only a public report in this investigation. Accordingly, any CBI received by the Commission in this investigation will not be published in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information. The report will be made available to the public on the Commission's Web site.
The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Correction of notice of investigation.
The Commission's notice published in the
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of Commission determination to conduct full five-year reviews concerning the countervailing duty order on sulfanilic acid from India and the antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic acid from China and India.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on sulfanilic acid from India and the antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic acid from China and India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the reviews will be established and announced at a later date. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
On August 5, 2005, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of Commission determination to conduct a full five-year review concerning the antidumping duty order on synthetic indigo from China.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on synthetic indigo from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the review will be established and announced at a later date. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
On August 5, 2005, the Commission determined that it should proceed to a full review in the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act.
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Under the policy set out at 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on August 2, 2005, the United States lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Montana a proposed consent decree (“Consent Decree”) in the case of
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Montana, 2929 Third Avenue North, Suite 400, Billings, Montana 59101, and at U.S. EPA Region VIII Montana Office, Federal Building, 10 West 15th Street, Suite 3200, Helena, Montana 59624. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree, may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Consistent with 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on August 3, 2005, a proposed consent decree (“decree”) in
In this action, the United States seeks civil penalties against Degussa for violations of section 307(d) and 308 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1317(d) and 1318, including violation of categorical and local effluent limits contained in industrial user permits issued by the Elyria, Ohio publicly owned treatment works. The proposed decree provides that Degussa will pay a civil penalty of $345,203.50 and will perform a supplemental environmental project valued at $27,514. Degussa also certifies in the proposed decree that it has implemented corrective measures necessary to ensure continuous compliance with applicable effluent limits and other permit terms.
The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, 1800 One Bank Center, 600 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2654 and at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590. During the public comment period, the decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Pursuant to Section 122(d)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d)(2), and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree embodying a settlement in
In a Complaint filed concurrently with the lodging of the Consent Decree, the United States seeks reimbursement of costs incurred by the United States and injunctive relief relating to the Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc., site located in Oahu, Hawaii (“Site”). The United States alleges in the Complaint that the defendant, Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. (“DMFP”), operated the Site and disposed or arranged to dispose of hazardous substances at the Site within the meaning of Sections 107(a)(1), (2), and (3) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(1), (2), and (3).
Under the proposed Consent Decree, DMFP has agreed to fund and perform response actions at the Site. The Consent Decree requires DMFP to, among other things, install monitoring wells to characterize the extent of contaminated groundwater; pump and treat contaminated groundwater; implement phytoremediation; place a vegetated soil covering or cap over the contaminated soil area; install a soil vapor extraction system; and restrict land use. The Consent Decree also requires DMFP to reimburse the Untied States for its costs.
The United States Department of Justice will receive, for a period of 30 days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the U.S. Department of Justice, Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined during the public comment period on the following United States Department of Justice Web site:
Notice is hereby given that a proposed consent Decree in
In the Complaint filed in this matter, the United States alleges that Wellsford, Inc. (“Wellsford”) is liable for response costs pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607 for its involvement with the Recticon/Allied Steel (“Site”) in Parkerford, Pennsylvania. The proposed Consent Decree would resolve the United States' claims set forth in the Complaint through the payment of $20,000, an agreement by Wellsford to exercise due care and not exacerbate existing contamination, and the filing of deed restrictions that provide EPA and its representative access to property and protect the remedy.
The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication. Comments should be addressed to the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044 and should refer to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Pennsylvania, 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250, Philadelphia, PA 19106-4476, and at the Region 3 Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. During the public comment period, the decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation, and Competitive Impact Statement were filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in
Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection at the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 325 Seventh Street, NW., Suite 215, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202-514-2481), on the Internet at
Public comment is invited within the statutory 60-day comment period. Such comments and responses thereto will be published in the
Plaintiff United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil antitrust action to obtain equitable and other appropriate relief against defendant Waste Industries USA, Inc., (“Waste Industries”), including compelling Waste Industries to divest certain waste hauling assets and enjoining Waste Industries from continuing certain anticompetititve contracting practices. The United States complains and alleges as follows:
1. On August 1, 2003, Waste Industries purchased from Allied Waste Industries, Inc., (“Allied”) certain waste-hauling assets. Waste Industries and Allied were two of only a few providers of waste collection services in the independent cities of Norfolk, Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Franklin, Virginia and the country of Southampton, Virginia (hereinafter the “Southside”). The transaction has lessened substantially competition in Southside small container commercial waste collection services.
2. This action seeks to undo the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition of Allied's waste hauling assets by Waste Industries. The divestitures and contracting practice relief sought herein will restore the benefits of the competition that was lost as a result of the transaction.
3. This action is filed by the United States of America under Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 25, to prevent and restrain the violation by Waste Industries of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
4. Waste Industries is located in and transacts business in the Eastern District of Virginia, and Waste Industries submits to the personal jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Virginia in this proceeding. Venue is therefore proper in this district under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22 and 28 U.S.C. 1391(c).
5. Waste Industries collects municipal solid waste from residential, commercial, and industrial customers, and owns and operates landfills, which process and dispose of municipal solid waste. In its waste collection and waste disposal businesses, Waste Industries makes sales and purchases in interstate commerce, ships waste in the flow of interstate commerce, and engages in activities substantially affecting interstate commerce. The Court has jurisdiction over this action and over Waste Industries pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 22 and 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1337.
6. Waste Industries is a North Carolina corporation with its principal office in Raleigh, North Carolina. It is engaged in providing waste collection and disposal services throughout the Southeastern United States. In 2004, Waste Industries reported total revenues of approximately $291 million.
7. Effective August 1, 2003, Waste Industries and Allied completed a purchase and sale of assets in Charlotte, North Carolina; Sumter, South Carolina; Mobile, Alabama; Biloxi, Mississippi; Clarksville, Tennessee; and the Southside. No premerger notification was required under Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(c).
8. Municipal solid waste (“MSW”) is solid putrescible waste generated by households and commercial establishments such as retail stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses, and nonmanufacturing activities in industrial facilities. MSW does not include special handling waste (
9. Waste collection firms, or “haulers,” collect MSW from residential, commercial and industrial establishments and transport the waste to a disposal site, such as a transfer station, sanitary landfill, or incinerator, for processing and disposal. Private waste haulers typically contract directly with individual customers for the collection of waste generated by
10. Small container commercial waste collection service is the business of collecting MSW from commercial and industrial accounts, usually in “dumpsters” (
11. Small container commercial waste collection differs in many important respects from the collection of residential or other types of waste. An individual commercial customer typically generates substantially more MSW than a residential customer. To handle this high volume of MSW efficiently, haulers provide commercial customers with small dumpsters for storing the waste. Haulers organize their commercial accounts into routes and collect and transport the MSW generated by these accounts in vehicles uniquely well suited for small container waste collection, primarily front-end loader (“FEL”) trucks. Less frequently, haulers may use more maneuverable, but less efficient, rear-end loader (“REL”) trucks, especially in those areas in which a collection route includes narrow alleyways or streets. FEL trucks are unable to navigate narrow passageways easily and cannot efficiently collect waste located in them.
12. On a typical small container commercial waste collection route, an operator drives a FEL vehicle to the customer's container, engages a mechanism that grasps and lifts the container over the front of the truck, and empties the container into the vehicle's storage section, where the waste is compacted and stored. The operator continues along the route, collecting MSW from each of the commercial accounts, until the vehicle is full. The operator then drives the FEL truck to a disposal facility, such as a transfer station, landfill, or incinerator, and empties the contents of the vehicle. Often, the operator returns to the route and repeats the process.
13. In contrast to a commercial collection route, a residential waste collection route is significantly more labor intensive. The customer's MSW is stored in much smaller containers (
14. The differences in the types and volume of MSW collected and in the equipment used in collection distinguish small container commercial waste collection from all other types of waste collection activities. These differences mean that small container commercial waste collection firms can profitably increase their charges for small container commercial waste collection services without losing significant sales or revenues to firms engaged in the provision of other types of waste collection services. Thus, small container commercial waste collection service is a line of commerce, or relevant service, for purpose of analyzing the effects of the acquisition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
15. Small container commercial waste collection service is generally provided in highly localized areas because, to operate efficiently and profitably, a hauler must have sufficient density in its commercial waste collection operations (
16. Local small container commercial waste collection firms on the Southside can profitably increase charges to local customers without losing significant sales to more distant competitors. The Southside is the relevant geographic market, for purposes of analyzing the effects of the acquisition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
17. Allied and Waste Industries directly competed in small container commercial waste collection service on the Southside. In this market, Allied and Waste Industries each accounted for a substantial share of total revenues from commercial waste collection services.
18. On the Southside, the acquisition reduced from four to three the number of significant firms competing in the collection of small container commercial waste. Because of the acquisition, Waste Industries now controls about 43%—and the two largest firms about 82%—of the small container commercial waste hauling market. The total Southside market generates annual revenues of about $25 million.
19. Significant new entry into small container commercial waste collection service is difficult and time consuming on the Southside. A new entrant into small container commercial waste collection service cannot provide a significant competitive constraint on the prices charged by market incumbents until it achieves minimum efficient scale and operating efficiencies comparable to existing firms. In order to obtain comparable operating efficiency, a new firm must achieve route density comparable to existing firms. However, the incumbents' use of price discrimination and long-term contracts prevents new entrants from winning a large enough base of customers to achieve efficient routes in sufficient time to constrain the post-acquisition firm from significantly raising prices after the transaction. Differences in the service provided by an incumbent hauler to customers permit the incumbent to meet competition easily from new entrants by pricing its services lower to any customer that wants to switch to the new entrant. An incumbent's use of long-term contracts, which contain large liquidated damage provisions for contract termination and automatically renew, make it more difficult for the customer to switch to a new hauler and obtain lower prices. Long-term contracts increase the cost and time required by an entrant to form an efficient route, reducing the likelihood that the entrant will be successful.
20. The acquisition by Waste Industries of Allied's Southside assets has removed a significant competitor in an already highly concentrated and difficult-to-enter Southside small container commercial waste collection market. In the Southside market, the resulting substantial increase in concentration, loss of competition, and absence of reasonable prospect of significant new entry, has denied small container commercial waste customers the benefits of competition—lower prices and better service.
21. On or about August 1, 2003, Waste Industries acquired Allied's Southside small container commercial waste collection assets. The effect of this acquisition has been to substantially lessen competition in interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
22. The transaction has had the following effects, among others:
a. Competition generally in small container commercial waste collection service in the Southside market has been lessened substantially;
b. Actual and potential competition between Allied and Waste Industries in small container commercial waste collection service was eliminated on the Southside; and
c. Small container commercial waste customers in the Southside market have been denied the benefits of competition, including competition based on price and service.
The United States requests that this Court:
1. Adjudge and decree the acquisition of Allied's Southside small container commercial waste assets by defendant Waste Industries to violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18;
2. Compel Waste Industries to divest waste hauling assets sufficient to restore the competition that was lost as a result of the transaction;
3. Enjoin Waste Industries from continuing certain anticompetitive contracting practices;
4. Award the United States the cost of this action; and
5. Award the United States such other and further relief as the case requires and the Court deems proper.
This Court has jurisdiction over each of the parties and over the subject matter of this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against the defendant under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
As used in this Final Judgment:
A. “Acquirer”means the entity to whom the defendant divests the Relevant Hauling Assets.
B. “Hauling” means the collection of waste from customers and the shipment of the collected waste to disposal sites. Hauling does not include collection of roll-off containers.
C. “MSW”means municipal solid waste, a term of art used to describe solid putrescible waste generated by household and commercial establishment such as retail stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses, and nonmanufacturing activities in industrial facilities. MSW does not include special handling waste (
D. “Relevant Hauling Assets” means $780,000 in annual Southside small container commercial waste collection revenue comprised of customers from Waste Industries' waste collection routes 22 and 914 that operate in Norfolk and Virginia Beach, respectively, and all intangible assets and records related to such customers, including contracts, hauling-related customer lists, account files, and credit records. (The divested customers from Routes 22 and 914 are identified in Exhibit A to this Final Judgment.) If the defendant Acquirer mutually agree, Acquirer may: (1) Purchase any other hauling-related assets used in connection with providing service to the customers identified in Exhibit A, including trucks and other vehicles, containers, materials, and supplies; and (2) negotiate with, and make offers of employment to, personnel involved in the operation and management of the Relevant Hauling Assets.
E. “Small container commercial waste collection services” means the business of collecting MSW from commercial and industrial accounts, usually in “dumpsters” (
F. “Southside” means the independent cities of Norfolk, Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, Suffolk and Franklin, Virginia, and the county of Southampton, Virginia.
G. “Waste Industries” means the defendant Waste Industries USA, Inc., a North Carolina corporation with its headquarters in Raleigh, North Carolina, and includes its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, division, groups, affiliates, partnerships, joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
A. This Final Judgment applies to Waste Industries, as defined above, and all other persons in active concert or participation with Waste Industries who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.
B. The defendant shall require, as a condition of the sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of its assets, that the purchaser agree to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment.
A. The defendant is hereby ordered and directed, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the Complaint in this matter, or five (5) days after notice of the entry of this Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later, to divest the Relevant Hauling Assets in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment to an Acquirer acceptable to the United States in its sole discretion. The United States, in its sole discretion, may agree to an extension of this time period of up to thirty (30) calendar days, and shall notify the Court in such circumstances. The defendant agrees to use its best efforts to divest the Relevant Hauling Assets as expeditiously as possible.
B. In accomplishing the divestiture ordered by this Final Judgment, the defendant promptly shall make known, by usual and customary means, the availability of the Relevant Hauling Assets. The defendant shall inform any person making inquiry regarding a possible purchase of the Relevant Hauling Assets that they are being divested pursuant to this Final Judgment and provide that person a copy of this Final Judgment. The defendant shall offer to furnish to each prospective Acquirer, subject to customary confidentiality assurances, all information and documents relating to the Relevant Hauling Assets customarily provided in a due diligence process except such information or documents subject to the attorney-client or work-product privileges. The defendant shall make available such information to the United States at the same time that such information is made available to any other person.
C. The defendant shall permit each prospective Acquirer of the Relevant Hauling Assets to have reasonable access to personnel and access to any and all financial, operational, or other documents and information customarily provided as part of a due diligence process. If agreed to by the defendant and the prospective Acquirer, the defendant shall provide information relating to the personnel involved in the operation and management of the Relevant Hauling Assets to enable the Acquirer to make offers of employment. The defendant will not interfere with any negotiations by the Acquirer to employ any defendant employee.
D. The defendant shall warrant to the Acquirer of the Relevant Hauling Assets that each asset will be operational on the date of sale.
E. Unless the United States otherwise consents in writing, the divestiture pursuant to Section IV, or by trustee appointed pursuant to Section V of this Final Judgment, shall include the entire Relevant Hauling Assets, and shall be accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that the Relevant Hauling Assets can and will be used by the Acquirer as part of a viable, ongoing MSW hauling business. Divestiture of the Relevant Hauling Assets may be made to an Acquirer, provided that it is demonstrated to the sole satisfaction of the United States that the Relevant Hauling Assets will remain viable and the divestiture of such assets will remedy the competitive harm alleged in the Complaint. The divestiture, whether pursuant to Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment:
1. Shall be made to an Acquirer that, in the United States' sole judgment, has the intent and capability, including managerial, operational, and financial capability, to compete effectively in the waste hauling business; and
2. Shall be accomplished so as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that none of the terms of any agreement between an Acquirer and Waste Industries gives Waste Industries the ability unreasonably to raise the Acquirer's costs, to lower the Acquirer's efficiency, or otherwise to interfere in the ability of the Acquirer to compete effectively.
A. If the defendant has not divested the Relevant Hauling Assets within the time period specified in Section IV.A, the defendant shall notify the United States of that fact in writing. Upon application of the United States, in its sole discretion, the Court shall appoint a trustee selected by the United States and approved by the Court to effect the divestiture of the Relevant Hauling Assets.
B. After the appointment of the trustee becomes effective, only the trustee shall have the right to sell the Relevant Hauling Assets. the trustee shall have the power and authority to accomplish the divestiture to an Acquirer acceptable to the United States, in its sole discretion, at such price, and on such terms as are then obtainable upon reasonable effort by the trustee, subject to the provisions of Sections IV, V, and VI of this Final Judgment, and shall have other powers as this Court deems appropriate. Subject to Section V.D of this Final Judgment, the trustee may have at the cost and expense of the defendant any investment bankers, attorneys, or other agents, who shall be solely accountable to the trustee, reasonably necessary in the trustee's judgment to assist in the divestiture.
C. The defendant shall not object to a sale by the trustee on any ground other than the trustee's malfeasance. Any such objections by the defendant must be conveyed in writing in the United States and the trustee within ten (10) calendar days after the trustee has provided the notice required under Section VI.
D. The trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of the defendant, on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, and shall account for all monies derived from the sale of the Relevant Hauling Assets sold by the trustee and all costs and expenses so incurred. After approval by the Court of the trustee's accounting, including fees for its services and those of any professionals and agents retained by the trustee, all remaining money shall be paid to the defendant and the trust shall then be terminated. The compensation of the trustee and any professionals and agents retained by the trustee shall be reasonable in light of the value of the Relevant Hauling Assets and based on a fee arrangement providing the trustee with an incentive based on the price and terms of the divestiture and the speed with which it is accomplished, but timeliness is paramount.
E. The defendant shall use its best efforts to assist the trustee in accomplishing the required divestiture. The trustee and any consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other persons retained by the trustee shall have full and complete access to the personnel, books, records, and facilities of the business to be divested, and the defendant shall develop financial and other information relevant to such business as the trustee may reasonably request, subject to customary confidentiality protection for trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information. The defendant shall take no action to interfere with or to impede the trustee's accomplishment of the divestiture.
F. After its appointment, the trustee shall file monthly reports with the United States and the Court settling forth the trustee's efforts to accomplish the divestiture ordered under this Final Judgment. To the extent that such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. Such reports shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the proceeding month, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Relevant Hauling Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person. The trustee shall maintain full records of all efforts made to divest the Relevant Hauling Assets.
G. If the trustee has not accomplished such divestiture within six (6) months after its appointment, the trustee shall promptly file with the Court a report setting forth (1) the trustee's efforts to accomplish the required divestiture, (2) the reasons, in the trustee's judgment, why the required divestiture has not been accomplished, and (3) the trustee's recommendations. To the extent that such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. The trustee shall at the same time furnish such report to the United States who shall have the right to make additional recommendations consistent with the purpose of the trust. The Court thereafter shall enter such orders as it shall deem appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Final Judgment, which may, if necessary, including extending the trust and the term of the trustee's appointment by a period requested by the United States.
A. Within two (2) business days following execution of a definitive divestiture agreement, the defendant or the trustee, whichever is then responsible for effecting the divestiture required herein, shall notify the United States of any proposed divestiture required by Section IV or V of this Final Judgment. If the trustee is responsible, it shall similarly notify the defendant. The notice shall set forth the details of the proposed divestiture and list the name, address, and telephone number of each person not previously identified who offered or expressed an interest in or desire to acquire any ownership interest in the Relevant Hauling Assets, together with full details of the same.
B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt by the United States of such notice, the United States, in its sole discretion, may request from the defendant, the proposed Acquirer, any other third part, or the trustee, if applicable, additional information concerning the proposed divestiture, the proposed Acquirer, and any other potential Acquirer. The defendant and the trustee shall furnish any additional information requested within fifteen (15) calendar days of the receipt of the request, unless the parties shall otherwise agree.
C. Within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the notice or within twenty (20) calendar days after the Unites States has been provided the additional information requested from the defendant, the proposed Acquirer, any third party, or the trustee, whichever is later, the United States, in its sole discretion, shall provide written notice to the defendant and the trustee, if there is one, stating whether or not it objects to the proposed divestiture. If the United States provides written notice that it does not object, the divestiture may be consummated, subject only to the defendant's limited right to object to the sale under Section V.C of this Final Judgment. Absent written notice that the United states does not object to the proposed Acquirer or upon objection by the United States, a divestiture proposed under Section IV or Section V shall not be consummated. Upon objection by the defendant under Section V.C, a divestiture proposed under Section V shall not be consummated unless approved by the Court.
The defendant shall not finance all or any part of any purchase made pursuant to Section IV or V of this Judgment.
A. Until the divestiture required by this Final Judgment has been accomplished, the defendant shall: (1) Preserve and maintain the value and goodwill of the Relevant Hauling Assets; (2) operate the Relevant Hauling Assets in the ordinary course of business, including reasonable efforts to maintain and increase sales and revenues; and (3) take no action that would jeopardize, delay, or impede the sale of the Relevant Hauling Assets.
B. The divested customers on Routes 22 and 914 identified in Exhibit A collectively generate approximately $65,000 in monthly small container commercial waste collection revenue ($780,000 annual revenue), as of May 2005. If, prior to divestiture, any customer identified in Exhibit A let their contracts expire, terminate their contracts, or reduce small container commercial waste collection services such that small container commercial waste collection revenue to be divested declines by five (5) percent or more, the defendant shall divest additional small container commercial waste collection customers to replace these revenues up to $780,000. The defendant shall provide monthly customer reports that update Exhibit A and identify any lost customers, customer price increases or service changes, and overall revenue changes. Any change in the Relevant Hauling Assets must be reviewed by and approved by the United States. All revenue calculations under Section VIII.B of this Final Judgment shall be based on monthly revenues for May 2005.
A. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, and every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter until the divestiture has been completed under Section IV or V, the defendant shall deliver to the United States an affidavit as to the fact and manner of its compliance with Section IV or V of this Final Judgment. Each such affidavit shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding thirty (30) days, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Relevant Hauling Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person during that period. Each such affidavit shall also include a description of the efforts the defendant has taken to solicit buyers for the Relevant Hauling
B. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, the defendant shall deliver to the United States an affidavit that describes in reasonable detail all actions the defendant has taken and all steps the defendant has implemented on an ongoing basis to comply with Section VIII of this Final Judgment. The defendant shall deliver to the United States an affidavit describing any changes to the efforts and actions outlined in the defendant's earlier affidavits filed pursuant to this section within fifteen (15) calendar days after the change is implemented.
C. The defendant shall keep all records of all efforts made to preserve the Relevant Hauling Assets and to divest the Relevant Hauling Assets until one year after such divestiture has been completed.
A. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or of determining whether the Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, and subject to any legally recognized privilege, from time to time duly authorized representatives of the United States Department of Justice, including consultants and other persons retained by the United States, shall, upon written request of a duly authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to the defendant and counsel of record, be permitted:
1. access during the defendant's office hours to inspect and copy, or at the United States' option, to require the defendant to provide copies of all books, ledgers, accounts, records, and documents in the possession or control of the defendant, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment; and
2. to interview, either informally or on the record, the defendant's officers, employees, or agents, who may have their individual counsel present, regarding such matters. The interviews shall be subject to the reasonable convenience of the interviewee and without restraint or interference by the defendant.
B. Upon the written request of a duly authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, the defendant shall submit such written reports or responses to written interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to any of the matters contained in this Final Judgment as may be requested.
C. No information or documents obtained by the means provided in this section shall be divulged by the United States to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States is a party (including grand jury proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
D. If at the time information or documents are furnished by the defendant to the United States, the defendant represents and identifies in writing the material in any such information or documents to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the defendant marks each pertinent page of such material, “Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” then the United States shall give the defendant ten (10) calendar days notice prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding).
The defendant may not reacquire all or substantially all of the Relevant Hauling Assets listed in Exhibit A during the term of this Final Judgment. Nothing herein shall preclude the defendant from competing for the hauling business of any individual customer listed in Exhibit A, so long as the defendant's conduct is consistent with a commercially reasonable sales agreement negotiated with the Acquirer of the Relevant Hauling Assets.
A. The defendant shall alter the standard contract form (“the Standard Contract”) it uses with small container commercial waste collection customers in the Southside and the Standard Contract shall contain the following terms:
1. an initial term no longer than two (2) years;
2. a renewal term no longer than one (1) year;
3. a notice of termination no9 more than thirty (30) days prior to the end of any initial term or renewal term;
4. liquidated damages of no more than three (3) times the contract's average monthly charge during the first year the customer has had service with the defendant; and
5. liquidated damages of no more than two (2) times the contract's average monthly charge after the first year the customer has had service with the defendant.
B. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, the defendant, by means of a letter approved by the United States, shall inform its existing Southside small container commercial waste collection customers about the terms, conditions and rights set forth in Sections XII.A and XII.B of this Final Judgment and shall offer in writing to the customers the option to enter into the Standard Contract. Should an existing customer request the Standard Contract, the defendant shall execute the Standard Contract with that customer. The defendant shall not initiate negotiations with existing customers to modify the Standard Contract; however, upon the request of the customer, the defendant may modify the Standard Contract subject to the procedures set forth in Section XII.C of this Final Judgment. Should an existing customer continue with its current contract, the defendant shall not enforce any term or condition that is inconsistent with Section XII.A of this Final Judgment. For example, if an existing customer contract has a five-year initial term, the defendant may only enforce this provision for a two-year period from the date the contract was executed.
C. From the date of filing the Compliant in this action, the defendant shall use the Standard Contract with all new customers and any existing customer that may request the Standard Contract. The defendant may negotiate terms and conditions different from those set forth in Section XII.A of this Final Judgment, provided that the Standard Contract form is utilized, the customer is notified in writing that it can accept the Standard Contract without modification, the modification(s) are made in the physical presence of the customer, the modification(s) are made in writing on the Standard Contract, and the customer initials each modification. If the defendant complies with the requirements set forth in this subsection C, this Final Judgment shall not prevent the enforcement by either the defendant or customer of any such negotiated modifications that are different from those set forth in Section XII.A.
D. The provisions of Section XII of this Final Judgment will expire on August 8, 2010.
This Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.
Unless this Court grants an extension or as otherwise noted in Section XII.D, this Final Judgment shall expire ten (10) years from the date of its entry.
Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.
Civil No.
Filed:
Plaintiff United States of America (“United States”), pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (“APPA”), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.
Defendant Waste Industries USA, Inc. (“Waste Industries”) purchased from Allied Waste Industries, Inc. (“Allied”), effective August 1, 2003, certain waste-hauling assets located in the independent cities of Norfolk, Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Franklin, Virginia and the county of Southampton, Virginia (hereinafter the “Southside”). The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on August 8, 2005, seeking a declaration that Waste Industries' purchase from Allied violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and requesting equitable relief. The Complaint alleges that the transaction substantially lessened competition for small container commercial waste collection services in the Southside. This loss of competition has denied Southside customers the benefits of competition—lower prices and better service.
At the same time the Complaint was filed, the United States also filed a proposed Final Judgment, which is designed to eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition. Under the proposed Final Judgment, which is explained more fully below, Waste Industries is required within ninety (90) days after the filing of the Complaint, or five (5) days after notice of the entry of the Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later, to divest, as a viable business operation, specified waste-hauling assets. In addition to the divestiture, the proposed Final Judgment also requires Waste Industries to comply with certain conditions regarding its customer contracts in the Southside.
The United States and Waste Industries have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this action, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof.
On August 1, 2003, Waste Industries acquired Allied's hauling assets in the Southside. The transaction has lessened competition in the Southside small container commercial waste collection services market. Waste Industries, with revenues in 2004 of approximately $291 million, is engaged in providing waste collection and disposal services throughout the southeastern United States. Allied, with revenues in 2004 of approximately $5.4 billion, is the nation's second-largest waste collection and disposal company.
Municipal solid waste (“MSW”) is solid, putrescible waste generated by households and commercial establishments. Waste collection firms, or haulers, contract to collect MSW from residential and commercial customers and transport the waste to private and public disposal facilities (
Small container commercial waste collection service is the collection of MSW from commercial businesses such as office and apartment buildings and retail establishments (
Providers of other types of waste collection services (
The Complaint alleges that the provision of small container commercial waste collection service takes place in compact, highly localized geographic markets. It is expensive to ship waste long distances in waste collection operations. To minimize transportation costs and maximize the scale, density, and efficiently of their waste collection operations, small container commercial waste collection firms concentrate their customers and collection routes in small areas. Firms with operations concentrated in a distant area cannot easily compete against firms whose routes and customers are locally based. Distance may significantly limit a remote firm's ability to provide commercial waste collection service as frequently or conveniently as that offered by local firms with nearby routes. Also, local commercial waste collection firms have significant cost advantages over other firms and can profitably increase their charges to local commercial customers without losing significant sales to firms outside the area. Based on these circumstances, the Complaint alleges that the Southside constitutes a section of the country, or relevant geographic market, for the purpose of assessing the competitive effects of Waste Industries' purchase of Allied's Southside hauling assets in the provision of small container commercial waste collection services.
There are significant entry barriers in small container commercial waste collection services. A new entrant in small container commercial waste collection services must achieve a minimum efficient scale and operating efficiencies comparable to those of existing firms to provide a significant competitive constraint on the prices charged by market incumbents. In order to obtain comparable operating efficiencies, a new firm must achieve route density similar to existing firms. Because most customers have their waste collected once or twice a week, a new entrant generally requires several hundred customers in close proximity to construct an efficient route. However, the common use of price discrimination and long-term contracts by existing commercial waste collection firms can leave too few customers available to the entrant in a sufficiently confined geographic area to create an efficient route. The incumbent firm can selectively and temporarily charge an extraordinarily low price to specified customers targeted by new entrants. Long-term contracts often run for three to five years and may automatically renew or contain large liquidated damage provisions for contract termination. Such terms make it more costly or difficult for a customer to switch to a new hauler and obtain lower prices for its collection service. Because of these factors, a new entrant may find it difficult to compete by offering its services at price levels comparable to the incumbents' pre-entry prices. Such difficulties may cause an increase in the cost and time required to form an efficient route, thereby limiting a new entrant's ability to build an efficient route and reducing the likelihood that the entrant will ultimately be successful.
The need for route density, the use of long-term contracts with restrictive terms, and the ability of existing firms to price discriminate raise significant barriers to entry by new firms, which will likely be forced to complete at lower than pre-entry price levels.
Waste Industries' acquisition of Allied's hauling assets reduced from four to three the number of significant firms that compete in the collection of small container commercial waste in the Southside. Waste Industries now controls about 43% of the Southside small container commercial waste hauling market. The total Southside market generates annual revenues of approximately $25 million. Two firms, Waste Industries and Waste Management, Inc., control about 82% of the market.
The Complaint alleges that Waste Industries' acquisition of Allied's hauling assets in the Southside has removed a significant competitor in small container commercial waste collection services. The resulting increase in concentration, loss of competition, and absence of any reasonable prospect of significant new entry or expansion by market incumbents has denied Southside customers the benefits of competition—lower prices and better service.
The proposed Final Judgment is designed to return the Southside small container commercial waste collection services market to its pre-acquisition competitive state while recognizing changes to other haulers since the acquisition. At the time of the acquisition, there were four significant competitors in the Southside market. Allied and Waste Management, Inc. dominated the market with substantial market shares. Waste Industries and another local hauler were small but significant players. Thus, post-acquisition, there is one less competitor in a market with two dominant participants and one small participant whose operations have expanded slightly since the acquisition.
The divestiture and contract relief provisions of the proposed Final Judgment will eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition by establishing a new, independent, and economically viable competitor or by strengthening an existing, in-market hauler, and by also reducing the barriers to entry created by the contracts currently used by Waste Industries.
The proposed Final Judgment requires Waste Industries, within ninety (90) days after the filing of the Complaint, or five (5) days after notice of the entry of the Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later, to divest as a viable ongoing business specified small container commercial waste collection assets in the Southside. Under the proposed Final Judgment, Waste Industries is required to divest the specified assets to a new, independent, and economically viable competitor or to an existing, independent, and economically viable small hauler. The proposed Final Judgment requires divestiture of certain small container commercial waste collection customers that produce annual revenues of $780,000. A divestiture of this size will reduce Waste Industries' market share to approximately Allied' July 2003 premerger market share. The divested customers come from two existing Waste Industries routes, one in Virginia Beach and the other in Norfolk. These two areas account for the majority of Waste Industries' Southside small container commercial waste revenues. Waste Industries will retain certain customers on the designated routes, including customers that would be difficult to divest because, for example, the customer is serviced as part of a national account or the customer has multiple locations that are serviced on Waste Industries routes not subject to divestiture.
The assets must be divested in such a way as to satisfy the United States that the operations can and will be operated by the purchaser as a viable, ongoing business that can compete effectively in the Southside. Waste Industries must take all reasonable steps necessary to accomplish the divestiture quickly and shall cooperate with prospective purchasers.
Under the proposed Final Judgment, Waste Industries will be required to preserve and maintain the divested
In the event that Waste Industries does not accomplish the divestiture within the period prescribed by the proposed Final Judgment, the Final Judgment provides that the Court will appoint a trustee selected by the United States to effect the divestiture. If a trustee is appointed, the proposed Final Judgment provides that Waste Industries will pay all costs and expenses of the trustee. The trustee's compensation will be structured so as to provide an incentive for the trustee based on the price obtained and the speed with which the divestiture is accomplished. After his or her appointment becomes effective, the trustee will file monthly reports with the Court and the United States as appropriate, setting forth his or her efforts to accomplish the divestiture. At the end of six months, if the divestiture has not been accomplished, the trustee and the United States as appropriate, will make recommendations to the Court, which shall enter such orders as appropriate to carry out the purpose of the trust, including extending the trust or the term of the trustee's appointment.
While the proposed Final Judgment prohibits Waste Industries from reacquiring all or substantially all of the small container commercial waste customers to be divested, it encourages ongoing Southside competition by permitting Waste Industries to continue to compete for the hauling business of any individual customer to be divested. Waste Industries' conduct in this regard must be consistent with a commercially reasonable sales agreement negotiated with the acquirer of the divested assets.
Because the divestiture alone will not fully eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition, the proposed Final Judgment also requires contract relief. The Final Judgment obligates Waste Industries, for a period of five (5) years from August 8, 2005, to offer all new customers and all existing customers who initiate negotiations, a contract with at least the following conditions (“the Standard Contract”): (1) No initial term longer than two years; (2) no renewal term longer than one year; (3) no requirement that the customer give Waste Industries notice of termination more than thirty days prior to the end of any initial term or renewal term; (4) no requirement that the customer pay liquidated damages more than three times its average monthly charge during the first year the customer has had service with Waste Industries; and (5) no requirement that the customer pay liquidated damages more than two times it average monthly charge after the first year the customer has had service with Waste Industries. Waste Industries will be required to send a letter to its current customers advising them of the new contract terms and that Waste Industries may not enforce more restrictive terms even if the customer does not enter into a new contract. The proposed Final Judgment provides that as to Waste Industries' current customers, only the customer can initiate negotiations to replace its existing contract. Waste Industries shall offer in writing the Standard Contract to all new customers and any existing customers who choose to initiate contract negotiations. Waste Industries and these customers are then free to negotiate modifications to the Standard Contract terms, provided that the modifications are made in the presence of the customer, in writing, and initiated by the customer. The proposed Final Judgment shall not prevent the enforcement by either the defendant or customer of any such negotiated modification.
This contract relief is significant because it lowers barriers to entry by giving new and existing customers greater leverage in contract negotiations with Waste Industries and allowing existing customers to consider competitive alternatives by providing for the termination of existing contracts through the payment of reasonable liquidated damages. Implementation of the proposed contract relief will make it easier for customers to switch haulers and should enable the purchaser of the divested assets and other competitors to gain customers if Waste Industries raises prices. The combined divestiture and contract relief sought in the Southside will ensure that consumers of small container commercial waste collection services will continue to receive the benefits of competition.
Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgement will neither impair nor assist the bring of any private antitrust damage action. Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no
The United States and Waste Industries have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest.
The APPA provides a period of at least sixty (60) days preceding the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within sixty (60) days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the
Written comments should be submitted to: Maribeth Petrizzi, Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust Divsion, U.S. Department of Justice, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20530.
The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment.
The United States considered, as an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, a full trial on the merits against Waste Industries. The United States could have continued the litigation and requested that the Southside transaction be adjudged and decreed to be unlawful and in violation
The APPA requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject ot a sixty-day comment period, after which the Court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the Court shall consider:
(1) The competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration or relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and
(2) The impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2). Thus, in conducting this inquiry, “[t]he court is nowhere compelled to go to trial or to engage in extended proceedings which might have the effect of vitiating the benefits of prompt and less costly settlement through the consent decree process.” 119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement of Senator Tunney).
Accordingly, with respect to the adequacy of the relief secured by the decree, a court may not “engage in unrestricted evaluation of what relief would best serve the public.”
The proposed Final Judgment, therefore, should not be reviewed under a standard of whether it is certain to eliminate every anticompetitive effect of a particular practice or whether it mandates certainty of free competition in the future. Court approval of a final judgment requires a standard more flexible and less strict than the standard required for a finding of liability. “[A] proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is ‘within the reaches of public interest.’ ”
Moreover, the Court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize the Court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.”
There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on July 22, 2005 in response to a petition filed by a state agent representative on behalf of workers at Brunswick, Muskegon, Michigan.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on July 19, 2005, in response to a petition filed by a State agent representative on behalf of workers at Datacolor, Lawrenceville, New Jersey.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on July 22, 2005, applicable to workers of Edscha Roof Systems, LLC, Greer, South Carolina. The notice will be published soon in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of convertible tops. The subject firm originally named Premier Roof Systems, LLC as the name of the company, however, new information shows that the company was renamed Edscha Roof Systems, LLC on January 28, 2005. The State agency reports that some workers wages at the subject firm are being reported under the Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax account for Premier Roof Systems, LLC, Greer, South Carolina.
Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to properly reflect this matter.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Edscha Roof Systems, LLC who were adversely affected by a shift in production to Mexico.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-57,394 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Edscha Roof Systems, LLC, formerly known as Premier Roof Systems, LLC, Greer, South Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 9, 2004, through July 22, 2007, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Emerson Network Power, Energy Systems, formerly known as Marconi Communication, Toccoa, Georgia. The application contained no new substantial information which would bear importantly on the Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.
By letter postmarked July 11, 2005, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on May 16, 2005, and published in the
The investigation revealed that the petitioning workers of this firm or subdivision do not produce an article within the meaning of section 222 of the Act.
The Department reviewed the request for reconsideration and has determined that the petitioner has provided
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on June 24, 2005, in response to a petition filed by a State workforce representative on behalf of workers at LC Special Markets Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Liz Claiborne, Inc., North Bergen, New Jersey.
The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification, (TA-W-55,748) which expires on March 25, 2007. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on July 22, 2005 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Gilbert Martin Woodworking Company, Inc., d/b/a Martin Furniture, San Diego, California.
The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification issued on July 5, 2005 which remains in effect (TA-W-57,387). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on July 5, 2005, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at NCO Financial Systems, Inc., Hampton, Virginia.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on August 3, 2005, applicable to workers of Tower Automotive Milwaukee, LLC, Milwaukee Business Unit, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The notice will be published soon in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of automotive frames and stampings.
New findings show that there was a previous certification, TA-W-50,339, issued on January 23, 2003, for workers of Tower Automotive, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin who were engaged in employment related to the production of structural component parts and assemblies for light truck bodies. That certification expired January 23, 2005. To avoid an overlap in worker group coverage, the certification is being amended to change the impact date from June 30, 2004, to January 24, 2005, for workers of the subject firm.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-57,513 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Tower Automotive Milwaukee, LLC, Milwaukee Business Unit, Milwaukee, Wisconsin who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 24, 2005, through August 3, 2007, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than August 29, 2005.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than August 29, 2005.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
The Secretary of Labor has determined that re-establishment of the charter of the Business Research Advisory Council (BRAC) is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Commissioner of Labor Statistics by 29 U.S.C. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. This determination follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.
Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the
This proceeding concerns a July 9, 2005 request for hearing submitted by petitioner North American Water Office, in response to a May 5, 2005 notice of opportunity for hearing, 70 FR 25,117 (May 12, 2005), regarding the March 16, 2005 application of Nuclear Management Company, LLC, (NMC) for renewal of the operating license for its Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. In its application, NMC requests that the operating license for its Monticello facility be extended for an additional twenty years beyond the period specified in the current license, which expires on September 8, 2010.
The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: Lawrence G. McDade, Chair, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Anthony J. Baratta, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Richard E. Wardwell, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed with the administrative judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302.
On February 24, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The CHX proposes to eliminate the current exemptions from the Exchange's continuing education requirements that apply to persons who have been continuously registered for more than 10 years. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in
RULE 9. (a) Regulatory Element—No member or member organization shall permit any registered person to continue to, and no registered person shall continue to, perform duties as a registered person, unless such person has complied with the continuing education requirements of Section (a) of this Rule.
Each registered person shall complete the Regulatory Element of the continuing education program on the occurrence of their second registration anniversary date and every three years thereafter, or as otherwise prescribed by the Exchange. On each of the occasions, the Regulatory Element must be completed within one hundred twenty days after the person's registration anniversary date. A person's initial registration date
([2]
The Exchange may, upon application and a showing of good cause, allow for additional time for a registered person to satisfy the program requirements.
([3]
(i) Becomes subject to any statutory disqualification as defined in Section 3(a)(39) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
(ii) becomes subject to suspension or to the imposition of a fine of $5,000 or more for violation of any provision of any securities law or regulation, or any agreement with or rule or standard of conduct of any securities governmental agency, securities self-regulatory organization, or as imposed by any such regulatory or self-regulatory organization in connection with a disciplinary proceeding; or
(iii) is ordered as a sanction in a disciplinary proceeding to [re-enter]
.03 A registered person, [who has been continuously registered for more than ten years as of March 1, 2000 ]who becomes subject to a disciplinary action as enumerated in subsections (a)(3)(i)-(ii) of the Rule, will be required to satisfy the requirements of the Regulatory Element of the continuing education program
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change, as amended, 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 CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange's continuing education rules generally require registered persons to complete the regulatory element of the continuing education program on their second registration anniversary dates and every three years thereafter, or as otherwise prescribed by the Exchange.
At its December 2003 meeting, the Securities Industry/Regulatory Council on Continuing Education (the “Council”) agreed to recommend that self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) eliminate, from their continuing education rules, the two exceptions described above. The Council made that recommendation to ensure that all registered market participants receive the full benefits of continuing education programs, including a new module that focuses on ethical issues.
After considering the issue, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to eliminate the two exceptions, so that all of its registered participants—regardless of the length of time of their registrations—will participate in the regulatory element of the required continuing education programs. The Exchange proposes that this rule change take effect on October 1, 2005.
The CHX believes the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b).
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended, will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change, as amended, has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with
• 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, Station Place, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2005-16. 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 (
Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2005-16 and should be submitted on or before September 8, 2005.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is amending its proposal to prohibit Exchange Participants from using any communications means to send orders to another market for execution (a “layoff service”) unless that layoff service has established a process for providing the Exchange with specific information about the orders and the executions that participants receive. This amendment changes the proposed effective date contained in the proposed rule text from August 1, 2005 to September 30, 2005.
In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
As noted in the original filing, the Exchange is proposing to amend its rule relating to communications from the trading floor to provide the Exchange with the layoff service information that it needs to enhance its surveillance programs. Through this Amendment No. 3, the Exchange is seeking to revise the proposed effective date of its proposed rule to September 30, 2005. The Exchange believes that this later effective date will better allow all of its Participants and their layoff vendors to be able to comply with the proposed rule in a timely manner on its effective date.
The CHX believes the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve the proposed rule change, as amended, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change, as amended, should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 3, 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, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CHX-2004-25. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”)
PCX submitted to the Commission (i) a proposed amendment to the certificate of incorporation of PCX Holdings, Inc. (“PCXH”), the parent company of the Exchange and its other operating subsidiaries, (ii) proposed new PCX Rules 1.1(cc) through (gg), Rule 3.4 and Rule 13.2(a)(2)(E),
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization 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 self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is submitting to the Commission the Proposed Rule Changes in connection with Archipelago's proposed acquisition of PCXH. On January 3, 2005, PCXH, Archipelago and New Apple Acquisitions Corporation (the “Merger Sub”), a newly formed wholly-owned subsidiary of Archipelago, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Original Merger Agreement”), pursuant to which Archipelago has agreed to acquire PCXH and all of its wholly owned subsidiaries, including PCX and PCXE, by way of a merger under Delaware law (the “Merger”) of the Merger Sub with and into PCXH, with PCXH as the surviving corporation. On July 22, 2005, PCXH, Archipelago and Merger Sub amended and restated the Original Merger Agreement to, among other things, provide that the consideration payable to PCXH stockholders would be made wholly in cash, and that, as contemplated by the Original Merger Agreement, the measurement dates for purposes of valuing the Archipelago stock held by PCXH would now be the ten consecutive trading days ending on the last trading day prior to the closing date of the Merger (as so amended, the “Amended Merger Agreement”).
Pursuant to the Amended Merger Agreement, subject to appraisal rights under Delaware law and other than with respect to treasury stock of PCXH and PCXH common stock beneficially owned by Archipelago for Archipelago's own account, each share of PCXH common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger (the “Effective Time”) will be converted into, and become exchangeable for, an amount in cash equal to the quotient of the aggregate merger consideration divided by the sum of the number of outstanding shares of PCXH common stock and the number of shares to be issued upon the exercise of all options at the consummation of the merger. The aggregate merger consideration equals the sum of the value of the shares of Archipelago common stock owned by PCX and its subsidiaries and $17 million, subject to market fluctuations in the Archipelago stock price and certain other adjustments pursuant to the Amended Merger Agreement. The value of Archipelago common stock shall be determined using the average of the per share closing prices for Archipelago common stock for the ten consecutive trading days ending on the last trading day prior to the closing date of the Merger. At the Effective Time, all PCXH common stock will be cancelled or retired and cease to exist.
As a result of the Merger, PCXH, as the surviving corporation in the Merger, will become a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Archipelago (the post-Merger PCXH will hereinafter be referred to as the “New PCXH”). The certificate of incorporation of PCXH as in effect immediately prior to the Effective Time will, subject to approval of the Commission, be amended pursuant to the Amended Merger Agreement and as so amended, will be the certificate of incorporation of the New PCXH. The bylaws of PCXH as in effect immediately prior to the Effective Time will be the bylaws of the New PCXH, until thereafter amended as provided therein or by applicable law. The directors of the Merger Sub at the Effective Time will become directors of the New PCXH and the officers of PCXH at the Effective Time will continue to be officers of the New PCXH.
Except as described in the preceding paragraph or otherwise approved by the Commission, the Merger will not affect the internal corporate structure of PCXH or the regulatory relationship of PCX and PCXE to Archipelago Exchange, L.L.C. (“ArcaEx”), the exclusive equities trading facility of PCX and PCXE. PCX will remain a wholly-owned subsidiary of the New PCXH, will continue operating the options business of the Exchange and will retain the self-regulatory organization function for the options business as well as for PCX's equities business subsidiary, PCXE. After the Merger, except as otherwise approved by the Commission, the board of directors of PCX will continue to comply with the compositional requirements set forth in the certificate of incorporation and bylaws of PCX. Except as otherwise approved by the Commission, PCXE's operations, governance structure, or rules will not be affected by the Merger. After the Merger, except as otherwise approved by the Commission, the board of directors of PCXE will continue to comply with the compositional requirements set forth in the certificate of incorporation and bylaws of PCXE. ArcaEx will remain the exclusive equities trading facility of PCX and PCXE and the Amended and Restated Facility Services Agreement among Archipelago, PCX and PCXE, dated as of March 22, 2002, which currently governs the regulatory relationship of PCX and PCXE to ArcaEx (the “Facility Services Agreement”), will remain in full force and effect in its current form.
In order to safeguard the independence of the self-regulatory functions of PCX and protect the Commission's oversight responsibilities, the certificate of incorporation of PCXH, which was approved by the Commission on May 17, 2004 in connection with the demutualization of the Exchange,
Specifically, PCX proposes to add a new paragraph at the end of Article Nine of the certificate of incorporation of PCXH, providing that for so long as Archipelago directly owns all of the outstanding capital stock of PCXH, the provisions of Article Nine, including the ownership and voting limitations with respect to shares of PCXH capital stock, shall not be applicable to the voting and ownership of shares of PCXH capital stock by (i) except for prohibited persons (as defined below), Archipelago, (ii) except for prohibited persons, any person which is a related person (as such term is defined in the certificate of incorporation of PCXH) of Archipelago, either alone or together with its related persons, and (iii) except for prohibited persons, any other person to which Archipelago is a related person, either alone or together with its related persons.
“Prohibited persons” is defined to mean any person which is, or which has a related person which is (A) an OTP Holder or an OTP Firm (as such terms are defined in the rules of PCX, as such rules may be in effect from time to time) or (B) an ETP Holder,
PCX believes that by creating a limited exemption from the voting and ownership restrictions in the certificate of incorporation of PCXH, the proposed amendment will permit the consummation of the Merger and the continued ownership of PCXH by Archipelago after the Merger while preserving the general applicability of such restrictions as they currently exist, so that these restrictions may continue safeguarding the independence of PCX's self-regulatory function and the Commission's oversight responsibilities. In addition, PCX believes that by eliminating prohibited persons from the exemption, other than those approved by the Commission, it will prevent OTP Holders, OTP Firms and ETP Holders (as such terms are defined in the rules of PCX, as such rules may be amended from time to time) from acquiring, directly or indirectly, a substantial number of outstanding shares of PCXH and exercising undue influence over the operation of PCX, including its self-regulatory functions, without proper oversight by the Commission.
In connection with the proposed amendment to the certificate of incorporation of PCXH described above, the Exchange requests that the Commission approve Archipelago Securities, L.L.C. (“Archipelago Securities”) to be a facility (as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Act) of PCX.
Archipelago Securities, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Archipelago, is a registered broker-dealer, a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) and an ETP Holder. Archipelago Securities provides an optional routing service for ArcaEx, and, as necessary, routes orders to other securities exchanges, facilities of securities exchanges, automated trading systems, electronic communications networks or other brokers or dealers (collectively, “Market Centers”) from ArcaEx (such function of Archipelago Securities is referred to as the “Outbound Router”). In its capacity as an Outbound Router, Archipelago Securities has operated as a facility (as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Act) of PCX. It was approved by the Commission as a facility (as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Act) of PCXE on October 25, 2001 in connection with the Commission's approval of the rules of PCX establishing ArcaEx as a facility of PCXE.
Archipelago intends to continue to own and operate Archipelago Securities following the closing of the Merger. The proposed operation of Archipelago Securities as an Outbound Router after the closing of the Merger will not change from the way it is administered and operated today.
PCX and PCXE currently regulate the Outbound Router function of Archipelago Securities as a facility (as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Act) subject to Section 6 of the Act. As such, the Outbound Router function of Archipelago Securities is subject to the Commission's continuing oversight. In particular, and without limitation, under the Act, PCX is responsible for filing with the Commission rule changes and fees relating to the Archipelago Securities Outbound Router function, and Archipelago Securities is subject to exchange non-discrimination requirements.
Pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the Act, where a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation is a member of more than one self-regulatory organization (“SRO”), the Commission shall designate to one of such organizations the responsibility for examining such member for compliance with the applicable financial responsibility rules.
ETP Holders' use of Archipelago Securities to route orders to another Market Center is currently optional, and will remain optional after the closing of the Merger. Those ETP Holders who choose to use the Outbound Routing service of Archipelago Securities must sign an Archipelago Securities Routing Agreement. Importantly, among other things, the Archipelago Securities Routing Agreement provides that all orders routed through Archipelago Securities are subject to the terms and conditions of PCXE rules.
PCX and Archipelago recognize that after the closing of the Merger such continued ownership and operation by Archipelago of Archipelago Securities—by virtue of Archipelago Securities being an ETP Holder and a related person of Archipelago
PCX and Archipelago further recognize that the ownership of both PCX and Archipelago Securities by Archipelago may pose a conflict of interest between the regulatory responsibilities of PCX and PCXE and the broker or dealer activities of Archipelago Securities. This is because the financial interests of Archipelago may conflict with the responsibilities of PCX and PCXE as an SRO regarding Archipelago Securities.
PCX and Archipelago believe, however, that such conflict may be mitigated with the following proposed undertakings of Archipelago, PCX and Archipelago Securities.
Each of Archipelago, PCX and Archipelago Securities undertakes as follows:
(1) PCX will regulate the Outbound Router function of Archipelago Securities as a facility (as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Act), subject to Section 6 of the Act. In particular, and without limitation, under the Act, PCX will be responsible for filing with the Commission rule changes and fees relating to the Archipelago Securities Outbound Router function and Archipelago Securities will be subject to exchange non-discrimination requirements.
(2) Currently, NASD, an SRO unaffiliated with Archipelago or any of tis affiliates (including, without limitation, PCX or PCXE), carries out oversight and enforcement responsibilities as the Designated Examining Authority designated by the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-1 of the Act with the responsibility for examining Archipelago Securities for compliance with the applicable financial responsibility rules.
(3) The NASD PCX Agreement will stay in full force and effect and PCX will continue to abide by the terms of such agreement.
(4) An ETP Holder's or OTP Holder's use of Archipelago Securities to route orders to another Market Center will continue to be optional. Any ETP Holder or OTP Holder that does not want to use Archipelago Securities may use other routers to route orders
(5) Archipelago Securities will not engage in any business other than its Outbound Router function (including, in that function, the self-clearing functions that it currently performs for trades with respect to orders routed to other Market Centers and the clearing functions that it may perform for trades with respect to orders for securities not trades on any securities exchange)
The above undertakings of Archipelago, PCX and Archipelago Securities would become effective at the effective time of the Merger.
In sum, PCX and Archipelago believe that the proposed undertakings of Archipelago, PCX and Archipelago Securities set forth above would address the potential conflict of interest with the regulatory responsibilities of PCX and PCXE and the continued ownership and operation of Archipelago Securities by Archipelago after the closing of the Merger.
Archipelago is a public company whose common stock is listed on PCX for trading on ArcaEx. The certificate of incorporation of Archipelago, which was approved by the Commission on August 9, 2004 prior to the initial public offering of Archipelago common stock,
The proposed PCX rules provide that for as long as Archipelago shall control, directly or indirectly, PCX, no OTP Holder or OTP Firm, either alone or with its related persons, shall own beneficially shares of Archipelago stock representing in the aggregate more than 20% of the then outstanding votes entitled to be cast on any matter (the “Ownership Limitation”).
For purposes of the Ownership Limitation, no OTP Holder or OTP Firm shall be deemed to have any agreement, arrangement or understanding to act together with respect to voting shares of stock of Archipelago solely because such OTP Holder, OTP Firm or any of their related persons, has or shares the power to vote or direct the voting of such shares of stock pursuant to a revocable proxy given in response to a public proxy or consent solicitation conducted pursuant to, and in accordance with, Regulation 14A promulgated pursuant to the Act, except if such power (or the arrangements relating thereto) is then reportable under Item 6 of Schedule 13D under the Act (or any similar provision of a comparable or successor report).
In addition to the Ownership Limitation, the proposed PCX rules provide that for as long as Archipelago shall control, directly or indirectly, PCX, no OTP Holder or OTP Firm, either alone or together with its related persons, shall (1) have the right to vote, vote or cause the voting of shares of stock of Archipelago to the extent such shares represent in the aggregate more than 20% of the then outstanding votes entitled to be cast on any matter (the “Voting Limitation”) or (2) enter into any agreement, plan or arrangement not to vote shares, the effect of which agreement, plan or arrangement would be to enable any person, either alone or with its related persons, to vote or cause the voting of shares that would represent in the aggregate more than 20% of the then outstanding votes entitled to be cast on any matter (the “Nonvoting Agreement Prohibition”).
The Voting Limitation and Nonvoting Agreement Prohibition shall not apply to (1) any solicitation of any revocable proxy from any stockholder of Archipelago by or on behalf of Archipelago or by an officer or director of Archipelago acting on behalf of Archipelago or (2) any solicitation of any revocable proxy from any stockholder of Archipelago by any other stockholder that is conducted pursuant to, and in accordance with, Regulation 14A promulgated pursuant to the Act.
The proposed PCX Rule 3.4 also requires certain OTP Holders and OTP Firms that are not ETP Holders, and certain OTP Associates,
Finally, the Ownership and Voting Agreement provides that each OTP Holder, OTP Firm and OTP Associate who is party to such agreement shall vote, or authorize Archipelago to vote on their behalf, shares of Archipelago stock owned by such OTP Holder, OTP Firm or OTP Associate, as appropriate, in favor of amendments to the certificate of incorporation of Archipelago that incorporate ownership and voting limitations that are substantially similar to the Ownership Limitation, Voting Limitation and Nonvoting Agreement Prohibition set forth in the proposed Rules 3.4(a) and 3.4(b), as well as implementation provisions imposed by the proposed PCX Rule 3.4(d).
Under the proposed PCX rules, the OTP Holders, OTP Firms and OTP Associates who are required to enter into the Ownership and Voting Agreement have to do so within certain specified time periods set forth in the proposed rules. Specifically, in the case of an OTP Holder, OTP Firm or OTP Associate which is not an ETP Holder and which (x) owns beneficially any shares of Archipelago stock or (y) has entered into any agreement, plan or other arrangement relating to the voting or ownership of any shares of Archipelago stock, at the time of the closing of the Merger, such person will be required to enter into the Ownership and Voting Agreement no later than 30 calendar days following the date of closing of the Merger; in the case of any OTP Holder, OTP Firm or OTP Associate which is not required to enter into an Ownership and Voting Agreement pursuant to the above clause, the Ownership and Voting Agreement has to be entered into no later than the fifth calendar day following the date on which: (x) such OTP Holder, OTP Firm or OTP Associate ceases being an ETP
The ownership and voting limitations contained in the proposed PCX Rule 3.4 and the Ownership and Voting Agreement required by the proposed PCX Rule 3.4 are designed to impose on OTP Holders, OTP Firms and their related persons restrictions that are similar to those that are currently contained in the certificate of incorporation of Archipelago with respect to ETP Holders and their related persons. The corresponding provisions in the certificate of incorporation of Archipelago are designed to prevent any ETP Holder or any ETP Holders acting together, from exercising undue control over the operation of Archipelago and, therefore, ArcaEx. PCX believes that by extending the same restrictions to OTP Holders and OTP Firms as well as their related persons, the proposed rule would accomplish the same objectives with respect to the options business of PCX. Specifically, PCX believes that the proposed rules would deter any OTP Holder or OTP Firm, either alone or together with its related persons, from accumulating a substantial number of outstanding votes entitled to be cast on any matter without Commission review. PCX believes that the imposition of such 20% ownership and voting limitations would help ensure that Archipelago, and therefore PCX, would not be subject to undue influence from an OTP Holder or OTP Firm, or a group of OTP Holders or OTP Firms that control a substantial number of outstanding votes entitled to be cast on any matter that may be adverse to PCX's or the Commission's regulatory oversight responsibilities. The proposed voting limitations, along with the related ownership limitation, would serve to protect the integrity of PCX's and the Commission's regulatory oversight responsibilities and would allow PCX to review the acquisition of substantial voting power of Archipelago, and therefore PCX and PCXE, by any OTP Holder, OTP Firm and their related persons.
The proposed PCX Rule 3.4(d) provides that in the event that any OTP Holder or OTP Firm, either alone or with its related persons (including any related persons who are OTP Associates of such OTP Holder or OTP Firm), at any time owns beneficially shares of Archipelago stock in excess of the Ownership Limitation, Archipelago shall promptly call from such OTP Holder or OTP Firm, or an OTP Associate of such OTP Holder or OTP Firm, at a price per share equal to the par value thereof, shares of Archipelago stock owned by such OTP Holder, OTP Firm or OTP Associate that are necessary to decrease the beneficial ownership of such OTP Holder or OTP Firm, either alone or with its related persons, to 20% of the then outstanding votes entitled to be cast on any matter after giving effect to the redemption of the shares of Archipelago stock.
In addition, assuming there is a second OTP Holder who beneficially owns shares of Archipelago stock representing 190,000 votes, the calling of the shares of the first OTP Holder described above would result in an increase of the second OTP Holder's ownership from 19% to 21.7%. In this scenario, Archipelago would have to call shares of Archipelago stock representing 20,000 votes from the second OTP Holder and additional shares representing 5,000 votes from the first OTP Holder (for a total of 130,000 shares called from the first OTP Holder) such that upon completion of these calls, each of these two OTP Holders owns shares of Archipelago stock representing 170,000 votes, or 20% of the new 850,000 votes entitled to be cast in total.
The proposed PCX Rule 3.4(d)(1) further provides that in the event Archipelago shall call shares of Archipelago stock pursuant to the proposed PCX Rule 3.4(d)(1), notice of such call shall be given promptly by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the holders of the shares of Archipelago stock to be so called (such holders shall include holders whose ownership of Archipelago stock exceeded the 20% ownership limitation solely as a result of the reduction in the total number of outstanding votes due to calls of shares of Archipelago stock from other stockholders), at such holders' addresses as the same appears on the stock register of Archipelago. Each such notice shall state: (a) The call date; (b) the number of shares to be called; (c) the aggregate call price; and (d) the place or places where shares are to be surrendered for payment of the call price. Failure to give notice as aforesaid, or any defect therein, shall not affect the validity of the call of the shares. From and after the call date (unless default shall be made by Archipelago in providing funds for the payment of the call price), shares which have been called as aforesaid shall be cancelled, shall no longer be deemed to be outstanding, and all rights of the holder of such shares as a stockholder of Archipelago (except the right to receive from Archipelago the call price against delivery to Archipelago of evidence of ownership of such shares) shall cease. Upon surrender in accordance with said notice of evidence of ownership of the shares of Archipelago stock so called (properly assigned for transfer, if the board of directors of Archipelago shall so require and the notice shall so state), such shares shall be called by Archipelago at par value.
In addition, if any OTP Holder or OTP Firm, either alone or with its related persons (including any related persons who are OTP Associates of such OTP Holder or OTP Firm), acquires the right to vote more than 20% of the then outstanding votes entitled to be cast by stockholders of Archipelago on any matter, Archipelago shall have the right to vote and shall vote such shares of Archipelago stock owned by such OTP Holder, OTP Firm, or an OTP Associate of such OTP Holder or OTP Firm, in excess of the 20% voting limitation in proportion with the results of voting (excluding such excess shares) for such matter at a meeting of Archipelago stockholders.
Furthermore, the proposed PCX rules provide that in the event of any violation by any OTP Holder or OTP Firm of the Ownership Limitation, Voting Limitation or Nonvoting Agreement Prohibition (including, without limitation, any failure of an OTP Holder, OTP Firm or OTP Associate to enter into the Ownership and Voting Agreement as required by the proposed Rule 3.4(c) within the applicable time periods specified therein or any breach of the Ownership and Voting Agreement by an OTP Holder, OTP Firm or OTP Associate which is a party thereto), the Exchange shall suspend all trading rights and privileges of such OTP Holder or OTP Firm in accordance with proposed PCX Rule 13.2(a)(2)(E), subject to the procedures provided therein.
The proposed PCX Rule 13.2(a)(2)(E) provides that in the event of any such failure to comply with Rule 3.4, the Exchange shall: (1) Provide notice to the
Finally, the proposed PCX rules provide that in the event any OTP Holder or OTP Firm, either alone or with its related persons (including any related person that is an OTP Associate of such OTP Holder or OTP Firm), has cast votes, in person or by proxy or through any voting agreement or other arrangement, in excess of the Voting Limitation, Archipelago may bring suit in a court of competent jurisdiction against such OTP Holder, OTP Firm or OTP Associates seeking enforcement of the Voting Limitation.
With respect to the ownership and voting limitations in the certificate of incorporation of Archipelago that apply specifically to ETP Holders and their related persons (as opposed to stockholders of Archipelago in general) and certain other provisions of the certificate of incorporation of Archipelago (such provisions, collectively, the “ArcaEx Limitations”),
The certificate of incorporation of Archipelago currently contains provisions that allow the board of directors of Archipelago to, subject to certain conditions,
Among other things, the certificate of incorporation of Archipelago provides for the inspection and copying by PCX and PCXE of Archipelago's books and records, requires that Archipelago take reasonable steps necessary to cause its agents to cooperate with PCX and PCXE in connection with certain of such agents' activities and requires that Archipelago cause its officers, directors and employees to consent to the applicability to them of certain provisions of Archipelago's certificate of incorporation in connection with certain of such persons' activities.
The Exchange clarified that Article THIRTEENTH of the Certificate of Archipelago should be included in the preceding list.
The certificate of incorporation of Archipelago also contains provisions that govern the process that Archipelago will follow in order to call shares from certain of its stockholders in the event of breaches of certain ownership limitations.
In connection with the submission of the Proposed Rule Changes, Archipelago undertakes that, prior to the earlier of (1) the 2006 annual general meeting of Archipelago stockholders and (2) the first meeting of Archipelago stockholders to occur after the closing of the Merger (other than any meeting or meetings of Archipelago stockholders convened for the purpose of considering and approving the merger of Archipelago and New York Stock Exchange, Inc.), the board of directors of Archipelago shall: (a) Propose amendments to the certificate of incorporation of Archipelago to (x) extend the application of voting and ownership limitations imposed on ETP Holders currently contained in the certificate of incorporation of Archipelago to OTP Holders and OTP Firms, (y) delete the phrase “[f]or so long as ArcaEx remains a Facility of PCX and PCX Equities and the FSA remains in full force and effect” from each paragraph that contains such language, which paragraphs shall include paragraphs (C)(3)(y), (D)(2), (D)(2)(a) and (H)(3) of Article FOURTH, the third paragraph of Article EIGHTH, the penultimate paragraph of Article TENTH, Article THIRTEENTH, Article FOURTEENTH, Article FIFTEENTH, Article SIXTEENTH, Article SEVENTEENTH and Article NINETEENTH, and (z) incorporate into Articles THIRTEENTH, FOURTEENTH, SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH, as appropriate, the requirements set forth in Section 6.8(e) of the proposed Archipelago bylaw amendment; (b) declare the advisability of such amendments; and (c) direct such amendments be submitted for stockholder approval at the earlier of (1) the 2006 annual meeting of Archipelago stockholders and (2) the first meeting of Archipelago stockholders to occur after the closing of the Merger (other than any meeting or meetings of Archipelago stockholders convened for the purpose of considering and approving the merger of Archipelago and New York Stock Exchange, Inc.). The Ownership and Voting Agreement will provide that any OTP Holder, OTP Firm or OTP Associate that is subject to the Ownership and Voting Agreement shall vote, or authorize Archipelago to vote on its behalf, shares of Archipelago stock owned by such OTP Holder, OTP Firm or OTP Associate in favor of the amendments to the certificate of incorporation of Archipelago described in (x) above.
PCX clarified that the Ownership and Voting Agreement also would apply to OTP Associates, and that such agreement would only require a vote in favor of the amendments described in (x) above.
In addition, Archipelago undertakes to take reasonable steps necessary to cause Archipelago's directors and officers and those Archipelago employees whose principal place of business and residence is outside the United States prior to accepting a position as an officer, director or employee, as applicable, of Archipelago to consent in writing to the applicability to them of the proposed Section 6.8(e)(iv) of the proposed Archipelago bylaw amendment. Furthermore, Archipelago undertakes that it will take reasonable steps necessary to cause Archipelago's current directors and officers and those current Archipelago employees whose principal place of business and residence is outside the United States to consent in writing prior to the consummation of the Merger to the applicability to them of Section 6.8(e)(iv) of the proposed Archipelago bylaw amendment.
(i) The Exchange is also requesting the Commission's approval for the following temporary exceptions for the following persons, each of whom would be subject to and exceed the voting and ownership limitations imposed by Article Nine of the certificate of incorporation of PCXH (as proposed to be amended as described in this filing) as of the date of the closing of the Merger, so that such persons be permitted to exceed such limitations imposed by Article Nine to the following extent and for the following time periods:
(x) Archipelago may, until December 31, 2005, continue to own all of its ownership interest in Wave Securities, L.L.C., a broker-dealer and wholly-owned subsidiary of Archipelago, following the closing of its acquisition of PCXH notwithstanding the terms of the certificate of incorporation of PCXH, as proposed to be amended as described in this filing.
(y) Gerald D. Putnam, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Archipelago, may, until December 31, 2005, continue to own in excess of 5% of Terra Nova Trading, L.L.C. and continue to serve as a director of TAL Financial Services, LLC following the closing of the Archipelago's acquisition of PCXH notwithstanding the terms of the certificate of incorporation of PCXH, as proposed to be amended as described in this filing.
(ii) In order to abide by the terms of the certificate of incorporation of PCXH, as proposed to be amended as described in this filing, each of Kevin J.P. O'Hara, Chief Administrative Officer and General Counsel of Archipelago, and Paul Adcock, Managing Director, Trading, of Archipelago, shall resign from the board of directors of White Cap Trading LLC prior to the effective time of the Merger.
The Exchange believes that this filing is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The board of directors of PCXH and the board of directors of PCX approved the proposed amendment to the certificate of incorporation of PCXH at their respective meetings on June 1, 2005. The board of directors of PCX approved this filing, including the Proposed Rule Changes contained therein, at its meeting on August 2, 2005. The board of directors of Archipelago approved the proposed amendment to the bylaws of Archipelago at its meeting on July 18, 2005. In addition, PCXH will be submitting the Amended Merger Agreement to its stockholders for approval. This vote is expected to occur at a special meeting of PCXH stockholders in September 2005. To the extent necessary, the Exchange hereby consents to an extension of the time period specified in Section 19(b)(2) of the Act until at least 35 days after the Exchange has filed an appropriate amendment to this filing setting forth the completion of all such necessary corporate actions.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2005-90. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that Telesoft Partners II SBIC, L.P., 1450 Fashion Island Blvd., Suite 610, San Mateo, CA 94404, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Telesoft Partners II SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt security financing to CreekPath Systems, Inc. The financing is contemplated for working capital and general corporate purposes.
The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Telesoft Partners II QP, L.P., Telesoft Partners II, L.P. and Telesoft NP Employee Fund, LLC, all Associates of Telesoft Partners II SBIC, L.P., own more than ten percent of CreekPath Systems, Inc.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.
Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Mississippi (FEMA-1594-DR), dated 07/10/2005.
Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business Administration, Disaster Area Office 3, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Notice, correction.
On June 20, 2005, notice was published on page 35493 of the
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr R. Sulzynsky, the Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, (telephone: 202/453-8050). The address is Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julianne Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, (telephone: 202/453-8049). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Office of the United States Trade Representative
Notice.
This notice announces the 2005 Annual Review of the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA). The deadline for the submission of petitions for the 2005 Annual ATPA Review is September 19, 2005. USTR will publish a list of petitions filed in response to this announcement in the
Submit petitions by electronic mail (e-mail) to
Bennett M. Harman, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Latin America, Office of the Americas, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20508. The telephone number is (202) 395-9446 and the facsimile number is (202) 395-9675.
The ATPA (19 U.S.C. 3201-06), as renewed and amended by the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) in the Trade Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-210), provides for trade benefits for eligible Andean countries. Consistent with Section 3103(d) of the ATPDEA, USTR promulgated regulations (15 CFR part 2016) (68 FR 43922) regarding the review of eligibility of articles and countries for the benefits of the ATPA, as amended. The 2005 Annual ATPA Review is the third such review to be conducted pursuant to the ATPA review regulations. To qualify for the benefits of the ATPA and ATPDEA, each country must meet several eligibility criteria, as
The ATPA regulations provide the schedule of dates for conducting an annual review, unless otherwise specified by
E-mail submissions should be single copy transmissions in English, and the total submission including attachments should not exceed 50 pages. Submissions should use the following subject line: “2005 Annual ATPA Review—Petition.” Documents must be submitted as either WordPerfect (“.WPD”), MSWord (“.DOC”), or text (“.TXT”) file. Documents should not be submitted as electronic image files or contain imbedded images (for example, “.JPG”, “PDF”, “.BMP”, or “GIF”), as these type of files are generally excessively large. Supporting documentation submitted as spreadsheets are acceptable as Quattro Pro or Excel, pre-formatted for printing on 8
Petitions will be available for public inspection by appointment with the staff of the USTR Public Reading Room, except for information granted “business confidential” status pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.6. If the submission contains business confidential information, a non-confidential version of the submission must also be submitted that indicates where confidential information was redacted by inserting asterisks where material was deleted. In addition, the confidential submission must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” in large, bold letters at the top and bottom of every page of the document. The public version that does not contain business confidential information must be clearly marked either “PUBLIC VERSION” or “NON-CONFIDENTIAL” in large, bold letters at the top and bottom of every page. The file name of any document containing business confidential information attached to an e-mail transmission should begin with the characters “BC-”, and the file name of the public version should begin with the characters “P-”. The “P-” or “BC-” should be followed by the name of the person or party submitting the petition. Submissions by e-mail should not include separate cover letters or messages in the message area of the e-mail; information that might appear in any cover letter should be included directly in the submission. The e-mail address for submissions is
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) received petitions in connection with the 2005 annual review to modify the list of products that are eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP program and to modify the GSP status of certain GSP beneficiary developing countries because of country practices. The list of country practice petitions accepted for review will be announced in the
The GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 1724 F Street, NW., Room F-220, Washington, DC 20508. The telephone number is (202) 395-6971.
The GSP regulations (15 CFR Part 2007) provide the schedule of dates for conducting an annual review unless otherwise specified in a
September 12, 2005: Due date for requests to appear at the USTR Public Hearing and submission of pre-hearing briefs.
September 12, 2005: Due date for providing the name, address, telephone, fax, e-mail address and organization of witnesses.
(September 29, 2005: U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) scheduled hearings on economic effect on U.S. industries.)
September 30, 2005: USTR's Public Hearing to be held at U.S. International Trade Commission, Main Hearing Room, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, beginning at 10 a.m. Hearing will focus on all products.
October 21, 2005: Due date for submission of post-hearing and rebuttal briefs.
November 2005: USITC scheduled to publish report on products of case nos. 2005-01, and 2005-09 through 2005-13. Comments on USITC report on these products due 10 days after USITC date of publication.
February 2006: USITC will issue a second report on watch case nos. 2005-02 through 2005-08. Comments on this USITC report due 10 days after USITC date of publication.
June 30, 2006: Modifications to the list of articles eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP resulting from the 2005 Annual Review will be announced on or about June 30, 2006, in the
The GSP provides for the duty-free importation of designated articles when imported from designated beneficiary developing countries. The GSP is authorized by title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461,
In a
The interagency GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) has reviewed the product petitions, and the TPSC has decided to initiate a full review of the product petitions listed in Annex I. Annex I to this notice sets forth, for each type of change requested: the case number, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) subheading number, a brief description of the product (see the HTS for an authoritative description available on the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) Web site (
The GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC invites comments in support of or in opposition to any petition which is included in this Annual Review (Annex I). Submissions should comply with 15 CFR part 2007, except as modified below. All submissions should identify the subject article(s) in terms of the case number and HTS subheading number as shown in Annex I.
In order to facilitate prompt processing of submissions, USTR strongly urges and prefers electronic e-mail submissions in response to this notice. Hand-delivered submissions will not be accepted. These submissions should be single-copy transmissions in English with the total submission not to exceed 50 single-spaced standard letter-size pages. E-mail submissions should use the following subject line: “2005 GSP Annual Review” followed by the Case Number and HTS subheading number found in the Annex I (for example, 2005-07 9102.19.40) and, as appropriate “Written Comments”, “Notice of Intent to Testify”, “Pre-hearing brief”, “Post-hearing brief” or “Comments on USITC Advice”. (For example, an e-mail subject line might read “2005-07 9102.19.40 Written Comments”.) Documents must be submitted in English in one of the following formats: WordPerfect (.WPD), MSWord (.DOC), or text (.TXT) files. Documents may not be submitted as electronic image files or contain imbedded images (for example, “.JPG”, “.TIF”, “.PDF”, “.BMP”, or “.GIF”). Supporting documentation submitted as spreadsheets are acceptable as Excel files, formatted for printing on 8
If the submission contains business confidential information, a non-confidential version of the submission must also be submitted that indicates where confidential information was redacted by inserting asterisks where material was deleted. In addition, the confidential submission must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of each page of the document. The non-confidential version must also be clearly marked at the top and bottom of each page (either “PUBLIC VERSION” or “NON-CONFIDENTIAL”). Documents that are submitted without any marking might not be accepted or will be considered public documents.
For any document containing business confidential information submitted as an electronic attached file to an e-mail transmission, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC-”, and the file name of the public version should begin with the characters “P-”. The “P-” or “BC-” should be followed by the name of the party (government, company, union, association, etc.) which is making the submission.
E-mail submissions should not include separate cover letters or messages in the message area of the e-mail; information that might appear in any cover letter should be included directly in the attached file containing the submission itself, including the sender's e-mail address and other identifying information. The e-mail address for these submissions is
Public versions of all documents relating to this review will be available for review approximately two weeks after the relevant due date by appointment in the USTR public reading room, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC. Appointments may be made from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, by calling (202) 395-6186.
A hearing will be held by the GSP Subcommittee of the TPSC on September 30, 2005, beginning at 10 a.m. at the U.S. International Trade Commission, Main Hearing Room, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. The hearing will be open to the public and a transcript of the hearing will be made available for public inspection or can be purchased from the reporting company. No electronic media coverage will be allowed.
All interested parties wishing to make an oral presentation at the hearing must submit, following the above “Requirements for Submissions”, the name, address, telephone number, and facsimile number and e-mail address, if available, of the witness(es) representing their organization to Marideth Sandler, the Executive Director of the GSP Program by 5 p.m., September 12, 2005. Requests to present oral testimony in connection with the public hearing must be accompanied by a written brief or statement, in English, and also must be received by 5 p.m., September 12, 2005. Oral testimony before the GSP Subcommittee will be limited to five-minute presentations that summarize or supplement information contained in briefs or statements submitted for the record. Post-hearing briefs or statements will be accepted if they conform with the regulations cited above and are submitted, in English, by 5 p.m., October 21, 2005. Parties not wishing to appear at the public hearing may submit post-hearing written briefs or statements, in English, by 5 p.m., October 21, 2005.
In accordance with sections 503(a)(1)(A) and 503(e) of the 1974 Act and the authority delegated by the President, pursuant to section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the U.S. Trade Representative has requested that the USITC provide its advice on the
Comments by interested persons on the USITC Report regarding Products of Case Nos. 2005-01, and 2005-09 through 2005-13, prepared as part of the product review, should be submitted by 5 p.m., 10 days after the date of USITC publication of its report in November. Comments by interested persons on the second USITC Report on Watch Case Nos. 2005-02 through 2005-08, also prepared as part of the product review, should be submitted by 5 p.m., 10 days after date of its publication in February 2006.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of final policy.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces the availability of final policy on a component method for demonstrating that a seat with a replacement bottom cushion complies with § 25.562(c)(2). This policy addresses non-flotation monolithic (single layer) cushions.
This final policy was issued by the Transport Airplane Directorate on August 9, 2005.
Michael T. Thompson, Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Transport Standards Staff, Standardization Branch, ANM-113, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1157; fax (425) 227-1232; e-mail;
A notice of proposed policy; request for comments, was published in the
Historically, substantiating changes to the bottom cushion of a seat certificated to § 25.562 that could affect the lumbar load typically required a full-scale 14g downward dynamic test using the actual seat. Industry desired a quicker and less expensive method in lieu of full scale testing. As a result, the FAA funded a research project to develop a component test methodology for demonstrating that a replacement bottom cushion would not produce a higher lumbar load than a certificated bottom cushion for a seat certificated to § 25.562. This research resulted in an acceptable methodology that is documented in DOT/FAA/AR-05/5,I “Development and Validation of an Aircraft Seat Cushion Component Test—Volume I,” dated March 2005. This method provides a simplified means of demonstrating compliance with § 25.562 and will streamline the seat certification process by reducing the costs and time associated with seat certification.
Seat bottom cushion changes must be evaluated to determine that compliance with § 25.562 is maintained when considering both the 14g downward test and the 16g longitudinal test specified in the regulation. This policy addresses demonstrating compliance with the lumbar load criteria of § 25.562(c)(2) that is determined in a 14g downward test.
The final policy memorandum as well as the disposition of public comments received is available on the Internet at the following address:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of final policy.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces the availability of final policy on Replacing Restraint Systems on Forward and Aft Facing Seats.
The final policy was issued by the Transport Airplane Directorate on August 10, 2005.
Mike Thompson, Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Transport Standards Staff, Standardization Branch, ANM-113, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1157; fax (425) 227-1232; e-mail:
A notice of proposed policy was published in the
The FAA has issued Amendment 25-64 to provide an increased level of safety to seated occupants. Seat performance, including the restraint system, under dynamic conditions as defined in § 25.562, is an important consideration of this amendment. Replacing a restraint system on a seat certified under § 25.562 requires new dynamic test(s) to be conduct using the actual seat. These dynamic tests can be costly and time-consuming. The FAA conducted research and found an acceptable new method of certifying restraint systems using a rigid seat fixture instead of the actual seat during dynamic tests. This method will significantly reduce the cost and time associated with certifying replacement restraint systems. This policy memorandum presents this new means of compliance.
The final policy as well as the disposition of public comments received are available on the Internet at the following address:
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, DOT.
List of applications for modification of exemption.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, exemptions from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. This notice is abbreviated to expedite docketing and public notice. Because the sections affected, modes of transportation, and the nature of application have been shown in earlier Federal Register publications, they are not repeated here. Request of modifications of exemptions (
Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2005.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If Confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the exemption number.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, Nassif Building, 400 7th Street SW., Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for modification of exemption is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, DOT.
List of applications for exemption
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, exemptions from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular exemption is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before September 19, 2005.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If Confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the exemption number.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, Nassif Building, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for modification of exemption is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before September 19, 2005, to be assured of consideration.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8850, Pre-Screening Notice and Certification Request for the Work Opportunity and Welfare-to-Work Credits.
Written comments should be received on or before October 17, 2005 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at (202) 622-6665, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information
Written comments should be received on or before October 17, 2005, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at (202) 622-6665, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Notice is hereby given that on August 12, 2005, the Assistant Managing Director, Examinations and Supervision—Operations, Office of Thrift Supervision (“OTS”), or her designee, acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the application of American Bank of New Jersey, Bloomfield, New Jersey, to convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection by appointment (phone number: 202-906-5922 or e-mail:
By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee on Chiropractic Care Implementation will meet Tuesday, September 13, 2005, from 8:15 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. and Wednesday, September 14, 2005 from 8:15 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. in Room C-7A at 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the implementation and evaluation of the chiropractic care program. The Committee will focus on monitoring the nationwide program implementation, reviewing and evaluating policy and program issues that affect implementation, recommending actions to improve the chiropractic health program, assisting in long-range planning and development, and such other matters as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
On September 13, the Committee will receive an update on the status of VA's implementation of the chiropractic care program and briefings on related topics. On September 14, the Committee will discuss and develop a survey to collect information on implementation.
Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting is requested to contact Ms. Sara McVicker, RN, MN, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 273-8559 not later than 12 noon, Eastern time, on Thursday, September 8, 2005, in order to facilitate entry to the building.
Oral comments from the public will not be accepted at the meeting. Any comments from interested parties on issues related to chiropractic care may be transmitted electronically to
By Direction of the Secretary.