Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Foreign Agricultural Service
Forest Service
Engineers Corps
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Air Force Department
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Justice Programs Office
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim final rule that relaxed the container marking requirements for kiwifruit covered under the California kiwifruit marketing order (order). The order regulates the handling of kiwifruit grown in California and is administered locally by the Kiwifruit Administrative Committee (Committee). Prior to implementation of the interim final rule, kiwifruit that had been inspected, met applicable grade and size requirements, and was subsequently placed into new containers, had to be positive lot identified, which required reinspection. This rule continues in effect the action that established procedures for handlers to ship such kiwifruit without positive lot identification (PLI). This rule is intended to reduce handler inspection costs and facilitate the marketing of kiwifruit.
Shereen Marino, Marketing Specialist, or Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or E-mail:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:
This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 920 as amended (7 CFR part 920), regulating the handling of kiwifruit grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule continues in effect the action that relaxed the container marking requirements for kiwifruit covered under the order. Prior to implementation of the interim final rule, kiwifruit that had been inspected, met applicable grade and size requirements, and was subsequently placed into new containers, had to be positive lot identified, which required reinspection. This rule continues to establish procedures for handlers to ship such kiwifruit without PLI. This rule is intended to reduce handler inspection costs and facilitate the marketing of kiwifruit. The Committee unanimously recommended this change at its April 6, 2006, meeting.
Section 920.52(a) of the order provides authority for grade, size, pack, container, and container marking requirements for shipments of fresh kiwifruit. Section 920.55 of the order requires inspection and certification of kiwifruit prior to shipment by the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service (FSIS). Section 920.302 of the order's regulations specifies applicable grade, size, pack, and container requirements and § 920.303 specifies applicable container marking requirements.
Paragraph (d) of § 920.303 requires that containers of kiwifruit be positive lot identified prior to shipment. PLI helps to ensure that a specific load or lot of kiwifruit can be linked to an inspection certificate and provides verification that the fruit was inspected. No less than 75 percent of the containers of kiwifruit on a pallet must be marked with a lot stamp number corresponding to the lot inspection conducted by the FSIS. This lot stamp number is a PLI number that can be matched to an inspection certificate. Individual consumer packages within a master container, and containers being directly loaded into a vehicle for export under FSIS supervision are exempt from PLI. Individual consumer packages placed directly on a pallet, and plastic containers of kiwifruit must be positive lot identified.
Prior to implementation of the interim final rule, kiwifruit that had been inspected and certified, and was subsequently placed into new containers, had to be positive lot identified. When such kiwifruit is placed into new containers, the PLI mark on the container is lost and thus the lot is not easily identified. The new containers must be reinspected and marked with a new PLI number. Reinspection costs for such kiwifruit account for roughly 20 percent of annual inspection costs for handlers.
In an effort to reduce handler costs, the Committee recommended establishing procedures for handlers to
Accordingly, a new paragraph (f) was added to § 920.303 that established the verification procedures described above. Additionally, a new sentence was added to the beginning of paragraph (d) in that section to clarify that except as provided in the new paragraph (f), containers of kiwifruit must be positive lot identified prior to shipment in accordance with specified requirements. Paragraph (d) was modified further for clarification purposes to change the term “lot stamp number” to “positive lot identified,” and to change the term “plastic container” to “reusable plastic container.”
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 37 handlers of kiwifruit subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 220 growers in the production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,500,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $750,000. None of the 37 handlers subject to regulation have annual kiwifruit sales of $6,500,000. In addition, six growers subject to regulation have annual sales exceeding $750,000. Therefore, all of the kiwifruit handlers and a majority of the growers may be classified as small entities.
This rule continues in effect the action that relaxed the container marking requirements specified in § 920.303. Prior to implementation of the interim final rule, kiwifruit that had been inspected, met applicable grade and size requirements, and was subsequently placed into new containers had to be positive lot identified, which required reinspection. This rule continues to establish procedures for handlers to ship such kiwifruit without PLI. The verification procedures are specified in § 920.303(f). Handlers must obtain a verification number from the FSIS, mark their new containers with such number and the letter “R,” and submit a Kiwifruit Verification Form to the FSIS. The verification number can be linked to the original PLI number, thereby providing a method to trace the fruit back to the original inspection certificate. This action is intended to reduce handler inspection costs and facilitate the marketing of kiwifruit. This rule also continues in effect minor modifications to paragraph (d) of § 920.303 for clarification purposes. Authority for this action is provided in §§ 902.52(a)(3) and 920.55 of the order.
The impact of this change on handlers was discussed by the Committee. Reinspection costs due to PLI requirements account for roughly 20 percent of annual inspection costs for the industry. Additionally, an average of 20 percent of the crop is placed into new containers annually. The following table shows inspection costs for in-line inspection, lot inspection, and kiwifruit placed into new containers for 2001 to 2005.
This change reduces inspection costs because handlers have the option of using the new verification process instead of having kiwifruit reinspected to conform to PLI requirements. Additionally, reinspection can delay shipments because kiwifruit cannot be shipped until reinspection has been completed by the FSIS.
The Committee considered the alternative of maintaining the status quo, but this was not viable. As an option to reinspection, identity of the lot can be achieved through the verification number, which provides a trace back to the original inspection certificate. Additionally, such kiwifruit has already met the minimum requirements of the marketing order. It is anticipated that the rule provides a cost savings to handlers.
As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. Finally, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
The AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen
In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the kiwifruit industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the April 6, 2006, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were encouraged to express their views on these issues.
An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
The interim final rule published on October 3, 2006, provided a 60-day period for comments on the reporting requirements in that rule. No comments were received. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that finalizing the interim final rule, without change, as published in the
Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim final rule changing the reporting requirements established under the Idaho-Eastern Oregon onion marketing order, which regulates the handling of onions grown in designated counties in Idaho and Oregon and is administered locally by the Idaho-Eastern Oregon Onion Committee. This rule continues in effect the action that: Established a credit application procedure for assessments paid on onions that are subsequently regraded, resorted, or repacked within the production area or diverted to exempt special purpose outlets; changed the reporting requirements for fresh onions for peeling, chopping, or slicing, and for special purpose shipments; and added “disposal” as a special purpose shipment.
Susan M. Hiller, Marketing Specialist, or Gary D. Olson, Regional Manager, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440, or E-mail:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 130 and Marketing Order No. 958, both as amended (7 CFR part 958), regulating the handling of onions grown in designated counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule continues in effect the action that established an application procedure for handlers to receive credit for assessments paid on onions that are subsequently regraded, resorted, or repacked within the production area or diverted to exempt special purpose outlets; changed the reporting requirements for fresh onions for peeling, chopping, or slicing; changed the reporting requirements for special purpose shipments; and added “disposal” as a special purpose shipment. These actions were unanimously recommended by the Committee at a meeting on June 15, 2006.
Section 958.53 provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to exempt special purpose
The Committee conducted an industry-wide meeting on January 17, 2006, to review the compliance and safeguard provisions of the order. The Committee appointed a Compliance Subcommittee, which met on May 16, 2006, to review the comments received. The three main areas of concern expressed by industry members were: (1) The need to provide a procedure for handlers to obtain credit for assessments paid on onions that are subsequently regraded, resorted, or repacked within the production area or diverted into exempt special purpose outlets; (2) improving the method of reporting fresh market onions for peeling, chopping, or slicing; and (3) improving and streamlining the safeguards for special purpose shipments. An overriding concern expressed was the need to decrease the reporting burden on receivers (buyers) of Idaho-Eastern Oregon onions.
The Committee met on June 15, 2006, to hear the report of the Compliance Subcommittee. The Committee thereafter unanimously recommended changing the reporting requirements established under the order to address these three areas of concern. The Committee recommended adding a new § 958.250 and a new form, “Assessment Credit Report”, which establishes a procedure for those handlers who would like credit for assessments paid on onions in accordance with §§ 958.42 and 958.240 that are subsequently regraded, resorted, or repacked within the production area, or shipped into special purpose outlets. The Committee also recommended that “disposal” be added to § 958.328(e) as a special purpose to allow handlers to receive assessment credit on onions for which assessments have been paid when such onions are disposed of. Disposal means destroying the onions, generally by burying the onions in special pits.
The Committee unanimously recommended changing the reporting requirements for fresh onions for peeling, chopping, or slicing in § 958.328(d) by removing receiver reporting requirements. Previously, the name of Form No. FV-37 was the “Rehandling of Onions Report”, which handlers found confusing and unrelated to the actual activity. The form has been renamed “Fresh Cut Report” (same form number) and will be submitted by handlers to report multiple shipments rather than individual shipments.
The Committee agreed with industry concerns that reporting burdens should not be placed on the receivers of Idaho-Eastern Oregon onions. Receivers are able to acquire onions from regions that do not have a marketing order in effect and thus avoid reporting requirements. The Committee received information that handlers in the production area may have lost sales due to receiver reporting requirements.
This rule also continues in effect the action that changed the safeguard reporting requirements in § 958.328(f) by clarifying that the safeguard procedures are required only for onions shipped outside the Idaho-Eastern Oregon onion production area.
Under the new safeguard procedures, with newly revised forms, handlers will notify the Committee and obtain a Certificate of Privilege permit number by completing form FV-34, “Application to Make Special Purpose Shipments—Certificate of Privilege.” Receivers of special purpose onions will only need to complete form FV-36, “Special Purpose Shipment Receiver Certification” indicating they will use the onions in an approved special purpose outlet. Receivers will no longer be required to submit form FV-35, “Onion Diversion Report” for every shipment. Handlers will submit additional information to the Committee on form FV-34, “Application to Make Special Purpose Shipments—Certificate of Privilege.” This information includes type of sale, total hundredweight for the sale, and the type of container for the sale. This form can be used to report multiple shipments.
These changes are intended to enhance compliance with the special purpose shipment procedures established under the order and contribute to the efficient operation of the program.
And finally, this rule continues in effect the action that reorganized the rules and regulations issued under this order by removing the heading “Subpart—Assessment Rates” and adding a new heading “Subpart—Rules and Regulations.”
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 250 producers of onions in the production area, 38 handlers, and 24 receivers subject to regulation under the order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA)(13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,500,000.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported in the “Vegetables 2005 Summary”, published in January 2006, that the total F.O.B. value of onions in the regulated production area for 2005 was $148,685,000. Therefore, based on an industry of 250 producers, 38 handlers, and 24 receivers, the majority of producers, handlers, and receivers of Idaho-Eastern Oregon onions may be classified as small entities.
This rule continues in effect the action that added a new § 958.250, which establishes an application procedure for handlers to receive credit for assessments paid on onions in accordance with §§ 958.42 and 958.240 that are subsequently regraded, resorted, repacked within the production area, or sent to exempt special purpose outlets. This rule also finalizes the action that added “disposal” as a special purpose shipment.
The rule also continues in effect the action that changed the reporting requirements for fresh onions for peeling, chopping, or slicing and for special purpose shipments by reducing receiver reporting requirements and streamlining handler reporting requirements.
Regarding the impact of these actions on affected entities, this rule imposes minimal additional costs. This rule
An alternative to these actions would be to have handlers report onion shipments rather than utilizing the information from each handler's inspection certificates. However, most handlers were opposed to this alternative because it would increase their reporting burden.
As with other similar marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, as noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
The Committee has a number of appointed subcommittees to review certain issues and make recommendations to the Committee. The Compliance Subcommittee met on May 16, 2006, and discussed these issues in detail. All interested persons were invited to attend this meeting and participate in the industry's deliberations.
Further, the Committee's meeting on June 15, 2006, was widely publicized throughout the onion industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the June 15, 2006, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.
An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
The interim final rule published on November 7, 2006, provided a 60-day period for comments on the reporting requirements in that rule. No comments were received. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
In summary, this rule continues in effect the actions that established an application procedure for handlers to receive credit for assessments paid on onions that are subsequently regraded, resorted, or repacked within the production area or diverted to exempt special purpose outlets; changed the reporting requirements for fresh onions for peeling, chopping, or slicing; added “disposal” as a special purpose shipment; and changed the reporting requirements for special purpose shipments. This rule continues in effect the actions that removed reporting requirements for receivers and streamlined handler reporting requirements. These changes should enhance compliance with the special purpose shipment procedures established under the marketing order and contribute to the efficient operation of the program.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that finalizing this interim final rule, without change, as published in the
Marketing agreements, Onions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Election Commission.
Statement of policy.
The Federal Election Commission (“Commission”) is establishing a pilot program that will allow respondents in enforcement proceedings under the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended (“FECA”), to have an oral hearing before the Commission. Hearings will take place prior to the Commission's consideration of the General Counsel's recommendation on whether to find probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred. The Commission will grant a request for a probable cause hearing if any two commissioners agree to hold a hearing. The program will provide respondents with the opportunity to present arguments to the Commission directly and give the Commission an opportunity to ask relevant questions. Further information about the procedures for the pilot program is provided in the supplementary information that follows.
Mark D. Shonkwiler, Assistant General Counsel, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.
The Federal Election Commission is establishing a pilot program to afford respondents in pending enforcement matters the opportunity to participate in hearings (generally through counsel) and present oral arguments directly to
On June 11, 2003, the Commission held a hearing concerning its enforcement procedures. The Commission received comments from those in the regulated community, many of whom argued for increased transparency in Commission procedures and expanded opportunities to contest allegations.
On December 8, 2006, the Commission published a proposal for a pilot program for probable cause hearings, and sought comments from the regulated community.
A respondent may request a probable cause hearing when the enforcement process reaches the probable cause determination stage (see 11 CFR 111.16—111.17) and the respondent submits a probable cause response brief to the Office of General Counsel. The General Counsel will attach a cover letter to its probable cause brief to inform the respondent of the opportunity to request an oral hearing before the Commission.
The Commission will grant a request for an oral hearing if any two Commissioners agree that a hearing would help resolve significant or novel legal issues, or significant questions about the application of the law to the facts. The Commission will inform the respondent whether the Commission is granting the respondent's request within 30 days of receiving the respondent's brief. Respondents who submitted their probable cause briefs prior to the effective date of this policy statement may request in writing a probable cause hearing if the Commission has not made its probable cause determination.
Two commenters suggested that the Commission offer oral hearings at other stages of the enforcement process, including prior to a Commission decision to enter into pre-probable cause conciliation. The commenters provided no specific suggestion as to how such hearings at other stages of the enforcement process would benefit the decision-making process. The Commission declines to adopt such an expansion of the pilot program at this time.
The purpose of the oral hearing is to provide a respondent an opportunity to present his or her arguments in person to the Commissioners
Respondents may discuss any issues presented in the enforcement matter, including potential liability and calculation of a civil penalty. Hearings are confidential and not open to the public; generally only respondents and their counsel may attend. Attendance by any other parties must be approved by the Commission in advance.
The Commission will determine the format and time allotted for each hearing at its discretion. Among the factors that the Commission may consider are agency time constraints, the complexity of the issues raised, the number of respondents involved, and Commission interest. The Commission will determine the amount of time allocated for each portion of the hearing, and these time limits may vary from hearing to hearing. The Commission anticipates that most hearings will begin with a brief opening statement by respondent or respondents' counsel, followed by questioning from the Commissioners, General Counsel, and Staff Director. Hearings will normally conclude with the respondent or respondent's counsel's closing remarks.
Third party witnesses or other co-respondents may not be called to testify at a respondent's oral hearing, nor may a respondents' counsel call the respondent to testify. However, the Commission may request that the respondent submit supplementary information or briefing after the probable cause hearing. The Commission discourages voluminous submissions. Supplementary information may not be submitted more than ten days after the oral hearing, unless the Commission's request for information imposes a different, Commission-approved deadline. Materials requested by the Commission, and materials considered by the
The Commission will have transcripts made of the hearings. The transcripts will become a part of the record for the enforcement matter and may be relied upon for determinations made by the Commission. Respondent may be bound by any representations made by respondent or respondents' counsel at a hearing. The Commission will make the transcripts available to the respondent as soon as practicable after the hearing, and the respondent may purchase copies of the transcript. Transcripts will be made public after the matter is closed in accordance with Commission policies on disclosure.
In cases involving multiple respondents, the Commission will decide on a case-by-case basis whether to structure any hearing(s) separately or as joint hearings for all respondents. Respondents are encouraged to advise the Commission of their preferences. Co-respondents may request joint hearings if each participating co-respondent provides an unconditional waiver of confidentiality with respect to other participating co-respondents and their counsel and a nondisclosure agreement. If separate hearings are held, each respondent will have access to the transcripts from his/her/its own hearing, but not transcripts of other co-respondents' hearings, unless co-respondents specifically provide written consent to the Commission granting access to such transcript(s).
The Commission will seek to hold the hearing in a timely manner after receiving respondents' request for a hearing. The Commission will attempt to schedule the hearings at a mutually acceptable date and time. However, if a respondent is unable to accommodate the Commission's schedule, the Commission may decline to hold a hearing. The Commission reserves the right to reschedule any hearing. Where necessary, the Commission reserves the right to request from a respondent an agreement tolling any upcoming deadline, including any statutory deadline or other deadline found in 11 CFR part 111.
The pilot program will last eight months from the time that this policy is approved. After eight months, a vote will be scheduled on whether the program should continue. The program will remain in effect until that vote is taken. Four affirmative votes will be required to extend or make permanent the program. The program will be terminated after that vote if there are not four affirmative votes to make the program permanent or to extend it for some time period. The Commission may terminate or modify this pilot program through additional policy statements prior to the eighth month of the pilot program by an affirmative vote of four of its members. If the pilot program is terminated, previously requested hearings may still be held.
The Commission urges respondents to consider carefully the costs and benefits of proceeding to probable cause briefings and/or hearings. The hearings are optional and no negative inference will be drawn if respondents do not request a hearing. Currently, the majority of the Commission's cases are settled through pre-probable cause conciliation. Proceeding to probable cause briefing requires a substantial investment of the Commission's limited resources. Consistent with the goal of expeditious resolution of enforcement matters, the Commission encourages pre-probable cause conciliation. The Commission has a practice in many cases of reducing the civil penalty it seeks through its opening settlement offer in pre-probable cause conciliation. However, once pre-probable cause conciliation has been terminated, this reduction (normally 25%) is no longer available and the civil penalty will generally increase.
This notice represents a general statement of policy announcing the general course of action that the Commission intends to follow. This policy statement does not constitute an agency regulation requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunities for public participation, prior publication, and delay in effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). As such, it does not bind the Commission or any member of the general public. The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), which apply when notice and comment are required by the APA or another statute, are not applicable.
The Commission's enforcement procedures are set forth at 11 CFR part 111. An enforcement matter may be initiated by a complaint or on the basis of information ascertained by the Commission in the normal course of carrying out its supervisory responsibilities. 11 CFR 111.3. If a complaint substantially complies with certain requirements set forth in 11 CFR 111.4, within five days of receipt the Office of General Counsel notifies each party determined to be a respondent that a complaint has been filed, provides a copy of the complaint, and advises each respondent of Commission compliance procedures. 11 CFR 111.5. A respondent then has 15 days from receipt of the notification from the Office of General Counsel to submit a letter or memorandum to the Commission setting forth reasons why the Commission should take no action on the basis of the complaint. 11 CFR 111.6.
Following receipt of such letter or memorandum, or expiration of the 15-day period, the Office of General Counsel may recommend to the Commission whether or not it should find “reason to believe” that a respondent has committed or is about to commit a violation of the Act or Commission regulations. 11 CFR 111.7(a).
After the Commission makes a “reason to believe” finding, an investigation is conducted by the Office of General Counsel, in which the Commission may undertake field investigations, audits, and other methods of information-gathering. 11 CFR
Following a “reason to believe” finding, the Commission may attempt to reach a conciliation agreement with the respondent(s) prior to reaching the “probable cause” stage of enforcement (
The Office of General Counsel notifies the respondent(s) of this recommendation and provides a copy of the probable cause brief. 11 CFR 111.16(b). The respondent(s) may file a written response to the probable cause brief within fifteen days of receiving said brief. 11 CFR 111.16(c). After reviewing this response, the Office of General Counsel shall advise the Commission in writing whether it intends to proceed with the recommendation or to withdraw the recommendation from Commission consideration. 11 CFR 111.16(d).
If the Commission determines by an affirmative vote of four members that there is “probable cause to believe” that a respondent has violated the Act or Commission regulations, the Commission authorizes the Office of General Counsel to notify the respondent by letter of this determination. 11 CFR 111.17(a). Upon a Commission finding of “probable cause to believe,” the Commission must attempt to reach a conciliation agreement with the respondent. 11 CFR 111.18(a). If no conciliation agreement is finalized within the time period specified in 11 CFR 111.18(c), the Office of General Counsel may recommend to the Commission that it authorize a civil action for relief in the appropriate court. 11 CFR 111.19(a). Commencement of such civil action requires an affirmative vote of four members of the Commission. 11 CFR 111.19(b). The Commission may enter into a conciliation agreement with respondent after authorizing a civil action. 11 CFR 111.19(c).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Sicma Aero Seat, passenger seat assemblies. This AD requires modifying the aft track fittings on these passenger seat assemblies by installing new tab locks, and then torquing the aft track fitting locking bolts. We are issuing this AD to prevent detachment of passenger seat assemblies, especially during emergency conditions, leading to occupant injury.
This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of March 23, 2007.
You can get the service information identified in this AD from Sicma Aero Seat, 7 Rue Lucien Coupet, 36100 Issoudun, France,
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jeffrey Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to certain Sicma Aero Seat, passenger seat assemblies. We published the proposed AD in the
You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation Nassif Building at the street address stated in
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
One commenter, Airbus, requests that we add the Airbus A340 series airplanes to the list of airplanes these seats could be installed on. We agree and added the A340 series airplanes to the list in applicability paragraph (c). There are no U.S.-registered A340 series airplanes, so the costs of compliance do not change in the AD.
Airbus requests that we take into account and add a reference to the AMOC of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin No. SB-90-25-009, as allowed by France AD 1994-085 R2. We do not agree. Allowing this AMOC would require operators to obtain and use procedures supplied by the manufacturer. Our AD process already provides a method for operators to request an AMOC, if they so desire. We did not change the AD.
We discovered that we inadvertently referenced Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin Annex 1 as Issue 2, dated March 31, 1999. We corrected it to Annex 1, Issue 1, dated March 31, 1999.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
We estimate that this AD will affect 239,209 Sicma Aero Seat, passenger seat assemblies, installed on 1,016 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per airplane to perform the actions, and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $235 per airplane. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $563,880. The manufacturer has indicated they might provide the parts at no cost to the operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 23, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Sicma Aero Seat, passenger seat assemblies, part numbers (P/Ns) 42XX series, 50XX series, 63XX series, 65XX series, 71XX series, 78XX series, 83XX series, 85XX series, 90XX series, 91XX series, and 92XX series, with aft track fittings, P/N 90-000120-790-0, installed. Refer to Annex 1, Issue 1, dated March 31, 1999, of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin No. 90-25-005, Issue 2, dated March 31, 1999, for the full part numbers. These seat assemblies are installed on, but not limited to, Airbus A300, A310, A318, A319, A320, A321, A330, and A340 series airplanes.
(d) This AD results from reports of loose and unlocked aft track fittings on Sicma Aero Seat, passenger seat assemblies. We are issuing this AD to prevent detachment of passenger seat assemblies, especially during emergency conditions, leading to occupant injury.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) Modify aft track fittings, P/N 90-000120-790-0, by installing new tab locks, P/N 00-4399, under the locking bolts.
(g) Torque locking bolts to 17.4-to-34.7 inch pounds.
(h) Stamp amendment “Z” on the seat assembly identification plate.
(i) Use the Accomplishment Instructions of Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin No. 90-25-005, Issue 2, dated March 31, 1999, to do these actions.
(j) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(k) Direction Generale de L'Aviation Civile, AD 1994-085(AB) R2, dated July 13, 1999, also addresses the subject of this AD.
(l) Contact Jeffrey Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238-7161; fax (781) 238-7170;
(m) You must use Sicma Aero Seat Service Bulletin No. 90-25-005, Issue 2, dated March 31, 1999, and Annex 1, Issue 1, dated March 31, 1999, of that service bulletin to perform the actions required by this AD. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Sicma Aero Seat, 7 Rue Lucien Coupet, 36100 Issoudun, France, telephone: (33) 54 03 39 39; fax: (33) 54 03 15 16, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) to revise
This AD becomes effective on March 23, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Shorts Service Bulletin Number 51-51, Revision No: 8, dated July 5, 2006; listed in this AD as of March 23, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51, Revision No.: 6, dated: March 14, 1983; and Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-52, Revision No.: 4, dated: July 16, 2002, listed in this AD as of September 29, 2003 (68 FR 50689, August 22, 2003).
For service information identified in this AD, contact Short Brothers PLC, P.O. Box 241, Airport Road, Belfast BT3 9DZ Northern Ireland;
To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001 or on the Internet at
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
On November 20, 2006, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all Shorts Models SC-7 Series 2 and SC-7 Series 3 airplanes. This proposal was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and FAA's response to each comment:
Shorts provides comments pertaining to their proposal to EASA to revise or supersede EASA AD 2006-0190. Shorts recommends that the FAA consider postponing any revision to AD 2003-17-05 until EASA revises or supersedes EASA AD 2006-0190.
For clarification reasons, this is a revision to AD 2003-17-05. However, EASA superseded EASA AD 2006-0190 with EASA AD 2007-0013,
Shorts provides comments that it would be prudent to include the increase of the life limits of the Model SC-7 Series 3 airplane, S/N SH1845, that result from an approved alternative method of compliance (AMOC).
The increase of the life limits for the Model SC-7 Series 3 airplane, S/N SH1845, was approved as part of an AMOC. The life limit originally published in the AD remains valid. It is the AMOC that extends it. Any FAA-approved AMOC will include actions necessary to address the unsafe condition in an acceptable manner to deviate from the AD. The AD remains in effect if the AMOC is not complied with. For this reason, it would not be appropriate to change the AD to incorporate an AMOC. This AD maintains the effectivity of all AMOCs.
We are not changing the final rule AD action as a result of this comment.
We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We estimate that this AD would affect 22 airplanes in the U.S. registry.
Since the action of the AD is life-limiting the structural airframe, the actual operating cost of this AD is the cost of the airplane minus any non-life-limited parts that are salvageable and can be sold. There is no cost impact difference in this AD than that originally presented in AD 2003-17-05, except for the recalculation of the labor costs using the revised figure of $80 per hour instead of $65 per hour.
The following paragraphs present the costs if you choose to incorporate the inspections and modifications necessary to extend the life limit.
We estimate the following costs to do the optional aircraft life extension on 16 airplanes (all airplanes that do not have serial number SH1889, SH1943, SH1960, SH1845, SH1847, or SH1883) as prescribed in Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51:
We estimate the following to do the aircraft life extension prescribed in Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-52 (which includes Service Bulletin 51-51) for serial numbers SH1889, SH1943, and SH1960:
We estimate the following to do the aircraft life extension prescribed in Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-52 for serial numbers SH1845, SH1847, and SH1883:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective on March 23, 2007.
(b) This AD revises AD 2003-17-05, Amendment 39-13279.
(c) This AD applies to Models SC-7 Series 2 and SC-7 Series 3 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are certificated in any category.
(d) This revised AD results from conflicting information of the repetitive inspection requirement between one of the service bulletins and the maintenance program if an operator chooses to extend the life limit. We are issuing this AD to clarify the inspection information to prevent failure of critical structure of the aircraft caused by fatigue.
(e) Do not operate the airplane upon accumulating the applicable life limit or within the next 90 days after September 29, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-17-05), whichever occurs later. For owners/operators that do not have a record of the number of flights on the aircraft, assume the number of flights on the basis of two per operating hour. The following table presents the life limits:
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i) The repetitive visual inspection requirements using Shorts Service Bulletin No. 57-59, which is referenced on page 3 of Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51, Revision No.: 6, dated: March 14, 1983, paragraph C (Special limitations) are every 2,400 flights; and the repetitive visual inspection program in Skyvan Maintenance Program, Maintenance Program Appendix 1, parts A and B (Section 57-00, Item 3) are every 1,100 flights or 800 hours TIS intervals, whichever occurs first. You must use the repetitive inspection intervals of the Skyvan Maintenance Program for the repetitive inspection of the wing structure, skin, and skin doublers to be every 1,100 flights or 800 hours TIS, whichever occurs first and not the 2,400 flights as stated in Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51, Revision No.: 6, dated: March 14, 1983.
(j) The Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA,
(k) AMOCs approved for AD 2003-17-05 are approved for this AD.
(l) You must use Shorts Service Bulletin Number 51-52, Revision No: 4, dated July 16, 2002; or Shorts Service Bulletin Number 51-51, Revision No: 6, dated March 14, 1983; or Shorts Service Bulletin Number 51-51, Revision No: 8, dated July 5, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Shorts Service Bulletin Number 51-51, Revision No: 8, dated July 5, 2006, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the incorporation by reference of Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-51, Revision No.: 6, dated: March 14, 1983; and Shorts Service Bulletin No. 51-52, Revision No.: 4, dated: July 16, 2002, on September 29, 2003 (68 FR 50689, August 22, 2003).
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Short Brothers PLC, P.O. Box 241, Airport Road, Belfast BT3 9DZ Northern Ireland;
(4) You may review copies at the FAA, FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain EADS SOCATA airplanes. This AD requires you to inspect the pilot door locking stop-fittings for correct length and, if any incorrect length pilot door locking stop-fittings are found, replace them. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for France. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace incorrect length pilot door locking stop-fittings. This condition, if not corrected, could result in depressurization of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective on March 23, 2007.
As of March 23, 2007, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation.
To get the service information identified in this AD, contact EADS SOCATA, Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France;
To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001 or on the Internet at
Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
On September 20, 2006, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes. This proposal was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and FAA's response to each comment:
EADS SOCATA comments that EADS SOCATA Service Bulletin SB 70-131, ATA No. 53, dated July 2005, only applies to TBM 700 aircraft that are equipped with a pilot door. As such, this AD should only apply to TBM 700 aircraft that are equipped with a pilot door.
We agree and have changed the applicability statement so that it applies to Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 126 through 322, equipped with a pilot door, that are certificated in any category.
Jack Buster of the Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) requests that service documents deemed essential to the accomplishment of this proposed action be incorporated by reference and published in the Docket Management System (DMS).
We agree that the service documents are essential and should be incorporated by reference. However, we do not incorporate by reference any document in a proposed AD action; instead we incorporate by reference the document in the final rule. Since we are issuing the proposal as a final rule AD action, the service information referenced in this action will be incorporated by reference.
We are currently reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins in the Department of Transportation's DMS as part of the AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised.
We have determined that to delay this AD action would be inappropriate since an unsafe condition exists. Therefore, we have made no change to the AD in this regard.
Mr. Buster also requests that the issue of parts manufacturer approval (PMA) be addressed in the proposed action and that all Directorates within the FAA treat the issue the same per Section 1, paragraph (b)(10) of Executive Order 12866.
Mr. Buster's comments are timely in that the FAA is currently reviewing this issue as it applies to all products: transport airplanes, commuter airplanes, general aviation airplanes, engines and propellers, rotorcraft, and appliances. The FAA acknowledges that there are different ways of addressing this issue to ensure that unsafe PMA parts are identified and addressed. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue, including input from industry, and have made a final determination, we will consider developing a standardized approach and standardized language on how to address PMA parts in airworthiness directives.
We have determined that to delay this AD action would be inappropriate since an unsafe condition exists and that replacement of certain parts must be done to ensure continued safety. Therefore, we have made no change to the AD in this regard.
We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We estimate that this AD affects 157 airplanes in the U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to accomplish the inspection and repair:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective on March 23, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 126 through 322, equipped with a pilot door, that are certificated in any category.
(d) This AD results from a pilot door adjustment procedure not being done properly. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct incorrect length pilot door locking stop-fittings. This condition, if not corrected, could result in depressurization of the airplane.
(e)
(f) If you have ordered parts and they are not available, then you may fly unpressurized until parts become available or for a period not to exceed 90 days after the inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, whichever occurs first. You must also fabricate and install a placard as described below. Completing the action of paragraph (e)(2) of this AD terminates the placard requirement.
(1) Fabricate (using letters at least 1/8 inch in height) a warning placard which states “This airplane is prohibited from pressurized flight.”
(2) Install the placard in full view of the pilot. The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may install the placard as required in paragraph (f) of this AD.
(g) The Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA, ATTN: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
(h) You must use EADS SOCATA Service Bulletin SB 70-131, ATA No. 53, dated July 2005 to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact EADS SOCATA, Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France;
(3) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all EMBRAER airplanes as described previously. This AD requires inspecting to determine the part number of the left- and right-hand windshield temperature controllers. For airplanes equipped with certain windshield temperature controllers, this AD also requires replacing the attaching hardware of the power cable terminals of the windshield temperature controllers with new, improved attaching hardware; inspecting the power cable terminals for signs of melting or damage to the terminals, cable insulation, or plastic crimping ring; and performing corrective actions if necessary. This AD results from reports of smoke on the flight deck caused by damage from poor electrical contact due to loosening of the attaching hardware of the power cables of certain windshield temperature controllers. We are issuing this AD to prevent overheating of the power cable terminals of the windshield temperature controllers, which could result in smoke on the flight deck.
This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of March 23, 2007.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
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 AD.
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149.
You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
EMBRAER requests that we revise the possible consequence of the unsafe condition. EMBRAER states that it has confirmed that the unsafe condition is the result of overheating of the power cables of the windshield temperature controller due to loosening of the power cable attachment hardware, and that tests have shown that this condition may cause smoke on the flight deck, but not fire. EMBRAER therefore requests that we revise the statement “which could result in smoke and fire on the flight deck” to read “which could result in smoke on the flight deck.”
We agree for the reasons stated and have revised the summary and paragraph (d) of the AD accordingly.
EMBRAER requests that we revise the NPRM to permit a maintenance records check to determine if the subject windshield temperature controller is installed on the airplane. EMBRAER states that it should be acceptable to show that the subject controller is or is not installed on the airplane by examining the airplane maintenance records rather than by requiring a physical inspection of the actual installed part.
We agree for the reasons given. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (f) of the AD to permit a maintenance records check in lieu of the required inspection, provided the part number of the subject controller can be conclusively determined from that review.
One commenter, the Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA), requests that we revise our procedures for incorporation by reference (IBR) of service information in ADs. MARPA asserts that ADs are frequently derived from privately-authored, copyright-protected manufacturer service documents, but that when such a document is incorporated by reference into a public document like an AD, it loses its private, protected status and becomes itself a public document. MARPA continues that public laws by definition must be public and cannot rely for compliance upon private writings, and that unless such writings are incorporated by reference, a court of law will not consider them in interpreting the AD and might invalidate the AD.
We understand MARPA's comment concerning IBR. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the documents necessary for accomplishing the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information.
In regard to MARPA's request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the final rule is necessary in response to this comment.
MARPA also expresses concern about several perceived inconsistencies in current FAA policy as regards parts manufacturing approval (PMA) parts. MARPA states: “Type certificate holders in their service documents universally ignore the possible existence of PMA parts. This is especially true with foreign manufacturers where the concept may not exist or be implemented in the country of origin. In the instant case we are aware of a Rosemount Aerospace temperature controller that carries the part number (P/N) of 3801D2 approved for replacement of Embraer P/N: 145-38558-505 (Rosemount PMA supplement number 191, dated September 5, 2002). We do not have sufficient knowledge to determine whether the Rosemount part suffers from the same deficiencies as the Goodyear part. We are concerned that it may and because the proposed action restricts applicability to the Goodyear part the possibly defective Rosemount parts may continue in operation. We believe, at the very least, the Rosemount part should be addressed in the action to advise whether the regulatory action is intended to apply or not apply to this particular part.”
We do not agree. EMBRAER P/N 145-38558-505 is not a replaceable part; it is a drawing used by EMBRAER to install the Goodrich (Rosemount) controller, P/N 3801D2, during production. As the NPRM does not address deficiencies in the subject controller, but only the installation of the controller power cable mounting hardware, replacing the subject controller is not an issue of this AD.
MARPA continues: “We have, in the past, issued several comments on proposed actions suggesting the incorporation of language designed to extend applicability to known or unknown alternatively approved (PMA) parts. The Small Airplane Directorate has adopted, in whole or in part, MARPA's suggestion and we would recommend and request that the Transport Airplane Directorate coordinate with the Small Airplane Directorate to promulgate a uniform policy on this issue pursuant to Section 1, paragraph (b)(10) of Executive Order 12866.”
The FAA recognizes the need for standardization on this issue and is currently in the process of reviewing it at the national level. However, the Transport Airplane Directorate considers that to delay this particular AD action for resolution of this matter would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that replacement of certain parts must be accomplished to ensure continued safety.
No change has been made to the final rule in regard to these concerns.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
This AD affects about 689 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts will be supplied from operator stock. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $55,120, or $80 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes; certificated in any category.
(d) This AD results from reports of smoke on the flight deck caused by damage from poor electrical contact due to loosening of the attaching hardware of the power cables of certain windshield temperature controllers. We are issuing this AD to prevent overheating of the power cable terminals of the windshield temperature controllers, which could result in smoke on the flight deck.
(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 5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, inspect to determine the part number of the left- and right-hand windshield temperature controllers. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the subject controller can be conclusively determined from that review. If any windshield temperature controller is found to have a part number other than Goodrich P/N 3801D2( ), no further action is required by this AD for that controller.
(g) Before further flight after performing the inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD, for all windshield temperature controllers having Goodrich P/N 3801D2( ) or any controller for which the part number cannot be conclusively determined: Replace the attaching hardware of the power cable terminals of the controllers with new, improved attaching hardware having new part numbers. Concurrently, perform a detailed inspection for signs of melting or damage of the plastic crimping ring, cable insulation, or terminals of the power cables, and, before further flight, perform applicable corrective actions. Perform all the actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0043, Revision 02, dated May 25, 2006; or EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-30-0013, dated June 28, 2005; as applicable.
(h) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0043, dated June 28, 2005; or Revision 01, dated April 7, 2006; are considered acceptable for compliance with the applicable corresponding actions required by this AD.
(i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 FR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(j) Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-05-01, effective May 23, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD.
(k) You must use EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-30-0043, Revision 02, dated May 25, 2006; or EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-30-0013, dated June 28, 2005; as applicable; to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD), which applies to certain Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes. That AD currently requires replacement of the decompression panels that are located in the smoke barrier between the passenger and main deck cargo compartment with new panels of an improved design. This new AD requires modification of the decompression panels on the smoke barrier in the main deck cargo compartment, or replacement of the smoke barrier with an improved smoke barrier, as applicable. This new AD also requires repetitive inspections of the decompression (vent) panels on the smoke barrier and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD also adds airplanes to the applicability. This AD results from reports of decompression panels on the smoke barrier opening in flight and on the ground without a decompression event. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent opening or tearing of decompression panels, which could result in degraded cargo fire detection and suppression capability, smoke penetration into an occupied compartment, and an uncontrolled cargo fire, if a fire occurs in the main deck cargo compartment.
This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 23, 2007.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD.
Susan Letcher, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6474; fax (425) 917-6590.
You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that supersedes AD 96-24-03, amendment 39-9829 (61 FR 59319, November 22, 1996). The existing AD applies to certain Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments that have been received on the NPRM.
Boeing supports the NPRM.
The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that, typically, ADs are based on service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately authored instruments generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an AD, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document; by definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings. MARPA adds that service documents incorporated by reference should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the
We understand MARPA's comment concerning incorporation by reference. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the document necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information.
In regard to the commenter's request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the final rule is necessary in response to this comment.
MARPA states that the practice of requiring the replacement of a defective part with a certain part conflicts with 14 CFR 21.303. MARPA asserts that requiring installation of a certain part prevents installation of other good parts and prohibits the development of new parts. MARPA also states that the practice of requiring an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to install a PMA part should be stopped. MARPA concludes that this practice presumes that all PMA parts are inherently defective and require an additional layer of approval. MARPA further states the NPRM does not comply with FAA Order 8040.2; that order states that replacement or installation of certain parts could have replacement parts approved under 14 CFR 21.303 based on a finding of identicality. That order also states that any parts approved under this regulation and installed should be subject to the actions of the AD and included in the applicability. MARPA states that if a PMA part is defective, then it must be addressed in an AD and not just simply implied by an AMOC requirement. MARPA suggests that we adopt language used in ADs issued by directorates other than the Transport Airplane Directorate, which specify installing an “FAA-approved equivalent
We do not agree to revise this AD. The NPRM did not address PMA parts, as provided in draft FAA Order 8040.2, because the Order was only a draft that was out for comment at the time. After issuance of the NPRM, the Order was revised and issued as FAA Order 8040.5 with an effective date of September 29, 2006.
FAA Order 8040.5 does not address PMA parts in ADs. We acknowledge the need to ensure that unsafe PMA parts are identified and addressed in ADs related to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI). We are currently examining all aspects of this issue, including input from industry. Once we have made a final determination, we will consider how our policy regarding PMA parts in ADs needs to be revised. We consider that to delay this AD action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that replacement of certain parts must be accomplished to ensure continued safety. Therefore, no change has been made to the final rule in this regard.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments that have been submitted, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
There are about 63 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate of $80 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with the AD. The estimated work hours and cost of parts for the modification in the table below depend on the configuration of an 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007.
(b) This AD supersedes AD 96-24-03.
(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3353, dated December 9, 2004.
(d) This AD results from reports of decompression panels on the smoke barrier opening in flight and on the ground without a decompression event. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent opening or tearing of decompression panels, which could result in degraded cargo fire detection and suppression capability, smoke penetration into an occupied compartment, and an uncontrolled cargo fire, if a fire occurs in the main deck cargo compartment.
(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 48 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the decompression panels on the smoke barrier or replace the smoke barrier with an improved smoke barrier, by accomplishing all of the actions specified in Work Package 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3353, dated December 9, 2004, as applicable.
(g) Within 20 months or 6,000 flight hours after accomplishing the actions in paragraph (f) of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a general visual inspection of the decompression (vent) panels on the smoke barrier for any changes from their installed condition, and do all corrective actions before further flight after the inspection, by accomplishing all of the actions specified in Work Package 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3353, dated December 9, 2004, as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20 months or 6,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
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)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(i) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3353, dated December 9, 2004, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the McDonnell Douglas airplanes previously described. This AD requires replacing the control modules of the fire detection systems of the propulsion engines with new, improved control modules. This AD results from a report of broken or severed wiring between engine fire detectors and the fire detection system control module, which caused the fire detection system to become non-functional without flightcrew awareness. We are issuing this AD to prevent unannunciated fire in a propulsion engine, which could cause injury to flightcrew and passengers or loss of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 23, 2007.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Contact Meggitt Safety Systems, 1915 Voyager Avenue, Simi Valley, California 93063, for service information identified in this AD.
Samuel Lee, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5262; fax (562) 627-5210.
You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes; Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes equipped with Pratt & Whitney JT9-20 or JT9-20J engines; and all Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
FedEx concurs with the NPRM as written and states its intent to also modify the fire detection systems of the auxiliary power units of subject FedEx airplanes, as described in the service information mandated by the AD.
Hawaiian Airlines requests that we revise the NPRM to clarify what service information is acceptable for compliance with the AD. The commenter asserts that the NPRM states that the use of Meggitt Safety Systems Service Bulletin 26-34, Revision 2,
We partially agree. Although we can find no statement in Service Bulletin 26-34, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2006 (which is the original issue); or Revision 2; that no further work is required, we have confirmed that Revision 1 and Revision 2 are technically identical and differ only in issues of format and style. Therefore, we have added new paragraph (g) to the AD to specify that actions accomplished before the effective date of the AD in accordance with Revision 1 of Service Bulletin 26-34 are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of the AD. We have re-identified subsequent paragraphs of the AD accordingly.
The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) requests that, during the NPRM stage of AD rulemaking, the FAA state its intent to incorporate by reference (IBR) any relevant service information. MARPA states that without such a statement in the NPRM, it is unclear whether the relevant service information will be incorporated by reference in the final rule.
We do not concur with the commenter's request. When we reference certain service information in a proposed AD, the public can assume we intend to IBR that service information, as required by the Office of the Federal Register. No change to the AD is necessary in regard to the commenter's request.
MARPA asserts that IBR documents should be made available to the public by publication in the DMS, keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA therefore requests that such documents be published in the DMS prior to release of the final rule.
We do not agree with this request. We are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
There are about 305 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 233 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required actions take about 6 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts cost about $9,900 per airplane. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $2,418,540, or $10,380 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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas airplanes, certificated in any category; as specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.
(1) All Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, and DC-10-30F (KC-10A and KDC-10) airplanes;
(2) Model DC-10-40 and DC-10-40F airplanes equipped with Pratt & Whitney JT9-20 or JT9-20J engines; and
(3) All Model MD-10-10F and MD-10-30F airplanes.
(d) This AD results from a report of broken or severed wiring between engine fire detectors and the fire detection system control module, which caused the fire detection system to become non-functional without flightcrew awareness. We are issuing this AD to prevent unannunciated fire in a propulsion engine, which could cause injury to flightcrew and passengers or loss 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 60 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the control modules of the fire detection systems of the propulsion engines with new, improved control modules, in accordance with paragraph 2., “Main Engine Control Module Replacement Instructions,” of Meggitt Safety Systems Service Bulletin 26-34, Revision 2, dated August 15, 2006.
(g) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Meggitt Safety Systems Service Bulletin 26-34, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2006, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by paragraph (f) of this AD.
(h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(i) You must use Meggitt Safety Systems Service Bulletin 26-34, Revision 2, dated August 15, 2006, to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. Meggitt Safety Systems Service Bulletin 26-34, Revision 2, dated August 15, 2006, contains the following effective pages:
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Meggitt Safety Systems, 1915 Voyager Avenue, Simi Valley, California 93063, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Learjet Model 23, 24, 24A, 24B, 24B-A, 24C, 24D, 24D-A, 24E, 24F, 24F-A, 25, 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D, 25F, 28, 29, 31, 31A, 35, 35A (C-21A), 36, 36A, 55, 55B, and 55C airplanes. This AD requires modifying the left- and right-hand standby fuel pump switches. This AD also requires revising the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew of the proper procedures to follow in the event of failure of the standby fuel pump to shut off. This AD results from a report of inadvertent operation of a standby fuel pump due to an electrical system malfunction. We are issuing this AD to prevent this inadvertent operation, which could result in inadvertent fuel transfer by the left or right wing fuel system and subsequent over-limit fuel imbalance between the left and right wing fuel loads. This imbalance could affect lateral control of the airplane which could result in reduced controllability.
This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of March 23, 2007.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Contact Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, Kansas 67209-2942, for service information identified in this AD.
James Galstad, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone (316) 946-4135; fax (316) 946-4107.
You may examine the airworthiness directive (AD) docket on the Internet at
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to certain Learjet Model 23, 24, 24A, 24B, 24B-A, 24C, 24D, 24D-A, 24E, 24F, 24F-A, 25, 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D, 25F, 28, 29, 31, 31A, 35, 35A (C-21A), 36, 36A, 55, 55B, and 55C airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
One private citizen states that the flight department he works for operates three Learjet Model 35A airplanes and a Learjet Model 31 airplane. He adds that the airplanes have never had an inadvertent operation of the fuel pumps resulting in an over-limit fuel imbalance. He also notes that the fuel crossflow valve must be open in order to transfer fuel; this requires two switches to be selected—the standby fuel pump and the crossflow valve. He states that even if a standby fuel pump is inadvertently activated, no fuel will be transferred unless the crossflow valve is also open. He concludes that there is already enough protection in the system to avoid an over-limit fuel imbalance.
We infer that the commenter is stating that an AD is not required. We recognize that the crossflow valve must be open for fuel to be transferred; however, as the operation of the pump may not be recognized by the flightcrew, the transfer valve may be opened in an attempt to correct an existing fuel imbalance, creating an even greater imbalance. We do not agree that there is enough protection in the system to avoid an over-limit fuel imbalance when an electrical malfunction provides power to an electric standby pump. This condition was found during an accident investigation. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.
Another private citizen states that his organization has operated up to 13 Learjet 20 series airplanes (some with 20,000 total airframe hours) for almost 20 years and has never encountered the unsafe condition. He adds that if this problem were to occur, it should not generate an emergency situation but simply an abnormal procedure that is addressed by the aircraft checklist. He asks what pertinent information leads to the conclusion that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes. He adds that the condition of imbalance caused by inadvertent standby pump operation, as specified in the NPRM, is not likely to occur; if it did occur, the flightcrew could read the proper procedure in the checklist. He concludes that safety is not jeopardized at all.
We infer that the commenter wants us to withdraw the NPRM; we do not agree with the request. We acknowledge that existing airplane checklist procedures appear to be adequate, but using previous AFM procedures does not ensure that the imbalance will be corrected. Based on the data presented to date of over 30 reports of imbalance, we find that this AD is warranted. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.
The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that ADs are based on service information that originates from the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer's service documents are privately authored instruments, generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. When a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an AD, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA notes that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated by reference. MARPA believes that public laws, by definition, should be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings for compliance. MARPA adds that the legal interpretation of a document is a question of law, not of fact; therefore, unless the service document is incorporated by reference it cannot be considered. MARPA is concerned that failure to incorporate essential service information could result in a court decision invalidating the AD.
MARPA also states that service documents incorporated by reference should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates those documents. MARPA notes that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is brevity, to keep from expanding the
We acknowledge MARPA's comments. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the documents necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, as noted by the commenter, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information.
In regard to MARPA's request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the AD is necessary in response to these comments.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
There are about 1,613 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, depending on airplane configuration.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to the Learjet models identified in the applicable Bombardier service bulletin listed in Table 1 of this AD.
(d) This AD results from a report of inadvertent operation of a standby fuel pump due to an electrical system malfunction. We are issuing this AD to prevent this inadvertent operation, which could result in inadvertent fuel transfer by the left or right wing fuel system and subsequent over-limit fuel imbalance between the left and right wing fuel loads. This imbalance could affect lateral control of the airplane which could result in reduced controllability.
(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 the effective date of this AD: Modify the left- and right-hand standby fuel pump switches, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin identified in Table 1 of this AD.
(g) Before further flight after accomplishing the modification required by paragraph (f) of this AD: Revise the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the applicable Learjet AFM to advise the flightcrew of proper procedures to follow in the event of failure of the standby fuel pump to shut off by including the information in the applicable Learjet temporary flight manual (TFM) changes identified in Table 2 of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of the TFM changes into the AFM. When the TFM changes have been included in the general revisions of the AFM, those general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, provided the relevant information in the general revisions is identical to that in the TFM changes.
(h)(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(i) You must use the applicable service information identified in Tables 3 and 4 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (Only page 1 of Learjet Temporary Flight Manual Change TFM 96-08, dated May 30, 1996; and Learjet Temporary Flight Manual Change TFM 96-09, dated May 30, 1996; contain the document date, no other pages of the document contain this information.) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, Kansas 67209-2942, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Room PL-401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Boeing Model 767 airplanes. This AD requires an inspection of each main tank fuel boost pump for the presence of a pump shaft flame arrestor, and if the flame arrestor is missing, replacement of that pump with a pump having a pump shaft flame arrestor. This AD also requires repetitive measurements of the flame arrestor's position in the pump, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also requires the replacement of the pump with a new or modified pump, which ends the repetitive measurements. This AD results from reports that certain fuel boost pumps may not have flame arrestors installed in the pump shaft and reports that the pin that holds the flame arrestor in place can break due to metal fatigue. We are issuing this AD to prevent the possible migration of a flame from a main tank fuel boost pump inlet to the vapor space of that fuel tank, and consequent ignition of fuel vapors, which could result in a fire or explosion.
This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of March 23, 2007.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this AD.
Judith Coyle, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6497; fax (425) 917-6590.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Boeing Model 767 airplanes. That supplemental NPRM was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.
The Air Transport Association (ATA) of America, on behalf of one of its member operators, Delta Air Lines, requests that we explain why we propose to require replacing the pump shaft without including the option of replacing the shaft pin or periodically inspecting the pin. Delta states that replacing the entire shaft would be at a considerable cost and that a more cost-effective solution would be to develop a pin replacement repair.
We acknowledge that it may be possible to develop a more cost-effective solution than the replacement specified in this AD. However, the manufacturer has developed only a single design solution (replacement of the pump shaft) to fully address the identified unsafe condition specified in this AD. We have mandated this terminating action because we can better ensure long-term continued operational safety by design changes to remove the source of the problem, rather than by repetitive inspections. We also recognize that alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) that meet the intent of this AD may also exist; operators may request an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD. We have not revised this AD in this regard.
Delta Air Lines requests that we do not mandate the terminating action specified in paragraph (i) of the supplemental NPRM that would require replacing the pump within 36 months. Delta Air Lines states that if the 6,000-flight-hour or 24-month repetitive interval specified in paragraphs (f) and (g) of the supplemental NPRM provide an acceptable level of safety, then the repetitive interval should be adequate until an operator can schedule the terminating action specified in paragraph (i) of the supplemental NPRM, if desired.
We do not agree to remove the requirement to do the terminating action specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. We can better ensure long-term continued operational safety by modifications or design changes to remove the source of the problem, rather than by repetitive inspections/testing. Long-term inspections/testing may not provide the degree of safety necessary for the transport airplane fleet. This, coupled with a better understanding of the human factors associated with numerous repetitive inspections, has led us to consider placing less emphasis on special procedures and more emphasis on design improvements.
We developed the 36-month compliance time for the replacement in accordance with manufacturer recommendations and we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required modification within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. However, according to the procedures specified in paragraph
ATA, on behalf of one its member operators, Delta Air Lines, requests that the supplemental NPRM be coordinated with any action that may be pending to address the fuel pump feed-through connector in order to avoid more pump removals than are required to accomplish both actions. Delta Air Lines believes that Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0095 and 767-28A0096, both dated September 15, 2005, which address the fuel pump feed-through connector, could be done concurrently with this supplemental NPRM.
We acknowledge that coordinating the actions in this AD with the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0095 and 767-28A0096 may reduce the number of pump removals. However, we have not yet issued any AD rulemaking related to those service bulletins, and to delay this action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and the requirements of this AD must be done to ensure continued operational safety. We are considering AD rulemaking related to Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0095 and 767-28A0096, and we are also considering how the compliance times specified in this AD will fit with the compliance times of that future rulemaking. Operators should note that it is always permitted to accomplish the requirements of any AD at a time earlier than the specified compliance time. We have not revised this AD in this regard.
Boeing requests that the phrase “should the pump inlets become uncovered” be added to paragraph (d) of the supplemental NPRM. The commenter notes that the phrase was removed by the FAA in the supplemental NPRM because the FAA stated that “the pump inlet does not need to be uncovered for ignited vapors in the pump to cause a tank explosion.” The commenter contends that the fuel pump inlets being covered in fuel mitigates the unsafe condition because when the fuel pump inlets are covered, the inlets and pump cavity are full of liquid fuel in which no flame front could develop.
We acknowledge the need for clarification of the unsafe condition statement. We acknowledge that operation of a fuel pump with its inlet below the surface of the fuel in the tank ensures that the ignition risk addressed by this AD is eliminated for the majority of the time the pump operates. However, ground fuel transfer conditions can lead to dry operation of the fuel pump. After the pump inlet is again covered by fuel by the addition of fuel to the tank, the pump operates for a brief period of time until it is re-primed. During this period of operation with the inlet covered by fuel, there is still some risk of a tank ignition event if an ignition source generating failure occurs within a pump with a missing flame arrestor. Therefore, we have not revised this AD in this regard.
The Modification and Replacement of Parts Association (MARPA) states that typically ADs are based on service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA also states that manufacturer's service documents are privately authored instruments generally enjoying copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA contends that when a service document is incorporated by reference pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 into a public document such as an AD, it loses its private, protected status and becomes itself a public document. MARPA explains that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document. MARPA states that public laws by definition must be public which means they cannot rely for compliance upon private writings. MARPA is concerned that failure to incorporate essential service information could result in a court decision invalidating the AD.
MARPA also states that incorporation by reference service documents should be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management System (DMS) keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA explains that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method of the
We acknowledge that the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the documents necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information.
In regard to the commenter's request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on the DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the AD is necessary in response to this comment.
The same commenter requests that the supplemental NPRM comply with FAA Order 8040.2. The commenter states that for mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) (issued by an aviation authority of another country) that require replacement or installation of certain parts, the Order allows for replacement of parts approved under section 21.303 (“Replacement and modification parts”) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.303) based on a finding of identicality in the FAA's AD. The commenter notes that the supplemental NPRM is not from an MCAI but believes that the principles of the order should be universal.
We do not agree. The supplemental NPRM did not address parts manufacturer approval (PMA) parts, as provided in draft FAA Order 8040.2, because the Order was only a draft that was out for comment at the time. After issuance of the NPRM, the Order was revised and issued as FAA Order 8040.5 with an effective date of September 29, 2006. FAA Order 8040.5 does not address PMA parts in ADs and does not apply to domestic ADs. Therefore, we have not revised the AD in this regard.
The same commenter also requests that we revise the way we address the use of PMA parts in the supplemental NPRM.
• The commenter requests that the language in the supplemental NPRM be changed to permit installation of PMA equivalent parts. The commenter states that the mandated installation of a certain part number in the NPRM “is at variance with the higher authority of 14 CFR Section 21.303.” The commenter notes that only safety issues can be addressed in airworthiness directives as set forth in Title 49 and “the prima facia invalidation of FAR 21.303” by AD action is an economic issue not within purview of the AD.
• The commenter contends that it is illogical to require an operator to request approval of an AMOC in order to install an “equivalent” PMA part.
• The commenter also requests that the supplemental NPRM be revised to cover possible defective PMA alternative parts so that those defective PMA parts also are subject to the supplemental NPRM.
• The commenter also points out that ADs issued by directorates other than the Transport Airplane Directorate contain wording that address PMA parts and requests that we use the wording specified in an AD from the Small Airplane Directorate. The commenter notes that because the supplemental NPRM differs markedly in the treatment of this issue, the mandates contained in Section 1, paragraph (b)(10) of Executive Order 12866 are not being met.
We recognize the need for standardization on this issue and currently are in the process of reviewing such issues that address the use of PMAs in ADs at the national level. The Transport Airplane Directorate considers that to delay this particular AD action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that replacement of certain parts must be accomplished to ensure continued safety. Therefore, we have not revised the AD in this regard.
Paragraph (f)(2) of the supplemental NPRM specifies a compliance time of “within 365 days after the date on which the airplane accumulates 15,000 total flight hours.” We have revised the compliance time specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD to “within 365 days after the date on which the airplane accumulates 15,000 total flight hours or within 24 months after performing the initial inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD, whichever occurs later.” We made this change in order to give airplanes identified in paragraph (f)(2) that reach 15,000 total flight hours shortly after performing the initial inspection required by paragraph (f) a similar compliance time of 24 months after performing the initial inspection that is specified for airplanes in paragraphs (f)(1) and (g) of this AD. We considered the safety issues and the recommendations of the manufacturer and have determined that a 24-month interval after performing the initial inspection will ensure an acceptable level of safety.
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
This AD affects about 915 airplanes worldwide, and 400 airplanes of U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.
(d) This AD results from reports that certain fuel boost pumps may not have flame arrestors installed in the pump shaft and reports that the pin that holds the flame arrestor in place can break due to metal fatigue. We are issuing this AD to prevent the possible migration of a flame from a main tank fuel boost pump inlet to the vapor space of that fuel tank, and consequent ignition of fuel vapors, which could result in a fire or explosion.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) For airplanes having line numbers (L/Ns) 1 through 914 inclusive, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 365 days after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection of each main tank fuel boost pump to determine if the pump shaft flame arrestor is installed, a measurement of the flame arrestor's position in the pump, and all applicable corrective actions, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0077 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes) or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0081 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes), both Revision 1, both dated July 8, 2004, as applicable. Repeat the measurement of the flame arrestor's position in the pump thereafter at intervals not to exceed the applicable time specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, until the replacement required by paragraph (i) of this AD is accomplished. All applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight.
Any inspection/measurement of the pumps on the left and right main fuel tanks may be done separately provided that the actions are done on all pumps within the compliance time specified in paragraph (f) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes that have accumulated more than 15,000 total flight hours as of the date the initial actions are done in accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD: Repeat the measurement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever comes first.
(2) For airplanes that have accumulated 15,000 total flight hours or fewer as of the date the initial actions are done in accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD: Do the measurement specified in paragraph (f) of this AD within 365 days after the date on which the airplane accumulates 15,000 total flight hours or within 24 months after performing the initial inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD, whichever occurs later. Repeat the measurement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever comes first.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0077 and 767-28A0081 reference Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 5006003-28-2, dated October 25, 2002, as an additional source of service information for accomplishment of the inspection and corrective actions. Although the Hamilton Sundstrand service bulletin specifies to return main tank fuel boost pumps with damaged, broken, or out-of-position flame arrestors to a repair shop, that action is not required by this AD.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.”
(g) For airplanes having L/Ns 915 and on, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do a detailed inspection of each main tank fuel boost pump to determine if the pump shaft flame arrestor is installed, a measurement of the flame arrestor's position in the pump, and all applicable corrective actions, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0077 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes) or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0081 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes), both Revision 1, both dated July 8, 2004, as applicable. Repeat the measurement of the flame arrestor's position in the pump thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever comes first, until the replacement required by paragraph (i) of this AD is accomplished. All applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight.
Any inspection/measurement of the pumps on the left and right main fuel tanks may be done separately provided that the actions are done on all pumps within the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes that have accumulated more than 15,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD, do the actions within 365 days after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes that have accumulated 15,000 total flight hours or fewer as of the effective date of this AD, do the actions within 365 days after the date on which the airplane accumulates 15,000 total flight hours.
(h) For any period when the part number (P/N) of a main tank fuel boost pump installed on any airplane, as conclusively determined from a review of airplane maintenance records, is P/N 5006003D, no further action is required by paragraphs (f), (g), and (i) of this AD for that pump only.
(i) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the left and right main tank fuel boost pumps with new or modified pumps in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0088 (for Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes) or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0089 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes), both dated February 24, 2005, as applicable. Accomplishment of the replacement terminates the repetitive measurement requirements of paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD for that pump only.
Any replacement of the pumps on the left and right main fuel tanks may be done separately provided that all pumps are replaced within the compliance time specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletins 767-28A0088 and 767-28A0089 reference Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin 5006003-28-3, dated December 8, 2004, as the appropriate source of service information for modifying the pump.
(j) Inspections accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0077, dated March 6, 2003; or Boeing Alert Service
(k) As of the effective date of this AD, only main tank fuel boost pumps identified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD may be installed on any airplane.
(1) Any main tank fuel boost pump that has been inspected, and on which all applicable corrective actions have been performed, in accordance with paragraph (f) or (g) of this AD.
(2) Any main tank fuel boost pump having P/N 5006003D.
(l)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office.
(m) You must use the applicable service bulletin specified in Table 1 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks found on several main landing gear cylinders. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD becomes effective March 23, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 23, 2007.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4119; fax: (816) 329-4090.
The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and
This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received.
EADS SOCATA comments the cost for the parts required to do the actions in the proposed AD are totally out of proportion. EADS SOCATA states the application of SB 70-130, ATA No. 32, dated January 2006, requires only two cotter pins and this cost is negligible.
The proposed AD states it will take approximately $125,600 to comply with the AD.
In our cost estimate, we grouped all actions required to comply with the AD, including replacement of any MLG found cracked. We have since learned from EADS SOCATA that labor and parts costs for any cracked MLG will be provided under warranty. We will modify the Costs of Compliance section to reflect the 3 work-hours to do the inspection and the warranty coverage for the replacement MLG.
EADS SOCATA comments they have established, by applying the service bulletin, it takes 2 work-hours per product to perform an eddy current inspection, and it takes 3 work-hours per product to perform a dye penetrant or fluorescent penetrant inspection.
The proposed AD states it will take approximately 18 work-hours to comply with the AD.
In our cost estimate, we grouped all actions required to comply with the AD, including replacement of any MLG found cracked. We have since learned from EADS SOCATA that labor and parts costs for any cracked MLG will be provided under warranty. We will modify the Costs of Compliance section to reflect the 3 work-hours to do the inspection and the warranty coverage for the replacement MLG.
EADS SOCATA comments that SB 70-130, ATA No. 32, dated January 2006, specifies for MLG with forging body totaling more than 3,500 landings to inspect the forging body within 25 landings after issuance of the service bulletin. However, the proposed AD lowers the limit to 3,475 landings. EADS SOCATA states the limit of 3,500 landings was established by analysis considering all necessary margins.
EADS SOCATA requests the FAA change paragraph (e)(2) to read, “For MLG with forging body totaling more than 3,500 landings:” or explain the reason for the difference in the FAA AD Differences section.
After evaluating the service bulletin further, we agree with the language presented by the commenter. We will change the final rule AD action based on this comment.
We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable in a U.S. court of law. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the AD. These requirements, if any, take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI.
We estimate that this AD will affect 272 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements (inspection) of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the basic requirements of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $65,280, or $240 per product.
In addition, follow-on actions (possible MLG replacement) would be covered by EADS SOCATA under warranty (both parts and labor). We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that would need this action.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 23, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 1 through 9999, certificated in any category.
(d) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states reports of cracks found on several main landing gear (MLG) cylinders. If not detected and corrected, fatigue cracks in the shock strut cylinder of the MLG could result in a collapsed MLG during takeoff or landing, and possible reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
(e) Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) As of March 23, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), for MLG with forging body totaling more than 1,750 landings but less than 3,501 landings since new:
(i) Inspect the forging body for cracks within 100 landings after March 23, 2007 (the effective date of this AD) in accordance with the accomplishment instructions of EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, ATA No. 32, dated January 2006.
(ii) If no cracks are detected, repetitively inspect thereafter every 175 landings.
(2) As of March 23, 2007 (the effective date of this AD), for MLG with forging body totaling more than 3,500 landings since new:
(i) Inspect the forging body for cracks within 25 landings after March 23, 2007 (the effective date of this AD) in accordance with the accomplishment instructions of EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, ATA No. 32, dated January 2006.
(ii) If no cracks are detected, repetitively inspect thereafter every 175 landings.
(3) If any cracks are detected during any inspection required in paragraph (e) of this AD:
(i) Before further flight, remove the affected landing gear leg and confirm the presence of the crack with dye penetrant inspection or fluorescent penetrant inspection.
(ii) If the crack is confirmed, before further flight, contact EADS SOCATA to coordinate the landing gear repair/replacement and then conform to any instruction stated by EADS SOCATA.
(4) If you do not know the number of landings, follow the instructions in the Compliance section of EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, ATA No. 32, dated January 2006.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(f) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(g) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2006-0085, dated April 12, 2006, for related information.
(h) You must use EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, ATA No. 32, dated January 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact EADS SOCATA, Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France; telephone: 33 (0)5 62.41.73.00; fax: 33 (0)5 62.41.76.54.
(3) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
Inspection of a high time aircraft has revealed cracks in the Horizontal Stabiliser rear spar splice plate and inboard main ribs around the area of the Horizontal Stabiliser rear pivot attachment. Additionally, failure of some attach bolts in service may be due to improper assembly.
This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.
This AD becomes effective March 8, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 8, 2007.
We must receive comments on this AD by March 19, 2007.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090.
The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and
This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which is the aviation authority for Australia, has issued CASA AD No. AD/GA8/5, Amdt 1, dated January 24, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
Inspection of a high time aircraft has revealed cracks in the Horizontal Stabiliser rear spar splice plate and inboard main ribs around the area of the Horizontal Stabiliser rear pivot attachment. Additionally, failure of some attach bolts in service may be due to improper assembly.
The MCAI requires:
This Airworthiness Directive addresses the problem using 5 separate inspections. The first is a brief daily external inspection. The other 4 inspections are a mixture of internal and external inspections as well as some parts replacement to be carried out at the next periodic inspection.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Gippsland Aeronautics has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2002-02, Issue 4, dated January 4, 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the AD.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of potential cracking of the horizontal stabilizer structure, which could lead to failure of the tailplane assembly. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
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 determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 8, 2007.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all Model GA8 airplanes, serial numbers GA8-00-004 and up, certificated in any category.
(d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55: Stabilizers.
(e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
Inspection of a high time aircraft has revealed cracks in the Horizontal Stabiliser rear spar splice plate and inboard main ribs around the area of the Horizontal Stabiliser rear pivot attachment. Additionally, failure of some attach bolts in service may be due to improper assembly.
(f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) Within the next 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) after March 8, 2007 (the effective date of this AD):
(i) For all aircraft not incorporating CNC machined elevator hinges, inspect and repair as required, the left and right horizontal stabilizer rear pivot attachment installation following instruction “3. Rear Pivot Attachment Inspection,” of Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2002-02, Issue 4, dated January 4, 2007; and,
(ii) For all aircraft replace the left and right rear attach bolt following instruction “5. Rear Attach Bolt Replacement,” of Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2002-02, Issue 4, dated January 4, 2007.
(2) Within the next 10 hours TIS after March 8, 2007 (the effective date of this AD); and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first, for all aircraft:
(i) Inspect the horizontal stabilizer externally following instruction “2. External Inspection (Lower flange, Stabilizer rear spar),” of Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2002-02, Issue 4, dated January 4, 2007; and
(ii) Inspect the horizontal stabilizer internally following instruction “4. Internal Inspection,” of Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2002-02, Issue 4, dated January 4, 2007.
(3) Before further flight, if during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD any excessive local deflection or movement of the lower skin surrounding the lower pivot attachment, cracking, or working (loose) rivet is found, obtain an FAA-approved repair scheme from the manufacturer and incorporate this repair scheme. Continued operational flight with un-repaired crack damage is not permitted.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows:
(1) “Requirement: 1. Daily Inspection (Stabiliser attach bolt)” of the MCAI requires a daily inspection of the stabilizer attach bolt. The daily inspection is not a requirement of this AD. Instead of the daily inspection, we require you to perform, within 10 hours TIS, “Requirement 3. Rear Pivot Attachment Inspection” and “Requirement 5. Rear Attachment Bolt Replacement” of the MCAI. Compliance with requirement 3. and 5. is a terminating action for the daily inspection, and we are requiring these within 10 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.
(2) “Requirement: 2. External Inspection (Lower flange, Stabiliser rear spar)” of the MCAI does not specify any action if excessive local deflection or movement of lower skin, cracking, or working (loose) rivet is found. We require obtaining and incorporating an FAA-approved repair scheme from the manufacturer before further flight.
(3) The MCAI does not state if further flight with known cracks is allowed. FAA policy is to not allow further flight with known cracks in critical structure. We require that if any cracks are found when accomplishing the inspection required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, you must repair the cracks before further flight.
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(h) Refer to MCAI CASA AD No. AD/GA8/5, Amdt 1, dated January 24, 2007; and Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2002-02, Issue 4, dated January 4, 2007, for related information.
(i) You must use Gippsland Aeronautics Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2002-02, Issue 4, dated January 4, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Gippsland Aeronautics, Attn: Technical Services, P.O. Box 881, Morwell Victoria 3840, Australia; fax: +61 03 5172 1201; Internet:
(3) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
This document makes a correction to Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-23-02, which was published in the
The effective date of this AD (2004-23-02) remains December 23, 2004.
Steven E. Potter, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4124; facsimile: (316) 946-4407.
On November 1, 2004, the FAA issued AD 2004-23-02, Amendment 39-13857 (69 FR 64842, November 9, 2004), which applies to all 65, 90, 99, 100, 200, and 1900 series airplanes and Models 70 and 300 airplanes. AD 2004-23-2 requires repetitive inspections of the NLG fork for cracks with replacement if cracks are found (replacement terminates repetitive inspections). Current language in paragraph (e)(3) of AD 2004-23-02 references Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Raytheon Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 32-2102, Revision 7, Revised: July, 2003, instead of Part II.
This correction is needed to specify the correct section of the service bulletin necessary to do the actions of AD 2004-23-02.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Action is taken herein to correct this reference in AD 2004-23-02 and to add this AD correction to § 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13).
The effective date remains December 23, 2004.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operations of the Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, Mile 482.9, Rock Island, Illinois across the Upper Mississippi River. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed-to-navigation from 9 a.m. until 11:30 a.m., May 19, 2007. The deviation is necessary as the drawbridge is part of the annual route for the Quad Cities Heart Walk.
This temporary deviation is effective from 9 a.m. until 11:30 a.m., May 19, 2007.
Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Room 2.107F in the Robert A. Young Federal Building, 1222 Spruce Street, St. Louis, MO 63103-2832, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Bridge Administration Branch maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation.
Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator, (314) 269-2378.
The U.S. Army Rock Island Arsenal requested a temporary deviation for the Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, mile 482.9, at Rock Island, Illinois across the Upper Mississippi River as the drawbridge is along the route of the annual Quad Cities Heart Walk. The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5 which requires the drawbridge to open promptly and fully for passage of vessels when a request to open is given in accordance with 33 CFR 117, Subpart A. In order to facilitate the annual event, the drawbridge must be kept in the closed-to-navigation position. This deviation allows the drawbridge to remain closed-to-navigation for two and one-half hours from 9 a.m. until 11:30 a.m., May 19, 2007.
There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Upper Mississippi River.
The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 23.8 feet above normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge shall return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operations of the Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, Mile 482.9, Rock Island, Illinois across the Upper Mississippi River. This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed-to-navigation from 7:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m., September 23, 2007. The deviation is necessary as the drawbridge is part of the annual route for the Quad City Marathon.
This temporary deviation is effective from 7:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m., September 23, 2007.
Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Room 2.107F in the Robert A. Young Federal Building, 1222 Spruce Street, St. Louis, MO 63103-2832, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Bridge Administration Branch maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation.
Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator, (314) 269-2378.
The U.S. Army Rock Island Arsenal requested a temporary deviation for the Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, mile 482.9, at Rock Island, Illinois across the Upper Mississippi River as the drawbridge is along the route of the annual Quad City Marathon. The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5 which requires the drawbridge to open promptly and fully for passage of vessels when a request to open is given in accordance with 33 CFR 117, Subpart A. In order to facilitate the annual event, the drawbridge must be kept in the closed-to-navigation position. This deviation allows the drawbridge to remain closed-to-navigation for four hours from 7:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m., September 23, 2007.
There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Upper Mississippi River.
The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 23.8 feet above normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge shall return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of Technical Conference.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is holding a technical conference on March 8, 2007, to discuss certain issues raised in rulemakings issued in Commission Docket Nos. RM05-32-000 and RM05-34-000. This is the second conference being held as a follow-up to Commission Order Nos. 667 and No. 669. The Commission is now soliciting nominations for speakers at the technical conference.
Nominations must be made on or before: February 15, 2007.
Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8004,
This conference addresses certain issues raised in rulemakings issued in Docket No. RM05-32-000 (70 FR 75592, December 20, 2005) and Docket No. RM05-34-000 (71 FR 1348, January 6, 2006).
Take notice that on March 8, 2007, a technical conference will be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to discuss certain issues raised in rulemakings issued in Docket Nos. RM05-32 and RM05-34. This is the second technical conference
The subject of this technical conference is whether the Commission's current merger policy should be revised, in particular whether the Commission's Appendix A analysis is sufficient to identify market power concerns in today's electric industry market environment. A further notice with a detailed agenda will be issued in advance of the conference.
The Commission is now soliciting nominations for speakers at the technical conference. Persons wishing to nominate themselves as speakers should do so using this electronic link:
Transcripts of the conference will be immediately available from Ace Reporting Company (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646) for a fee. They will be available for the public on the Commission's eLibrary system seven calendar days after FERC receives the transcript.
A free webcast of this event will be available through
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to
For more information about this conference, please contact: Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (202) 502-8004,
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Notice of proposed rule making.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) is proposing to amend the rules of practice in title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to conform them to certain amendments made to the Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) that will take effect on April 1, 2007. These amendments will result in the addition of a mechanism to the PCT system whereby applicants may request that the
Comments should be sent by electronic mail message via the Internet addressed to:
The comments will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Commissioner for Patents, located in Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, and will be available via the Office Internet Web site (address:
Richard R. Cole, Legal Examiner, Office of PCT Legal Administration (OPCTLA) directly by telephone at (571) 272-3281, or by facsimile at (571) 273-0459.
During the September-October 2005 meeting of the Governing Bodies of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the PCT Assembly adopted various amendments to the Regulations under the PCT that enter into force on April 1, 2007. The amended PCT Regulations were published in the PCT Gazette of February 23, 2006 (08/2006), in section IV, at pages 5496-5541. The purposes of these amendments are to: (1) Bring the provisions of the PCT into closer alignment with the provisions of the Patent Law Treaty (PLT); and (2) clarify the circumstances and procedures under which the correction of an obvious mistake may be made in an international application.
With regard to restoration of applicant's right to claim priority under certain situations (PLT Article 13(2)), PCT Rule 26
It must also be noted that even though restoration of such a right will not entitle applicant to the right of priority in a subsequent United States application, the priority date will still govern all PCT time limits, including the thirty-month period for filing national stage papers and fees under 37 CFR 1.495. PCT Article 2(ix), which defines “priority date” for purposes of computing time limits, contains no limitation that the priority claim be valid. Thus, for example, in an international application containing an earliest priority claim to a German application filed thirteen months prior to the filing date of the international application, the filing date of the German application will be used as the basis for computing time limits under the PCT, including the thirty-month time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.495 to submit the basic national fee (§ 1.492(a)) to avoid abandonment, even though applicant would not be entitled to priority to the German application in the United States national phase since the German application was filed more than twelve months from the international filing date.
Concerning insertion of a missing portion of an application without the loss of the filing date (PLT Article 5(6)) and substitution of the description and drawings upon filing with a reference to a previously filed application, these provisions could not be implemented to the extent provided in the PLT absent amendment of the PCT Articles. However, similar provisions have been made in the PCT by amending PCT Rules 4 and 20 to allow for the inclusion of an incorporation by reference statement on the PCT Request form. Applicants may then rely on this statement to insert portions of the international application (including the entire description, claims, and/or drawings) which were missing upon the international filing date. 37 CFR 1.412(c)(1) already provides that the USPTO, in its capacity as a PCT Receiving Office, will accord international filing dates in accordance with PCT Rule 20. Therefore, no change to the rules of practice in title 37 CFR is necessary to implement these provisions, other than the deletion of 37 CFR 1.437(b) due to the fact that missing drawings are no longer handled in a manner different from the description and claims.
Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1, is proposed to be amended as follows:
Section 1.452(a) provides that applicants may request restoration of the right of priority if the international application was filed within fourteen months from the priority date and the delay in filing the international application was unintentional.
Section 1.452(b) provides that any request for restoration must be filed within fourteen months from the priority date and must be accompanied by: (1) A notice adding the priority claim, if applicable; (2) the requisite fee; and (3) a statement that the entire delay was unintentional.
Section 1.452(c) provides that, in cases where applicant has requested early publication, the requirements under § 1.452(b) must be submitted prior to completion of the technical preparations for international publication.
Section 1.452(d) sets forth that restoration of a priority claim by the United States Receiving Office under this section, or by any other Receiving Office under the provisions of PCT Rule 26
Section 1.465(c) is proposed to be deleted as unnecessary, as the obligation of the United States Receiving Office to proceed under PCT Rule 26
The PCT enables United States applicants to file one application (an international or PCT application) in a standardized format in English in the United States Receiving Office (the United States Patent and Trademark Office) and have that application acknowledged as a regular national or regional filing in as many PCT Contracting States as the applicants desire to seek patent protection.
35 U.S.C. 376(b) provides that the Director shall prescribe the amount of the search fee, the supplemental search fee, and such other fees as established by the Director. Pursuant to the authority in 35 U.S.C. 376(b), this notice proposes to adjust the search fee in § 1.445(b)(2)(iii) and the supplemental search fee in § 1.445(b)(3) from $1,000.00 to $1,800.00 (an increase of $800.00). This proposed adjustment to the search fee and supplemental search fee is to make these fees more accurately reflect the cost of conducting a search and preparing a Chapter I written opinion in an international application.
The PCT does not preclude United States applicants from filing patent applications directly in the patent offices of those countries which are Contracting States of the PCT (with or without previously having filed a regular national application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or 111(b) in the United States) and taking advantage of the priority rights and other advantages provided under the Paris Convention and the World Trade Organization (WTO) administered Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPs Agreement).
In addition, an applicant filing an international application under the PCT in the United States Receiving Office (the United States Patent and Trademark Office) is not required to use the United States Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority. The European Patent Office (except for applications containing business method claims) or the Korean Intellectual Property Office may be elected as the International Searching Authority for international applications filed in the United States Receiving Office. The applicable search fee if the European Patent Office is elected as the International Searching Authority European is $2,059.00 (set by the European Patent Office), and the applicable search fee if the Korean Intellectual Property Office is elected as the International Searching Authority is $232.00 (set by the Korean Intellectual Property Office).
In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report containing the results of a survey of an expert panel of patent law attorneys concerning small businesses considering foreign patent protection with respect to the “cradle to grave” costs of foreign patent protection.
Therefore, the international search fee increase of $800.00 is not significant in comparison to the overall costs that a small entity must incur to obtain international patent protection. In addition, filing an international application under the PCT is an optional route for an applicant seeking foreign patent protection, and an applicant who does not choose to seek foreign patent protection by filing an international application under the PCT in the United States Receiving Office (the United States Patent and Trademark Office) is not required to use the United States Patent and Trademark Office as the International Searching Authority.
Pursuant to the authority in 35 U.S.C. 376(b), this notice proposes to eliminate the reduced search fee in § 1.445(b)(2)(i) or (ii) when there is a corresponding prior nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) and thereby adjusting the search fee in the situation in which there is a corresponding prior nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) from $300.00 to $1,800.00 (an increase of $1,500.00). As discussed previously, this proposed adjustment to the search fee is to make these fees more accurately reflect the cost of conducting a search and preparing a Chapter I written opinion in an international application. An applicant has the option of filing a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(b) (rather than a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a)) or not filing a prior application before filing an international application. These alternatives are available at a lower overall cost in patent fees (even with the proposed adjustment in the search fee) than the cost in patent fees of filing a nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before filing an international application. This is the case even taking into account the current reduced search fee for there being a corresponding prior nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a).
Pursuant to the authority in 35 U.S.C. 376(b), this notice proposes to establish a fee for filing a request for the restoration of the right of priority of $1,370.00. This fee amount is identical to the fee amount for petitions to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365(a) (37 CFR 1.55 and 1.78). In addition, the Office anticipates that very few applicants will file a request for the restoration of the right of priority (about 100 each year, in comparison to the over 45,000 international applications filed in the United States Receiving Office each year).
For the reasons stated previously, the changes proposed in this notice (if adopted) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Interested persons are requested to send comments regarding these information collections, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: (1) The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Patent and Trademark Office; and (2) Robert A. Clarke, Deputy Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Freedom of Information, Inventions and patents, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Small businesses.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 37 CFR Part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR Part 1 continues to read as follows:
35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2).
2. Section 1.17 is amended by revising paragraph (t) to read as follows:
(t) For the acceptance of an unintentionally delayed claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365(a) (§§ 1.55 and 1.78) or for filing a request for the restoration of the right of priority under § 1.452—$1,370.00.
3. Section 1.57 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) Any amendment to an international application pursuant to this paragraph shall be effective only as to the United States, and shall have no effect on the international filing date of the application. In addition, no request under this section to add the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings in an international application designating the United States will be acted upon by the Office prior to the entry and commencement of the national stage (§ 1.491) or the filing of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) which claims benefit of the international application. Any omitted portion of the international application which applicant desires to be effective as to all designated States, subject to PCT Rule 20.8(b), must be submitted in accordance with PCT Rule 20.
4. Section 1.437 is revised to read as follows:
(a) Drawings are required when they are necessary for the understanding of the invention (PCT Art. 7).
(b) The physical requirements for drawings are set forth in PCT Rule 11 and shall be adhered to.
5. Section 1.445 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) A search fee (see 35 U.S.C. 361(d) and PCT Rule 16)—$1,800.00
(3) A supplemental search fee when required, per additional invention—$1,800.00.
6. Section 1.452 is added to read as follows:
(a) If the international application has an international filing date which is later than twelve months from the priority date but within the period of fourteen months from the priority date, the right of priority in the international application may be restored upon request if the delay in filing the international application within the period of twelve months from the priority date was unintentional.
(b) A request to restore the right of priority in an international application under paragraph (a) must be filed not later than fourteen months from the priority date and must include:
(1) A notice under PCT Rule 26
(2) The fee set forth in § 1.17(t); and
(3) A statement that the entire delay was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.
(c) If the applicant makes a request for early publication under PCT Article 21(2)(b), any requirement under paragraph (b) of this section filed after the technical preparations for international publication have been completed by the International Bureau shall be considered as not having been submitted in time.
(d) Restoration of a right of priority to a prior application by the United States Receiving Office under this section, or by any other Receiving Office under the provisions of PCT Rule 26
7. Section 1.465 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(b) When a claimed priority date is corrected under PCT Rule 26
Postal Service.
Proposed rule.
The Postal Service proposes new requirements for containers used for mailing adult chickens. Currently, we require all mailable adult fowl other than chickens to be mailed in containers approved by the manager of Mailing Standards. With this proposal, we intend to require adult chickens to be mailed in approved containers also.
We must receive your comments on or before March 19, 2007.
Mail or deliver written comments to the Manager, Mailing Standards, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 3436, Washington, DC 20260-3436. You may inspect and photocopy all written comments at Postal Service Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., 11th Floor N, Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Bert Olsen, 202-268-7276.
To promote the safety of Postal Service employees, customers, and all mailed adult fowl, we propose to revise our requirements for containers used for mailing adult chickens. Current mailing standards permit adult chickens to be mailed in containers that pass basic package performance tests. By contrast, other adult fowl (such as turkeys, guinea fowl, doves, pigeons, pheasants, partridges, and quail) must be mailed in containers approved by the manager of Mailing Standards. The container standards for other adult fowl are more stringent than the standards for adult chickens. Because there is no compelling reason to treat adult chickens differently from other adult fowl, the revised standards will require adult chickens to be mailed in the same containers approved by Mailing Standards for use with other adult fowl.
Vendors who wish to submit a container for USPS approval can contact the office of Mailing Standards for a list of container criteria. Additionally, the term “biologically secure” has been replaced by the word “secure” to eliminate any implication that such packaging will completely prevent the spread of disease during handling.
Although we are exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act [5 U.S.C. of 553(b), (c)] regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), we invite public comment on the following proposed revisions to
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR Part 111 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.
2. Revise the following sections of Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), as follows:
[Revise 9.3.4 as follows:]
Disease-free adult fowl are mailable domestically when shipped under
a. The mailer must send adult fowl by Express Mail in secure containers approved by the manager of Mailing Standards (see 608.8.0 for address).
b. The number of birds per parcel must follow the container manufacturer limits and each bird must weigh more than 6 ounces.
c. Indemnity may be paid only for loss, damage, or rifling, and not for death of the birds in transit if there is no visible damage to the mailing container.
[Delete 9.3.5, Adult Chickens, and renumber 9.3.6 through 9.3.13 as new 9.3.5 through 9.3.12.]
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR Part 111 to reflect these changes if our proposal is adopted.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule with request for comments.
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to address Contractor Code of Ethics and Business Conduct and the display of Federal agency Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Fraud Hotline Poster.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the FAR Secretariat on or before April 17, 2007 to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by FAR case 2006-007 by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Fax: 202-501-4067.
• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.
Mr. Ernest Woodson, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 501-3775 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the FAR Secretariat at (202) 501-4755. Please cite FAR case 2006-007.
FAR Part 3 provides guidance on improper business practices and personal conflicts of interest, but it does not discuss the contractor’s responsibilities with regard to code of ethics and business conduct and the avoidance of improper business practices. Currently, three agencies (the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Environmental Protection Agency) maintain policy for contractor code of ethics and business conduct and the contractor’s responsibility to avoid improper business practices. With few exceptions, the agencies’ clauses and prescriptions are very similar to one another, in that they- establish agency policy and recommend contents of a contractor’s system of management and internal controls in connection with Government contracts; establish contract dollar thresholds for display of the agency Inspector General poster; provide instructions for obtaining the hotline posters; and provide exemptions to displaying posters. However, the agencies’ policies differ on the contract dollar thresholds and the address and phone number of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to obtain a fraud hotline poster.
In view of the significant sums of Federal dollars spent by agencies to acquire goods and services, this rule establishes a clear and consistent policy regarding contractor code of ethics and business conduct, responsibility to avoid improper business practices, and procedures for displaying an agency OIG Fraud Hotline poster to facilitate the reporting of wrongdoing in Federal contracting. This rule also recognizes the need for agencies to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that contracts funded with disaster assistance funds require display of any event-specific fraud hotline posters announcing ad hoc or other special hotline reporting information applicable to the specific contract. This rule proposes amending the FAR to add FAR Subpart 3.10, Contractor Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, that will—
1. Define the “
2. Include policy stating that contractors “
3. Exclude commercial item contracts awarded pursuant to FAR Part 12 from the requirements of the rule, because the rule will not implement statute or executive order, and because ethics programs and hotline posters are not standard commercial practices as stipulated by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act.
4. Provide that contractors receiving awards in excess of $5,000,000 that have performance periods of 120 days or more, shall have a written code of ethics and business conduct within 30 days after contract award. Furthermore, the contractor shall promote compliance by establishing, within 90 days after contract award, an employee ethics and compliance training program and an internal control system proportionate to the size of the company and extent of its business with the Federal Government.
5. Provide that contractors receiving awards in excess of $5,000,000 shall
6. Provide alternates to the basic clause to accommodate those agencies that do not have posters and to accommodate agencies that choose to require the display of a fraud hotline poster at contract award thresholds at or below $5,000,000.
7. Include a flowdown provision that applies to subcontracts at the same dollar level as the prime contract.
8. Provide for remedies if the contractor fails to comply with the clause.
This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The Councils do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed. We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties. The Councils will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR Parts 2, 3, and 52 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the FAR do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 2, 3, and 52 as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 2, 3, and 52 continues to read as follows:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).
2. Amend section 2.101 in paragraph (b), in the definition “United States,” by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (6) as paragraphs(2) through)(7), respectively, and adding a new paragraph (1) to read as follows:
(b)* * *
“United States,” when used in a geographic sense, means the 50 States and the District of Columbia, except as follows:
(1) For use in Subpart 3.10, see the definition at 3.1001.
3. Add Subpart 3.10 to read as follows:
This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for the establishment of contractor code of ethics and business conduct, and display of agency Office of Inspector General (OIG) fraud hotline posters.
“United States,”as used in this subpart, means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and outlying areas.
Government contractors must conduct themselves with the highest degree of integrity and honesty. Contractors should have a written code of ethics and business conduct. To promote compliance with such code of ethics and business conduct, contractors should have an employee ethics and compliance training program and an internal control system that-
(a) Are suitable to the size of the company and extent of its involvement in Government contracting;
(b) Facilitate timely discovery and disclosure of improper conduct in connection with Government contracts; and
(c) Ensure corrective measures are promptly instituted and carried out.
Contracting officers shall ensure that the requirements of this subpart are implemented using the following procedures:
(a)
(1) Have an employee ethics and compliance training program and internal control systems; or
(2) Have the contractor display the fraud poster.
(b)
(1) Contracts exceeding $5,000,000 shall require the contractor to—
(i) Display the agency OIG fraud hotline poster, unless the agency does not have a fraud hotline poster; and
(ii) Display the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) disaster assistance poster in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(2) In addition to the requirements of paragraph(b)(1) of this section, contracts exceeding $5,000,000 with performance periods of 120 days or more shall require the contractor to—
(i) Have a written code of ethics and business conduct; and
(ii) Establish an employee ethics and compliance training program and internal control systems commensurate with the size of the company and its involvement in Government contracting.
(c)
(d)
(2) When requested by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), agencies shall ensure that contracts funded with disaster assistance funds require display of any event-specific fraud hotline poster applicable to the specific contract. As established by the agency, such posters may be displayed in lieu of, or in addition to, the agency’s standard poster.
(a)(1) Insert the clause at FAR 52.203-XX, Contractor Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, in solicitations and contracts expected to exceed $5,000,000 and the performance period is 120 days or more, except when the contract -
(i) Will be awarded pursuant to the procedures in FAR Part 12; or to address Contractor Code of Ethics and Business Conduct and the display of Federal agency Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Fraud Hotline Poster.
(ii) Will be performed outside the United States. (2) The contracting officer shall insert the website link(s) or other contact information for obtaining the agency and/or DHS poster.
(b) Insert the clause with its Alternate I-
(1) When the agency does not have a fraud hotline poster; and
(2) When the requirements of 3.1003(d)(2) do not apply.
(c) Insert the clause with its Alternate II-
(1) When the contract performance period is less than 120 days; or
(2) If the agency has established policies and procedures for display of the OIG fraud hotline poster at a lesser amount. The contracting officer shall insert the agency authorized lesser amount in paragraph (d) of this section.
4. Add section 52.203-XX to read as follows:
As prescribed in 3.1004(a), insert the following clause:
CONTRACTOR CODE OF ETHICS AND BUSINESS CONDUCT (DATE)
(a)
“United States,” as used in this clause, means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and outlying areas.
(b)
(2) (i) The Contractor shall promote compliance with its code of ethics and business conduct. Within 90 days after contract award, the Contractor shall establish—
(A) An employee ethics and compliance training program; and
(B) An internal control system.
(ii) Such program and system shall be suitable to the size of the company and its involvement in Government contracting.
(c)
(i) Facilitate timely discovery and disclosure of improper conduct in connection with Government contracts; and
(ii) Ensure corrective measures are promptly instituted and carried out.
(2) For example, the Contractor’s internal control system should provide for—
(i) Periodic reviews of company business practices, procedures, policies, and internal controls for compliance with the Contractor’s code of ethics and business conduct and the special requirements of Government contracting;
(ii) An internal reporting mechanism, such as a hotline, by which employees may report suspected instances of improper conduct, and instructions that encourage employees to make such reports;
(iii) Internal and/or external audits, as appropriate;
(iv) Disciplinary action for improper conduct;
(v) Timely reporting to appropriate Government officials of any suspected violations of law in connection with Government contracts or any other irregularities in connection with such contracts; and
(vi) Full cooperation with any Government agencies responsible for either investigation or corrective actions.
(d) Display of fraud hotline poster(s). (1) During contract performance, the Contractor shall prominently display the _________ (
(2) Additionally, if the Contractor maintains a company website as a method of providing information to employees, the Contractor shall display an electronic version of the poster(s) at the website.
(3) The _______ poster(s) may be obtained from _______.
(e)
(1) Withholding of contract payments; or
(2) Loss of award fee, consistent with the award fee plan, for the performance period in which the Government determined Contractor non-compliance.
(f)
(i) Is for the acquisition of a commercial item; or
(ii) Is performed outside the United States.
(2) The Contractor is not required to include the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this clause in subcontracts that have performance periods of less than 120 days.
(End of clause)
(d)
(1) Is for the acquisition of a commercial item; or
(2) Is performed outside the United States.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is revising the United States Standards for Grades of Greenhouse Tomatoes. Specifically, AMS is revising the standards to allow that percentages of defects and size classifications be determined by count rather than weight. This will result in a revision of the following sections of the standards: Tolerances, Size Classification, Standard Pack, Damage, and Serious Damage. Additionally, AMS is deleting the “Unclassified” section, adding moldy stems as a damage defect, and adding a scoring guide for damage and serious damage for skin checks. These revisions will bring the standards for greenhouse tomatoes in line with current marketing practices, thereby improving their usefulness in serving the industry.
Vincent J. Fusaro, Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1661 South Building, STOP 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240, Fax (202) 720-8871 or call (202) 720-2185. The revised United States Standards for Grades of Greenhouse Tomatoes will be available either through the address cited above or by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at:
Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs.
AMS is revising the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Greenhouse Tomatoes using procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). These standards were last revised in 1966.
Prior to undertaking research and other work associated with revision of the grade standards, AMS published a notice in the
In response to this notice, AMS received six comments on the proposed revisions. Two from domestic trade organizations, one from a foreign trade organization, one from an international marketing organization, and two from foreign government agencies. The comments are available by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at:
Two commenters supported the size classification, the standard pack section, the creation of a separate standard for tomatoes on the vine, the skin check definition, and the inclusion of moldy stems as a defect. The commenters requested that “russetting” be included in the skin check definition. “Russetting” is a trade term used to describe a type of scarring or growth crack that tends to be concentric to the stem scar. The term “russetting” is used to describe the defect that is classified in the standards as skin checks, therefore tomatoes that are affected by “russetting” are covered by the definition for skin checks. The commenters also expressed concern regarding the scoring of moldy stems. They stated that moldy stems should be scored as a defect only when there is a large growth of mold that leaves behind a soft area after it is wiped off of the fruit. They also were of the view that the mere presence of a dot of mold should not cause the fruit to be considered moldy. The classification of moldy stems as a damage defect in the standards is such that a small amount of mold would not be scored, however mold that materially affects the appearance of the tomato will be scored. Therefore, no change to the standards will be made as a result of these comments.
One commenter supported the proposed change to allow that percentages of defects and size classifications be determined by count rather than weight and the inclusion of moldy stems as a damage defect. The commenter also recommended that the language in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Greenhouse Tomatoes be revised to read exactly as the U.S. Standards for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes. Revising the greenhouse tomatoes standards to reflect the fresh tomato standards would significantly change the tolerances and scoring guides for greenhouse tomatoes. Greenhouse tomatoes have unique characteristics and are grown in a controlled environment that eliminates external environmental issues, such as wind and rain, that could affect the appearance or keeping quality. Therefore, due to these differences, the standards will remain separate and distinct.
One commenter suggested that percentages for defects and size should be determined by count or weight. The commenter noted that they sell tomatoes by weight. However, the commenter noted that in some cases a percentage by count may be more useful; therefore, the commenter recommended that the standards provide a choice: count or weight. Under current marketing practices, greenhouse tomatoes are packaged and marketed having a uniform size. AMS believes that the consistency in sizing is best achieved when percentages are determined by count. Also, determining the percentages for defects and size by count, will be consistent with the fresh tomato standards.
One commenter expressed concern over the standard pack definition using diameter specifications, stating that measuring tomatoes by size and not count will force small, independent tomato growers to heavily invest in cost prohibitive sorting machinery. However, size is not part of the grade for greenhouse tomatoes; therefore specifying a size is voluntary. The size section provides sufficient flexibility in order to provide marketers the option to specify size. In turn, marketers that prefer not to specify a size are not required to do so.
One commenter noted that cartons of imported greenhouse tomatoes currently list weight/sizes in metric on the outside of the carton. They stated that this causes numerous administrative problems in trying to convert to English measurements, and requested that these cartons contain both metric and English measurements. However, such a provision would be beyond the scope of the standards.
One commenter requested clarification on how the wording would be in the revised standard for moldy stems and skin checks. The revised standards states that tomatoes shall be free from damage by moldy stems and free from damage by skin checks. Damage by moldy stems is defined under the general definition of damage to mean, “any specific defect which materially detracts from the appearance, or the edible or marketing quality of the tomato.” Damage by skin checks is defined as, “when the appearance of the tomato is affected to a greater extent than that of a tomato 2-
One commenter suggested that both the European Standard and the U.S. Standard be considered for harmonization during the revision process. The U.S. standards are used by the U.S. industry, any such harmonization of the standards would require involvement and input from the U.S. greenhouse industry. Therefore, this suggestion is not addressed in this action.
Based on the comments received and information gathered, AMS believes the revision to the standards will improve their usefulness in serving the industry.
The official grade of a lot of greenhouse tomatoes covered by these standards will be determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (Sec. 51.1 to 51.61).
The United States Standards for Grades of Greenhouse Tomatoes will become effective 30 days after publication of this notice in the
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is soliciting comments on the proposed voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine. The proposed standards would provide industry with a common language and uniform basis for trading, thus promoting the orderly and efficient marketing of tomatoes on the vine (TOV).
Comments must be received by April 17, 2007.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the Internet at
Vincent J. Fusaro, Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, (202) 720-2185. The United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine are available through the Fresh Products Branch Web site at:
Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements, no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs.
AMS is proposing to establish voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine using the procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36).
AMS published a notice in the
AMS published a notice in the
AMS received four comments requesting that cherry-type tomatoes and grape-type tomatoes be excluded from the TOV standard based on the fact that their stems tend to be more brittle with higher shatter, which has led to the marketing of these varieties in individually wrapped containers instead of bulk. AMS agrees that current marketing practices warrant excluding cherry-type tomatoes and grape-type tomatoes from the TOV standards.
Three comments expressed concern that the defects should be scored based on the count of the tomatoes in the containers and not the total number of bunches in the containers. The standards provide for the scoring of defects, including defects affecting the stems to be based on the individual tomato and not the bunch. For defects affecting the lateral stem, the scoring will be based on the individual tomato, and for defects affecting the main stem the scoring will be based on the number of the tomatoes on the cluster.
Three comments expressed concerns about the proposed tolerances for tomatoes that are detached from the stem/vine stating that the tolerances do not seem to be based on any available data. The commenters also requested that this tolerance be revisited after the standard has been in effect and the results of the inspections are better known. The tolerance for tomatoes that are detached from the stem/vine is based upon industry input that was provided from the discussion draft for the greenhouse tomatoes. Further, if the industry feels that the tolerance needs to be revisited at a future date, AMS will work with the industry to address their concerns. It was also expressed that the inspectors should be encouraged to minimize handling of the TOV before making the calculation regarding shatter. The tolerance for tomatoes that are detached from the stem/vine is based on the normal handling of the product. As with all commodities, inspectors are instructed to always handle the product in the proper fashion as to not cause any additional defects to occur or become more prevalent.
Three comments requested that the size section be removed from the standards, given the degrees and variations of size of individual tomatoes within a cluster as well as a carton of TOV. Even though size would not be part of the grade for tomatoes on the vine, size would be an option for those who choose to specify size. The size section provides sufficient flexibility in order to provide marketers the option to specify size. In turn, marketers that prefer not to specify a size are not required to do so.
Two comments expressed that the standards appear to read that moldy stems would be classified under the other comments section of a certificate during an inspection, but would not be scored against the U.S. No. 1 grade. The basic requirements of the U.S. No. 1 and U.S. No. 2 grades state that, “The vines shall not be brittle and shall be free from decay; and free from damage by mold or any other means.” and “The vines shall not be brittle and shall be free from decay; and free from serious damage by mold or other means.” respectively. Therefore, moldy stems would be scored as a defect in all U.S. grades of TOV.
One comment requested that a color section similar to how color is handled in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes be added in order to provide additional guidance during the inspection process. The growing, ripening, and handling practices of TOV are very different from fresh tomatoes. Further, the proposed maturity requirements also require a color break of not less than ten percent. Therefore, a separate color section would not be necessary for TOV.
Finally one commenter stated that they would use these new standards for trade purposes. The proposed TOV standards would provide a common language for trade and a means of measuring value in the marketing of this commodity. The official grade of a lot of TOV covered by these standards will be determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables, and Other Products (Sec. 51.1 to 51.61).
This notice provides a 60-day comment period for interested parties to comment on the proposed United States Standards for Grades of Tomatoes on the Vine.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice; withdrawal.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is withdrawing the notice soliciting comments on its proposal to amend the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Winter Pears. After reviewing and considering the comments received, the agency has decided not to proceed with this action.
Vincent J. Fusaro, Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, (202) 720-2185. The United States Standards for Grades of Pineapples are available either through the address cited above or by accessing the Fresh Products Branch Web site at:
AMS had identified the United States Standards for Grades of Winter Pears for possible revisions. The revision would delete § 51.1309, Condition after storage or transit, which states that “decay, scald or other deterioration which may have developed on pears after they have been in storage or transit shall be considered as affecting condition and not the grade.” The standards were published on September 10, 1955.
On November 2, 2006, AMS published a notice in the
After reviewing and considering the comments received, AMS has decided not to proceed with the action.
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 Animal Welfare Act regulations for inspection, licensing, and procurement of animals.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 17, 2007.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
For information on Animal Welfare Act regulations for inspection, licensing, and procurement of animals, contact Dr. Barbara Kohn, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734-7833. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.
The regulations established under the AWA are contained in title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (9 CFR), chapter I, subchapter A, parts 1, 2, and 3. Part 2 generally provides administrative requirements and sets forth institutional responsibilities of regulated persons under the AWA, including requirements for the licensing and registration of dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities, standards for veterinary care, identification of animals, and recordkeeping.
These requirements include information collection activities for prelicense inspections, license applications and renewals, and recordkeeping requirements for the acquisition of animals from persons not licensed under the AWA. In addition, dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities that acquire a dog or cat from an unlicensed or unregistered person (and not a pound or shelter) must obtain certification from that person that the animals were born and raised on their premises and that they are eligible for an exemption from the licensing requirements.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. After approval of the burden associated with this extension notice, OMB will combine it with another collection titled “Animal Welfare (OMB number 0579-0036),” and the Department will retire OMB number 0579-0254.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, 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 information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
New information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to initiate a new information collection activity associated with the Agency's Animal Care program. The activity involves surveying licensees and registrants.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 17, 2007.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
For information on an information collection associated with surveying Animal Care licensees and registrants, contact Mr. J. Michael Tuck, Senior Program Analyst, Office of the Deputy Administrator, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 20, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238; phone (301) 734-5819; or e-mail
Animal Care plans to survey a sample of facilities licensed or registered under the regulations. A similar survey was conducted in 1997. This survey will help Animal Care assess the effectiveness of changes made to the program as a result of that initial survey. Animal Care will use the information from this survey to plan further improvements in its operations.
We are asking OMB to approve our use of this information collection activity for 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection.
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
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 initiate an information collection associated with the Voluntary Bovine Johne's Disease Control Program.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 17, 2007.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
For information on the Voluntary Bovine Johne's Disease Control Program, contact Dr. Michael Carter, Senior Staff Veterinarian, National Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734-7954. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.
Johne's disease, also known as paratuberculosis, is caused by
The regulations in 9 CFR, chapter I, subchapter C, govern the interstate movement of animals to prevent the dissemination of livestock and poultry diseases in the United States. Subchapter C, part 71, contains general provisions for the interstate movement of animals, poultry, and their products, while part 80 pertains specifically to the interstate movement of domestic animals that are positive to an official test for Johne's disease.
These regulations provide that cattle, sheep, goats, and other domestic animals that are positive to an official test for Johne's disease may generally be moved interstate only to a recognized slaughtering establishment or to an approved livestock facility for sale to such an establishment. The animals must bear an official eartag and be shipped with an owner-shipper statement.
Supplementing the regulations are standards outlined in the document, “Uniform Program Standards for the Voluntary Bovine Johne's Disease Control Program” (VBJDCP). The voluntary, cooperative program is administered by the States and supported by industry and APHIS.
The program provides national standards for the control of Johne's disease. The program consists of three basic elements: (1) Education, to inform producers about the cost of Johne's disease and to provide information about management strategies to prevent, control, and eliminate the disease; (2) management, to help producers establish good management strategies on their farms; and (3) herd testing and classification, to help separate test-positive herds from test-negative herds.
To better support the voluntary program across the States, VS is proposing the use of several new information collection activities. Currently, all information collections are being done through the State programs. The information collections that APHIS would administer for the voluntary program are as follows:
• An annual report, VS Form 4-29, and quarterly report to track the progress of each State's programs. VS will use this information to make decisions about supplemental funding.
• An application for Herd Entry/Renewal into the program, VS Form 4-28, to identify herds whose owners are interested in participating in the VBJDCP.
• A risk assessment and management plan for dairy cattle or beef cattle to assist field veterinary medical officers or Johne's certified veterinarians to review the management practices of the farm and develop a herd management plan capable of reducing or stopping the transmission of MAP.
• Johne's Vaccination Record, VS Form 4-27, and continuation sheet, VS Form 4-27A, to record the identity of specific animals vaccinated with a MAP bacterin to avoid interference with the tuberculosis eradication surveillance efforts.
• Test Record, VS Form 4-30, and its continuation sheet, VS Form 4-30A, to record samples submitted and laboratory results from testing done for the VBJDCP.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for 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 collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
New information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to initiate a new information collection activity associated with the Agency's Animal Care program. The activity involves surveying nongovernmental organizations interested in animal welfare.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 17, 2007.
For information on an information collection associated with surveying nongovernmental organizations interested in animal welfare, contact Mr. J. Michael Tuck, Senior Program Analyst, Office of the Deputy Administrator, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 20, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238; phone (301) 734-5819; or e-mail
Animal Care plans to survey nongovernmental organizations interested in animal welfare. Animal Care will randomly select organizations from several sources, primarily those the program interacts with on a regular basis (including allied industry associations and groups concerned with the humane treatment of animals), as well as appropriate organizations listed in the online database GuideStar.org. Other organizations may be included as potential respondents by contacting Mr. J. Michael Tuck as indicated under
Animal Care will use the information from the survey to plan improvements to the Animal Care program.
We are asking OMB to approve our use of this information collection activity for 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection.
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
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.
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), today accepted a petition filed by the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association and the Burley Stabilization Corporation representing Burley tobacco growers in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri for trade adjustment assistance. The Administrator will determine within 40 days whether or not increasing Burley tobacco imports contributed importantly to a decline in domestic producer prices of 20 percent or more during the marketing period beginning October 1, 2005, and ending September 30, 2006. If the determination is positive, all producers who produce and market their Burley tobacco in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri will be eligible to apply to the Farm Service Agency for no cost technical assistance and for adjustment assistance payments.
Jean-Louis Pajot, Coordinator, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, FAS, USDA, (202) 720-2916, e-mail:
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), today accepted a petition filed by a group of apiarists representing Michigan natural honey, white or lighter, producers for trade adjustment assistance. The Administrator will determine within 40 days whether or not increasing imports of natural honey contributed importantly to a decline in domestic
Jean-Louis Pajot, Coordinator, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, FAS, USDA, (202) 720-2916, e-mail:
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), today accepted a petition filed by National Grape Cooperative Association representing New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio Concord juice grape producers for trade adjustment assistance. The Administrator will determine within 40 days whether or not increasing imports of grape juice, not concentrated, contributed importantly to a decline in domestic producer prices of 20 percent or more during the marketing period beginning August 1, 2005, and ending July 31, 2006. If the determination is positive, all Concord juice grape producers who produce and market their Concord juice grapes in New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio will be eligible to apply to the Farm Service Agency for no cost technical assistance and for adjustment assistance payments.
Jean-Louis Pajot, Coordinator, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, FAS, USDA, (202) 720-2916,
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Availability of Draft Agreement.
The Mt. Hood National Forest (Forest) in coordination with the City of Portland Water Bureau (City) is preparing a new Bull Run Watershed Management Unit Agreement pursuant to Public Law 95-200, Section 2(d). This Agreement will guide and be applicable to all occupancy, use, and management of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit by the City and the Forest. This Agreement will replace the existing 1979 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The new Agreement will provide the revised administrative direction and agreements needed to structure the parties' roles, responsibilities, business processes and working relationships for the coming decades. Consideration and approval of the Agreement is scheduled for June 2007. The Forest and the City invite written comments on the content and scope of the Agreement. A copy of the draft Agreement is available on the following Internet Web sites,
Comments concerning the content and scope of analysis should be postmarked by April 16, 2007. Two Public meetings are scheduled. The meeting dates are:
1. March 20, 2007, 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Portland, OR.
2. March 21, 2007, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Sandy, OR.
Send written comments and suggestions concerning the Agreement to Gary Larsen, Forest Supervisor, Mt. Hood National Forest, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, Oregon 97055-7248. Comment may also be emailed to:
1. Portland—Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center—Billy Frank Jr. Conference Center, 721 NW., 9th Avenue, Portland, OR 97209.
2. Sandy—Mt Hood National Forest Headquarters, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, OR 97030.
Questions about the Agreement or requests for copies should be directed to Rick Acosta, Mt. Hood National Forest, Public Affairs Officer, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, Oregon, 97055-7248, (e-mal:
The Bull Run watershed, located in the Mt. Hood National Forest, is the largest and oldest of the several water supplies serving the Portland metropolitan area. Its role in the region's past, present and future, along with its unprecedented level of water quality, make it a high priority for both the City and the Forest Service to take the steps necessary to ensure its continuing quality, productivity and protection.
As the City and the Forest Service began to look closely at the administrative and policy frameworks that guided their interactions they noted that much of that framework dated from the late 1970s and arose from the direction provided in the 1977 Bull Run Management Act (Pub. L. 95-200). As little of that framework had been updated over time, its applicability to current issues and needs is limited. Thus, this Agreement replaces the existing 1979 MOU, aligns practice with existing legislation, and provides the revised administrative direction and agreements needed to structure the parties' roles, responsibilities, business process and working relationships for the coming decades.
The City and the Forest Service, along with community interests in the greater Portland metropolitan area, have had a long and sometimes contentious history of working together to protect and manage the valuable ecological and water resources of the Bull Run watershed. But with the coming of the 21st century, the issues and conflicts in policy and direction that held attention for the last fifty years have all but disappeared. Now, the parties are turning to the future, responding to new fiscal realities, and working together to frame the structures, processes, roles and responsibilities that will allow them to act effectively as joint stewards of this valuable regional and national resource, in concert with citizens who increasingly desire to redeem their responsibilities in stewardship of their lands.
Officials from the City of Portland and the Mount Hood National Forest are
The final Agreement is scheduled to be available in June 2007. In completing the Agreement, the Forest and the City will respond to comments received during the comment period. The Agency officials are Gary Larsen, Forest Supervisor, Mt. Hood National Forest for the Forest Service, and the City official is Randy Leonard, Commissioner-in-Charge, City of Portland Water Bureau for the City of Portland.
(Authority: Sec. 2, Pub. L. 95-200, 91 Stat. 1425 (16 U.S.C. 482b)
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statement.
The Boise Ranger District of the Boise National Forest will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a resource management project in the Crooked River Watershed. The 14,500 acre project area is located approximately 18 miles northeast of Idaho City, Idaho, and about 48 miles northeast of Boise, Idaho.
The agency invites written comments and suggestions on the scope of the analysis. The agency also hereby gives notice of the environmental analysis and decision-making process that will occur on the proposal so interested and affected people are aware of how they may participate and contribute to the final decision. At this time no public meetings to discuss the project are planned.
The Proposed Action would commercial harvest trees, and in some areas use a combination of commercial harvest thinning and pre-commercial thinning from approximately 1,970 acres in the 14,500 acre project area. Regeneration harvest would occur on approximately 1,100 acres where insect and disease infestation is particularly severe. In addition approximately 4,700 acres would have only pre-commercial removal of small diameter trees (including 1,688 acres of plantations). Within these areas of mechanical vegetation treatment, aspen clones would be managed by removing and reducing conifer competition in the immediate vicinity. Brush removal would occur within approximately 450 additional acres of conifer plantations. An estimated 14.0 MMBF of timber would be harvested using ground-based yarding systems.
Prescribed burning would occur within approximately 12,000 acres of project area to breakup the horizontal and vertical fuel continuity to reduce the chance of uncharacteristic stand replacement fires. Approximately 1,550 acres would be a natural fuels burn area where no mechanical treatment would occur, these acres would include target areas and conditional or incidental burn areas. A burn block of approximately 10,620 acres would target mechanically treated areas (commercial and pre-commercial thinning) and also include conditional or incidental burn areas.
Approximately 15 acres would be targeted for native plant restoration.
Whitebark pine restoration and enhancement is proposed in a 40 acre area around the summit of Pilot Peak.
The proposed action would decommission and remove these from the transportation system approximately 22 miles of currently authorized roads. Approximately 3.7 miles of temporary road would be constructed, and approximately 0.8 miles of new road would be constructed. Approximately 6.5 miles of road currently not authorized would be improved by construction and added to the transportation system. Approximately 15.6 miles of road would be closed (these would remain as authorized roads) that are currently open, and 10.9 miles of closed road would be opened.
Three culverts that are currently posing a fish migration barrier will be replaced and one would be removed as part of road decommissioning.
Comments concerning the proposed project and analysis are encouraged and should be postmarked or received within 30 days following publication of this announcement in the
Comments should be addressed to the Boise National Forest, ATTN: Daniel Schlender, 1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200, Boise, ID 83709 or sent electronically to
Further information can be obtained from Daniel Schlender at the address mentioned above or by calling (208) 373-4245.
The entire project area lies within Management Area 7 (North Fork Boise River), discussed on pages III-166 through III-177 in the 2003 Boise National Land and Resource Management Plan. The project area occurs within Management Prescription Category 5.2 (Commodity Production Emphasis within Forested Landscapes).
The comment period on the DEIS 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 the DEIS 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 contention.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the DEIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft 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.
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to Procurement List.
This action adds to the Procurement List a product and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
March 18, 2007.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or e-mail
On December 1, December 15, and December 22nd 2006, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (71 FR 69537; 75496; 76966) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product and services are added to the Procurement List:
This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Georgia Advisory Committee will convene at 1 p.m. and adjourn at 5 p.m. on Thursday, March 1, 2007, at Conference Room A, Sam Nunn Federal Building, 61 Forsyth St., SW., Atlanta, Georgia, 30303. The purpose of the meeting is to give an orientation to members, discuss the Committee's report on school desegregation, receive a briefing on religious freedom for prisoners, and discuss future activities of the Committee.
Persons desiring additional information should contact Peter Minarik, Regional Director, Southern Regional Office, at 404-562-7000 (or for the hearing impaired TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
The Department of Commerce will submit 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).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or
Proposed collection; comment request.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 35068(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before April 17, 2007.
Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 or via the Internet at
Request for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: William Kutson, U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service, Export Promotion Services, Room 2212, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; Phone number: (202) 482-2839, and fax number: (202) 482-0178.
The International Trade Administration's International Buyer Program (IBP) encourages international buyers to attend selected domestic trade shows in high export potential industries and to facilitate contact between U.S. exhibitors and foreign visitors. The program has been successful, having substantially increased the number of foreign visitors attending these selected shows as compared to the attendance when not supported by the program. The number of shows selected to the program increased from 10 in FY 1986 to 32 in FY 2004 and will increase to 36 shows in FY 2007. (Because the program schedule will transition from a fiscal year to calendar year, the 2007 program will run 15 months rather than 12. This will cause six shows to repeat, bringing the total number of shows in the FY/CY 2007 schedule to 42.) The criteria used to select these shows are: export potential, international interest, scope of show, stature of show, exhibitor interest, overseas marketing, logistics, delegation incentives, and cooperation of show organizers.
Form ITA-4014P, Exhibitor Data, is used to determine which U.S. firms are interested in meeting with international business visitors and the overseas business interest of the exhibitors. The form is completed by U.S. exhibitors participating in an IBP domestic trade show and is used to list the firm and its products in an Export Interest Directory, which is made available for use by Foreign Commercial Officers in recruiting delegations of international buyers to attend the show and is also
The Form ITA-4102P, Application, is used by IBP applicant show organizers to demonstrate (1) Their experience, (2) ability to meet the special conditions of the IBP, and
(3) provide information about the domestic trade show such as the number of U.S. exhibitors and the percentage of net exhibit space occupied by U.S. companies vis-a-vis non-U.S. exhibitors.
Comments are invited on (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
February 16, 2007.
Damian Felton or Brandon Farlander, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0133 or (202) 482-0182, respectively.
On December 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published its notice of initiation of an antidumping duty administrative review on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Canada.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall issue final results in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results is published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within the specified time periods, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend this deadline to a maximum 180 days.
Completion of the final results within the originally anticipated time limit, March 6, 2007, is impracticable because this review requires the Department to analyze the complex issues regarding the level of trade. Because it is not practicable to complete the review within the time specified under the Act, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final results by 60 days to May 7, 2007.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
February 16, 2007.
Thomas Martin or Mark Manning at (202) 482-3936 or (202) 482-5253, respectively; AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On July 27, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain, for the period December 20, 2004, to May 31, 2006.
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) require the Department to issue the preliminary results of an administrative review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the order for which the administrative review was requested, and the final results of the review within 120 days after the date on which the notice of the preliminary results was published in the
We determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this administrative review by the current deadline of March 2, 2007. The Department requires additional time to review Aragonesas Industrias y Energía S.A.'s recent submissions, which may require the Department to make additional requests for information in regard to affiliation, and certain sales and cost of production-related issues. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of these preliminary results to June 1, 2007. The final results will be due 120 days after the date of issuance of the preliminary results, unless extended.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands (
February 16, 2007.
Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14
On August 1, 2005, the Department published its notice of initiation of the first sunset review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands, in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act.
The Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from a respondent interested party, Corus Staal BV. Corus Staal BV claimed interested party status as a foreign producer, under section 771(9)(A) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(9)(A)) and 19 CFR 351.102(b).
The Department also received a Notice of Intent to Participate from the following domestic interested parties: Nucor Corporation; Gallatin Steel; IPSCO Steel, Inc.; Steel Dynamics, Inc.; Mittal Steel USA; and United States Steel Corporation (collectively Domestic Producers). Finally, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Participate from an additional domestic interested party: United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC. The Notices of Intent to Participate from domestic interested parties were within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's Regulations (
The Department received a complete substantive response to the Notice of Initiation from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in the Sunset Regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department also received a complete substantive response from a respondent interested party, Corus Staal BV, within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations.
On September 1, 2006, the Department received a request from United States Steel Corporation for an extension of the deadline for filing rebuttal comments to the substantive response of the respondent interested parties. Pursuant to section 351.302(b) of the Department's regulations, parties were granted an extension to file rebuttal comments to the substantive responses until September 8, 2006. On September 8, 2006, Corus Staal BV and United States Steel Corporation filed rebuttal comments.
On September 20, 2006, the Department found that the respondent interested parties accounted for more than 50 percent of exports by volume of the subject merchandise from Germany to the United States.
The Department extended the deadlines for the preliminary results of this review and the final results of this review to February 12, 2007, and June 22, 2007, respectively.
For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers),
Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products in which: (i) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
1.80 percent of manganese, or
2.25 percent of silicon, or
1.00 percent of copper, or
0.50 percent of aluminum, or
1.25 percent of chromium, or
0.30 percent of cobalt, or
0.40 percent of lead, or
1.25 percent of nickel, or
0.30 percent of tungsten, or
0.10 percent of molybdenum, or
0.10 percent of niobium, or
0.15 percent of vanadium, or
0.15 percent of zirconium.
• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including,
• Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.
• Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
• Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
• Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
• ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
• USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
• All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
• Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTSUS.
The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this order, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Full Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Preliminary Results,” from Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 12, 2007 (“Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include: the legal authority to conduct sunset review; Corus Staal BV's claim with regard to the Department's practice embodied in the Sunset Review Policy Bulletin; the likelihood of the continuation or recurrence of dumping (non-
Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Department Building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, under the heading “February 2007.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
The Department preliminarily determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average margins:
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 50 days after the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 5 days after the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). Any hearing,
This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
February 16, 2007.
Mark Hoadley (Argentina) or Edythe Artman (Mexico), AD/CVD Operations, Office 6 and Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3148 or (202) 482-2921, respectively.
On October 19, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the antidumping duty investigations of lemon juice from Argentina and Mexico. See
On February 1, 2007, the petitioner, Sunkist Growers, Inc., made a timely request pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determinations. The petitioner requested postponement of the preliminary determinations in order to allow the Department additional time in which to review the complex questionnaire responses that have been submitted in the investigations and to analyze additional responses due to be filed shortly.
For the reasons identified by the petitioner and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, the Department is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act by 50 days to April 19, 2007. The deadline for the final determinations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, unless extended.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a meeting.
The SSC meeting will be held on March 7, 2007, from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m., approximately.
The meeting will be held at the Pierre Hotel at Gallery Plaza, 105 Jose de Diego Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00914.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1920; telephone: (787) 766-5926.
The SSC will meet to discuss the items contained in the following agenda:
Call to order
Data and Stock Assessment Needs to End Overfishing and Set Annual Catch Limits for Species Under Management
Presentation and Review of Dr. David Olsen's Data on the Status of the St. Thomas/St. John Fisheries
Discussion on the Sale of Catch by Charter Boats/Recreational Fishers in the US Caribbean (White Paper)
Other Business
Discussion on Vermillion Snapper and Queen Snapper Place in the Management Groups
The meeting is open to the public, and will be conducted in English. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolon, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1920; telephone: (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Notice of cancellation of a public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council has cancelled the public meeting of its Multispecies (Groundfish)Committee that was scheduled for Wednesday, February 21, 2007, at 9 a.m., at the Sheraton Ferncroft, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01923.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The initial notice was published on February 2, 2007, 72 FR 5016, and the meeting will be rescheduled at a later date and announced in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory entities will hold public meetings.
The Council and its advisory entities will meet March 5-9, 2007. The Council meeting will begin on Monday, March 5 at 1 p.m., reconvening each day through Friday. All meetings are open to the public, except a closed session will be held from 1 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Monday, March 5 to address litigation and personnel matters. The Council will meet as late as necessary each day to complete its scheduled business.
The meetings will be held at the DoubleTree Hotel Sacramento, 2001 Point West Way, Sacramento, CA 95819; telephone: 916-929-8855.
Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220.
Dr. Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director; telephone: 503-820-2280.
The following items are on the Council agenda, but not necessarily in this order:
1. Opening Remarks and Introductions
2. Roll Call
3. Executive Director's Report
4. Approve Agenda
1. Enforcement Report: Overview of Joint Enforcement Agreement Program
1. NMFS Report
2. Stock Assessment Review Panel Terms of Reference for 2007
1. Future Council Meeting Agenda Planning
2. Review and Planning for Implementation of New Requirements Resulting from Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
3. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes
4. Legislative Matters
5. Appointments to Advisory Bodies, Standing Committees and Other Forums, and Changes to Council Operating Procedures as Needed
6. Council Three-Meeting Outlook, April 2007 Council Meeting Agenda, and Workload Priorities
1. Groundfish Harvest Policy Evaluation Workshop Report
2. NMFS Report
3. Pacific Whiting Harvest Specifications and Management Measures for 2007
4. Trawl Rationalization (Trawl Individual Quota Program)
5. Consideration of Inseason Adjustments
6. Emergency Rule Limiting 2007 Whiting Vessel Participation
1. Report on the International Pacific Halibut Commission Meeting
2. Incidental Catch Regulations for the Salmon Troll and Fixed Gear Sablefish Fisheries
1. Review of 2006 Fisheries and Summary of 2007 Stock Abundance Estimates
2. Identification of Management Objectives and Preliminary Definition of 2007 Salmon Management Options
3. Identification of Stocks Not Meeting Conservation Objectives
4. Council Recommendations for 2007 Management Options Analysis
5. Council Direction for 2007 Management Options
6. Adoption of 2007 Management Options for Public Review
7. Salmon Hearings Officers
Although nonemergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These 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 five days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Snapper Grouper Committee, Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) Committee, Controlled Access Committee, Mackerel Committee, Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) Selection Committee, a joint meeting of its Habitat Committee and Ecosystem-Based Management Committee, Economics Committee, Shrimp Committee, Information and Education Committee, a joint meeting of its Executive Committee and Finance Committee, and a meeting of the full Council. In addition, the Council will also hold a public hearing regarding Amendment 18 to the Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagics in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, and a general public input session.
The meetings will be held in March 2007. See
The meetings will be held at the Jekyll Island Club Hotel, 371 Riverview Drive, Jekyll Island, GA
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer; telephone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free at (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
The Snapper Grouper Committee will receive reports and develop recommendations for: the gag grouper stock assessment from NOAA Fisheries, the Oculina Evaluation Report regarding the size and configuration of the Oculina Experimental Closed Area, and Amendment 14 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan regarding marine protected areas (MPAs), including comments received regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and transit issues. In addition, the Committee will receive a report on the status of Amendment 15 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (rebuilding for snowy grouper, black sea bass, and red porgy, etc.) and NOAA Fisheries' updates on the online quota monitoring system and the status of the permits/logbook/landings database and ability to tie landings to vessels. The Committee will also discuss allocations of species in the snapper grouper management complex.
The Controlled Access Committee will meet to discuss the establishment of a Limited Access Privilege (LAP) Program Workgroup, review a list of nominees and meeting dates, and develop recommendations for appointing workgroup members. The Committee will also review a draft Action Plan for LAPs and develop recommendations.
The Mackerel Committee will receive an overview of Amendment 18 timing issues and develop recommendations. The Committee will also review a draft scoping document for Amendment 16 (boundary and mixing issues, permits, and separate management plans from Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council) and make recommendations.
The SSC Selection Committee will meet to discuss new requirements affecting the SSC in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act amendments.
The Habitat and Ecosystem-Based Management Committees will receive a presentation on Liquid Nitrogen Gas exploration and review and approve policy statements on energy and offshore aquaculture. The Committees will also review and approve the Deep Water Coral Research Plan and receive updates on the status of the Council's Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) and FEP Comprehensive Amendment.
The Economics Committee will review the Socioeconomics Section of the draft FEP and make recommendations. The Committee will also discuss development of a Socioeconomic Guidance Document and develop recommendations.
The Shrimp Committee will review a report of the Shrimp Review Panel and provide recommendations, receive an overview of the “use it or lose it” provision for the rock shrimp fishery and develop recommendations, and discuss additional items to include in Amendment 6 to the Shrimp FMP and make recommendations.
The Information and Education Committee will receive an update on the Council website and provide recommendations.
The Executive and Finance Committees will meet to discuss the status of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Congressional budget, review the Calendar Year (CY) 2007 FMP/Amendment/Framework timelines, develop CY 2007 activities schedule and budget, and discuss amendments to the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal Council action during these meetings. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305 (c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Except for advertised (scheduled) public hearings and public comment, the times and sequence specified on this agenda are subject to change.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR Workshops for Caribbean queen conch, yellowfin grouper, and mutton snapper.
The SEDAR assessments of the Caribbean stocks of yellowfin grouper, mutton snapper, and queen conch will consist of a series of three workshops: a Data Workshop, an Assessment Workshop, and a Review Workshop. This is the fourteenth SEDAR.
The Data Workshop will take place March 12—16, 2007; the Assessment Workshop will take place June 4-8, 2007; the Review Workshop will take place July 23-27, 2007. See
The Data Workshop and Assessment Workshop will be held at the Marriott Frenchmen's Reef, 5 Estate Bakkeroe, St. Thomas, USVI; telephone: (340) 776-8500. The Review Workshop will be held at Hotel El Convento, 100 Cristo Street, Old San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901; telephone: (787) 723-9036.
John Carmichael, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, North Charleston, SC 29405; telephone: (843) 571-4366.
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the SEDAR process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR includes three workshops: (1) Data Workshop, (2) Stock Assessment Workshop and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Stock Assessment Workshop is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The products of the Review Workshop are a Consensus Summary documenting Panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data, and an Advisory Report summarizing stock status and recommending management criteria. Participants for SEDAR Workshops, appointed by the regional Fishery Management Councils, the Southeast Regional Office (SERO), and the Southeast Fishery Science Center (SEFSC), include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
An assessment data set and associated documentation will be developed during the Data Workshop. Participants will evaluate all available data and select appropriate sources for providing information on life history characteristics, catch statistics, discard estimates, length and age composition, and fishery dependent and fishery independent measures of stock abundance.
Using datasets provided by the Data Workshop, participants will develop population models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and Sustainable Fisheries Act criteria, and project future conditions. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters. Participants will prepare a workshop report, compare and contrast various assessment approaches, and determine whether the assessments are adequate for submission to the review panel.
The Review Workshop is an independent peer review of the assessment developed during the Data and Assessment Workshops. Workshop Panelists will review the assessment and document their comments and recommendations in a Consensus Summary. Panellists will summarize recommended population parameter estimates in an Advisory Report.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.
Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 604-6575.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 07-13 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice of availability.
This notice announces the availability of the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), which analyzes the potential impacts to the environment of MDA's proposal to develop, test, deploy, and plan for decommissioning an integrated BMDS. The PEIS addresses the integrated BMDS and the development and application of new technologies; evaluates the range of complex programs, architecture, and assets that comprise the BMDS; and
A Record of Decision will be issued no earlier than 30 days from the date of this notice.
Copies of the Final PEIS have been distributed to Federal, State, local agencies, and public officials that previously requested copies of the PEIS. Copies of the Final PEIS will be available at the following public libraries:
• Anchorage Municipal Library, 3600 Denali Street, Anchorage, AK 99503.
• Mountain View Branch Library, 150 S. Street, Anchorage, AK 99508.
• California State Library, Library and Courts Building, 914 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA 95814.
• Sacramento Public Library, 828 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
• Hawaii State Library, Hawaii Documents Center, 478 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813.
• University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hamilton Library, 2550 The Mall, Honolulu, HI 96822.
• Arlington County Public Library, Central Branch, 1015 North Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22201.
• District of Columbia Public Library, Central Branch—Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library, 901 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20001.
Requests for electronic copies of the Final BMDS PEIS should be directed to MDA BMDS PEIS, c/o ICF International, 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031; Phone (Toll-Free) 1-877-MDA-PEIS (1-877-632-7347); Fax (Toll-Free) 1-877-851-5451; E-mail
Please call Mr. Rick Lehner, MDA Director of Public Affairs, at (703) 697-8997.
MDA has a requirement to develop, test, deploy, and prepare for decommissioning the BMDS to protect the United States, its deployed forces, friends, and allies from ballistic missile threats. The proposed action would provide an integrated BMDS using existing infrastructure and capabilities, when feasible, as well as emerging and new technologies, to meet current and evolving threats in support of the MDA's mission. Conceptually, the BMDS would be a layered system of weapons; sensors; Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications (C2BMC); and support assets, each with specific functional capabilities, working together to defend against all classes and ranges of threat ballistic missiles in all phases of flight. Multiple defensive weapons would be used to create a layered defense comprised of multiple intercept opportunities along the incoming threat missile's trajectory. This would provide a layered defensive system of capabilities designed to back up one another.
On April 11, 2003, MDA initiated the public scoping process by publishing the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the PEIS for the BMDS in the
The MDA considers two alternatives to implementing an integrated BMDS that address the use of weapons components from land-, sea-, air-, and space-based platforms in addition to the No Action alternative as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
•
•
•
Department of Defense.
Notice of open meeting.
This Notice is published in accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The topic of the meeting on March 13-14, 2007 are to review new start and continuing research and development projects requesting Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program funds in excess of $1M. This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the Scientific Advisory Board at the time and in the manner permitted by the Board.
March 13, 2007 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and March 14 from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
SERDP Program Office Conference Center, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 804, Arlington, VA 22203.
Ms. Misa Jensen, SERDP Program Office, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303, Arlington, VA or by telephone at (703) 696-2126.
Headquarters Air Force Space Command Nuclear C2 Systems Branch, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 17, 2007.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods.
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to HQ AFSPC/A4MC, ATTN: SMSgt John Storm, 150 Vadenberg St., Ste 1105, Peterson AFB CO 80914, or call HQ AFSPC/A4MC, Nuclear C2 Systems Branch at (719-554-4057).
Respondents are landowners/tenants. This form collects updated landowner/tenant information as well as data on local property conditions which could adversely affect the Hardened Intersite Cable System (HICS) such as soil erosion, projected/building projects, excavation plans, etc. This information also aids in notifying landowners/tenants when HCIS preventive or corrective maintenance becomes necessary to ensure uninterrupted Intercontinental Ballistic Missile command and control capability.
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Retirement and Separation Division, Air Force Personnel Center, announces the proposed extension of a public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. 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 information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 17, 2007.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Retirement and Separation Division (DPPR), Air Force Personnel Center, 550 C Street West, Suite 3, ATTN: Gail Weber, Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4739 or call Ms. Gail Weber at 210-565-2461.
Respondents are Air Force retired members and certain Reserve members who have gained jobs with a foreign government and who must obtain approval of the Secretary of the Air Force and Secretary of State to do so. Information, in the form of a letter, includes a detailed description of duty, name of employer, Social Security Number, and statements specifying whether or not the employee will be compensated; declaring if employee will be required or plans to obtain foreign citizenship; declaring that the member will be required or plans to obtain foreign citizenship; declaring that the member will be required or plans to obtain foreign citizenship; declaring that the member will not be required to execute an oath of allegiance to the foreign government; verifying that the member understands that retired pay equivalent to the amount received from the foreign government may be withheld if he or she accepts employment with a foreign government before receiving approval. Reserve members only must include a request to be reassigned to Inactive Status List Reserve Section (Reserve Section Code RB). After verifying the status of the individual, the letter is forwarded to the Air Force Review Board for processing. If the signed letter is not included in the file, individuals reviewing the file cannot furnish the necessary information to the Secretary of the Air Force and Secretary of State on which a decision can be made. Requested information is necessary to maintain the integrity of the Request for Approval of Foreign Government Employment Program.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
Section 302 of Public Law 99-662 established the Inland Waterways Users Board. The Board is an independent Federal advisory committee. The Secretary of the Army appoints its 11 members. This notice is to solicit nominations for six (6) appointments or reappointments to two-year terms that will begin after August 1, 2007.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Attention: Inland Waterways Users Board Nominations Committee, 108 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0108.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), (703) 697-8986.
The selection, service, and appointment of Board members are covered by provisions of Section 302 of Public Law 99-662. The substance of those provisions is as follows:
a.
b.
c.
(1)
(2)
(3)
d.
Two of the six members whose terms will expire are eligible for reappointment. Nominations to replace Board members whose terms expire may be made by individuals, firms or associations. Nominations will:
(1) State the region(s) to be represented.
(2) State whether the nominee is representing carriers, shippers or both.
(3) provide information on the nominee's personal qualifications.
(4) Include the commercial operations of the carrier and/or shipper with whom the nominee is affiliated. This commercial operations information will show the actual or estimated ton-miles of each commodity carried or shipped on the inland waterways system in a recent year (or years) using the waterway regions and commodity categories previously listed.
Nominations received in response to
e.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
In accordance with 37 CFR 404.6 and 404.7, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the invention set forth in U.S. Patent Application No. 11/340,375 entitled “Medical Image Processing Methodology for Detection and Discrimination of Objects in Tissue,” filed on January 26, 2006. The United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army, has rights in this invention.
Office of Research and Technology Applications, SDMC-RDTC-TDL (Ms. Susan D. McRae), Bldg. 5220, Von Braun Complex, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898.
Ms. Joan Gilsdorf, Patent Attorney, e-mail:
The invention pertains to the implementation of image processing and response surface methodology algorithms to process images (
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
In accordance with 37 CFR 404.6 and 404.7, announcement is made of the availability of licensing of the invention set forth in U.S. Patent Application No. 11/460,593 entitled “Method of Inducing and Sealing Cracks in Vessels,” filed on July 27, 2006. The United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army, has rights in this invention.
Office of Research and Technology Applications, SDMC-RDTC-TDL (Ms. Susan D. McRae), Bldg. 5220, Von Braun Complex, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898.
Ms. Joan Gilsdorf, Patent Attorney, e-mail:
The invention pertains to inducing and sealing cracks in newly constructed containment vessels, such as linerless composite tanks, that are subject to crack propagation during the life of the vessels. The cracks are sealed before the vessel is placed in service to prevent or reduce leakage of the fluids that are stored in the vessels.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, is initiating this study under the authority of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives resolution, adopted July 23, 1998, which reads as follows:
“Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives Resolution, that the Secretary of the Army is requested to review the report of the Chief of Engineers on the Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, published as House Document 419, 84th Congress, 2nd Session, and other pertinent reports, with a view to determining whether modifications of the recommendations contained therein are advisable at the present time in the interest of environmental restoration and protection, water quality, and sediment control, recreation, and the avoidance or minimization of undesirable impacts resulting from urbanization and other present and future watershed activities.”
The study will determine the feasibility of reducing turbidity, lowering temperatures, and reducing the extent of the physical changes within the Amite River corridor in an effort to achieve fish and wildlife restoration and provide outdoor public recreation opportunities. This effort will significantly contribute to the watershed management objectives of the state of Louisiana.
The study area includes the Amite River drainage basin in southeastern Louisiana, in Ascension, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Livingston, St.
Questions concerning the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be addressed to Ms. Bonnie S. Obiol at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, PM-RS, P.O. Box 60267, New Orleans, LA 70160-0267, phone (504) 862-2280, fax number (504) 862-2088 or by E-mail at
1.
A public scoping meeting will be held in the spring of 2007. The meeting will be held in the vicinity of Baton Rouge, LA. Additional meetings could be held, depending upon interest and if it is determined that further public coordination is warranted.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
Section 116 of Pub. L. 108-447, dated December 8, 2004, authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) participation in construction of the Central City project. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was completed for the Central City Project in Janauary 2006. A Record of Decision (ROD) recommending the Community-Based Alternative and determining it was technically sound and environmentally acceptable was signed by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASA (CW)) on April 7, 2006. An Interim Feasibility Report with Integrated Environmental Assessment (with signed Finding of No Significant Impact) for the Riverside Oxbow Project was approved by the Chief of Engineers on May 29, 2003. An addendum, dated April 2005, was prepared to address comments from the ASA (CW); however, neither construction funding nor authority for implementation of this project has been provided by Congress to date.
By letter dated June 22, 2006, the City of Fort Worth requested the Corps to evaluate the potential benefits of merging the Central City Project with the Riverside Oxbow project. They identified potential benefits including
These potential modifications to the projects may be substantial and a supplement to the Central City environmental impact statement should be prepared concurrently with a more detailed analysis. Therefore, this Notice of Intent to prepare Supplement No. 1 to the FEIS for the Central City project is being issued in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508.
Questions and scoping comments pertaining to this analysis and Draft Supplement to the EIS should be directed to Mr. Saji Puthenpurayel, Project Manager, CESWF-EC-D, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, P.O. Box 17300, Fort Worth, TX 76102-0300, (817) 886-1764.
The Central City project as authorized includes a flood bypass channel and flood gates to divert flood flows around a segment of the existing Trinity River channel adjacent to downtown Fort Worth, Samuels Avenue Dam to create an interior water feature, and hydraulic and ecological mitigation areas. The bypass channel is approximately 8,400 feet long, 300-400 feet wide, and would be approximately 30 feet below the existing grade. The bypass channel would begin at the Clear Fork downstream of West Seventh Street, interest the West Fork approximately 2,600 feet upstream of the existing confluence with the Clear Fork, and continue to the northeast terminating at the West Fork about 8,500 feet downstream of the existing confluence. The Corps component of the Central City Project was authorized for construction by Section 116 of Public Law 108-447, dated December 8, 2004. Under that authority, Corps participation is limited to $110 million with a total project cost $220 million for that portion of the infrastructure plan in which the Corps can participate.
Without hydraulic mitigation, the Central City project would result in a loss of valley storage due to the bypass channel being shorter and more efficient than the existing river channel. Valley storage sites are included in the existing authorized plan to compensate for this potential loss of storage. Four areas would provide the required valley storage; along the West Fork of the Trinity River upstream of the bypass channel (Riverbend/Rockwood), adjacent to University Drive, in the vicinity of the Samuels Avenue Dam, and slightly downstream of the proposed dam site in proximity to Riverside Park. Construction of the bypass channel and associated valley storage sites would not increase downstream water surface elevations or downstream flow.
Reestablishment of vegetation and habitat at the Riverbend/Rockwood site following construction activities were included in the authorized plan, partially for mitigation of project impacts to wetland, riparian, and terrestrial resources and partially for ecosystem restoration. Additional habitat mitigation measures were included along Ham Branch, a tributary of the West Fork of the Trinity River, which enters the system a short distance downstream of Highway 121. Approximately 305 feet of the existing channel would be relocated to provide adequate width for riparian forest development and existing riparian habitat would be improved along the remainder of the channel.
The Riverside Oxbow project area is adjacent to and immediately downstream of the Central City Project. The focus of the project is to restore the ecological integrity of aquatic and riparian systems along a portion of the natural Trinity River channel that was severed by construction of a realignment and enlargement of the West Fork of the Trinity River channel by non-Federal interests. The Interim Feasibility Report recommends implementation of the Locally Preferred Plan, which consists of the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan along with additional local features. The NER plan for the Riverside Oxbow will restore the biological integrity of the wetland and bottomland hardwood communities through a combination of measures directed at either specific habitat types or specific problems within the existing ecosystem.
The City's request to merge these projects recognized that each project is moving forward independently but they are located adjacent to one another. The City and the Tarrant Regional Water District expressed their opinion that based on their adjacency, there might be merit in combining the two projects. In their letter, the City of Forth Worth identified potential benefits of combining the two projects that would not be achieved if they proceed independently. These potential benefits included greater flexibility in selecting sites for the required valley storage mitigation, opportunity to increase restoration benefits, and cost savings.
In addition, during detailed design investigations it was determined that alternative locations of the proposed Samuel Avenue Dam should be evaluated due to geotechnical considerations. The amount of aquatic habitat impacted in marine and Lebow Creeks is affected by the location of Samuels Avenue Dam and will be considered during further site analysis.
In response to the City's letter request, the corps performed an initial evaluation and determined that alternative areas along the West Fork of the Trinity River including areas within the Riverside Oxbow project had the potential to provide the required hydraulic mitigation, provide comparable ecosystem restoration outputs, reduce habitat mitigation requirements, and lower project costs. Following review of this initial evaluation, Corps Headquarters directed that a detailed analysis be undertaken that evaluates the total hydraulic system including the Central City and Riveside Oxbow project areas. The Corps' approving offices acknowledged that to determine if and how either project should be modified, additional study, reporting, and environmental compliance would be required.
All affected Federal, State, and local agencies, affected Indian tribes, and other interested private local organizations and parties are hereby invited to participate in the development of the Draft SEIS. No Public Meetings have been scheduled at this time, however all agencies and other known interested entities will be informed by public notice to request their comments regarding the potential modifications. Coordination will continue with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The Texas State Historic Preservation Office will be consulted as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Potential modifications to the project will also be coordinated with the Texas Council on Environmental Quality to ensure any changes are in compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Naval Sea Systems Command announces a proposed extension of a previously approved public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. 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 information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 17, 2007.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
To request additional information or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, write to Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA 04Z3), 1333 Isaac Hull Avenue, SE., STOP 4030, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20376-4030, or contact Connie Gerow or Len Thompson at (202) 781-4074 or (202) 781-1832, respectively.
This collection of information provides NAVSEASYSCOM and the Maritime Administration with a list of facilities available for construction or repair of ships, and information utilized in a database for assessing the production capacity of the individual shipyards. Respondents are businesses involved in shipbuilding and/or repair.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
This notice provides information on the surplus property at Naval Air Station (NAS), Brunswick, ME.
Ms. Kimberly Kesler, Director, Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office, 1455 Frazee Road, San Diego, CA 92108-4310, telephone 619-532-0993 or Mr. David Drozd, Director, Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office, Northeast, 4911 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19112-1303, telephone 215-897-4909.
In 2005, NAS, Brunswick, ME, was designated for closure under the authority of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended (the Act). Pursuant to this designation, on January 23, 2006, land and facilities at this installation were declared excess to the Department of Navy (DON) and available to other Department of Defense components and other Federal agencies. The DON has evaluated all timely Federal requests and has made a decision on property required by the Federal Government.
a.
Not included in this notice of surplus are the 342 units of housing, garages, maintenance building, and butler building. These improvements are owned by Northeast Housing LLC.
This surplus notice also does not include three parcels of land designated
b.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
a.
Not included in this notice of surplus are the Housing Quarters (231 units of housing), garages, a community center, a maintenance building, and paved areas (roads and pavements). These improvements are owned by Northeast Housing LLC.
b.
(1)
a.
a.
b.
(1)
(2)
Department of Education.
The Director, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 19, 2007.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to
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 Director, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, 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, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.
Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 19, 2007.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to
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 IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, 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, e.g., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.
This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.
Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 19, 2007.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to
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 IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, 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, e.g., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.
Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 19, 2007.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
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 IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, 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, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.
Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, 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 April 17, 2007.
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 IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice of final priority.
The Deputy Secretary of Education announces a priority under the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program. The Deputy Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2007 and later years. We take this action to allow for the best use of Federal funding to improve school library media centers in low-income communities. We intend for this priority to help strengthen the connection between school libraries and the instructional programs in these schools and districts.
This priority is effective March 19, 2007.
Irene Harwarth, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3W227, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 401-3751 or via Internet:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
The purpose of the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program (LSL) is to improve student reading skills and academic achievement by providing students with increased access to up-to-date school library materials; well-equipped, technologically advanced school library media centers; and well-trained, professionally certified school library media specialists. Entities eligible for funding are local educational agencies (LEAs) in which 20 percent of the students served by the LEA are from families with incomes below the poverty line. These entities include public school districts, and may also include charter schools, regional service agencies, and State-administered schools that are considered public school districts by their State educational agency. Grantees use this funding to update their school library media center collections, improve technology and Internet access for their school library media centers, extend the hours of their school library media centers, and provide professional development for school library media specialists.
The LSL program has been in existence for four years. Over this four-year period, we have found that the most successful projects are similar in the following two ways: (1) They have provided a comprehensive array of services (such as extended library hours and professional development in addition to updated book collections and improved technology and internet access); and (2) they have had significant support from principals, teachers, and parents. Based on what we know to be successful practice, we sought to establish a priority that more closely links the proposed project to the school and district through alignment with a school or district improvement plan. We also intended this priority to encourage applicants to offer a comprehensive array of allowable program services.
We published a notice of proposed priority for this program in the
There are no differences between the notice of proposed priority and this notice of final priority.
In the notice of proposed priority, we invited comments on the proposed priority. Four of the only substantive comments we received suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. Of the remaining two substantive comments, one commenter suggested encouraging individuals from local speaking and drama organizations to come to school libraries to read to children. An additional commenter, while supportive of the priority, asked for bonus points for districts that have applied and been unsuccessful in past competitions. Program officials decided that it would not be beneficial to the competition to incorporate these ideas at this time, and therefore no changes have been made to the priority.
This notice does
This notice of final priority has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the notice of final priority are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this notice of final priority, we have determined that the benefits of the final priority justify the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
We fully discussed the costs and benefits in the notice of proposed priority.
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
You may also view this document in text at the following site:
The official version of this document is the document published in the
20 U.S.C. 6383.
Actual award amounts will be based on the number of schools and students served by the project.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Under this priority, we give priority to projects that demonstrate in their grant applications that the proposed literacy project services are comprehensive and aligned with a school or district improvement plan. A school improvement plan may include the required two-year plan (under section 1116(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) that addresses the academic issues that caused a school to be identified as in need of improvement. The plan could also include a voluntary plan developed by the school or district to improve academic achievement. The applicant must clearly describe the improvement plan that is in place, whether it is for the school or the entire district, the reasons why the plan was put in place, and how the proposed project and the operation of the school library media center will directly support the academic goals established in the improvement plan.
20 U.S.C. 6383.
Actual award amounts will be based on the number of schools and students served by the project.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
You may also contact ED Pubs at its Web site:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.364A.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the program contact person listed under section VII of this notice.
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 15 pages, using the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″; on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part VI, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, you must include all of the application narrative in Part III. Charter schools and State administered schools must include some form of documentation from their State educational agency (SEA) confirming eligibility for this program. This documentation is not counted toward the page limit.
Our reviewers will not read any pages of your application that—
• Exceed the page limit if you apply these standards; or
• Exceed the equivalent of the page limit if you apply other standards. Appendices to the narrative are not permitted, with the exception of resumes and endnotes. None of the material sent as appendices to the narrative, with the exception of resumes and endnotes, will be sent to the reviewers.
3.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 6.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a.
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions.
You may access the electronic grant application for the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted, and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application if it is date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at
• To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Education Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance).
• You must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed elsewhere in this notice under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Irene Harwarth, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 3W227, Washington, DC 20202-6200, Fax: (202) 260-8969; or Miriam Lund, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 3W258, Washington, DC 20202-6200, Fax: (202) 260-8969.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark, or
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Acquiring up-to-date school library media resources, including books.
(2) Acquiring and using advanced technology, incorporated into the curricula of the school, to develop and enhance students' skills in retrieving and making use of information and in critical thinking.
(3) Facilitating Internet links and other resource-sharing networks among schools and school library media centers, and public and academic libraries.
(4) Providing professional development (as described in the notice of final clarification of eligible local activities published in the
(5) Providing students with access to school libraries during non-school hours, including the hours before and after school, during weekends, and during summer vacation periods.
(d)
(e)
(f)
2.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
The Department will collect data for these measures from grantees' final performance reports and other data sources.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact persons listed in this section.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
An application from a consortium of eligible entities must meet the requirements of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129. An application from a consortium of eligible entities must submit the consortium agreement, signed by all parties, with the application. Letters of support do not meet the requirement for a consortium agreement.
In order to be considered an eligible entity, applicants, including institutions of higher education, must be eligible to provide the level and type of degree proposed in the application or must apply in a consortium with an institution of higher education that is eligible to grant the target degree.
Applicants applying in a consortium with or as an “Indian organization” must demonstrate eligibility by showing how the “Indian organization” meets all the criteria outlined in 34 CFR 263.3.
The term “Indian institution of higher education” means an accredited college or university within the United States cited in section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), any other institution that qualifies for funding under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1801
We will reject any application that does not meet these requirements.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
These priorities are:
A project that provides support and training to Indian individuals to complete a pre-service education program that enables these individuals to meet the requirements for full State certification or licensure as a teacher through—
(1)(i) Training that leads to a bachelor's degree in education before the end of the award period;
(ii) For States allowing a degree in a specific subject area, training that leads to a bachelor's degree in the subject area so long as the training meets the requirements for full State teacher certification or licensure; or
(iii) Training in a current or new specialized teaching assignment that requires at least a bachelor's degree and in which a documented teacher shortage exists; and
(2) One-year induction services after graduation, certification, or licensure, provided during the award period to graduates of the pre-service program while they are completing their first year of work in schools with significant Indian student populations.
In working with various institutions of higher education and State certification/licensure requirements, we found that States requiring a degree in a specific subject area (e.g., specialty areas or teaching at the secondary level) generally require a master's degree or fifth-year requirement before an individual can be certified or licensed as a teacher. These students would be eligible to participate so long as their training meets the requirements for full State certification or licensure as a teacher.
Within this absolute priority, we are particularly interested in applications that address the following invitational priority. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.
A project that provides—
(1) Support and training to Indian individuals to complete a master's degree in education administration that is provided before the end of the award period and that allows participants to meet the requirements for State certification or licensure as an education administrator; and
(2) One year of induction services, during the award period, to participants after graduation, certification, or licensure, while they are completing their first year of work as administrators in schools with significant Indian student populations.
The degree received as a result of training and one year of induction services are to be completed prior to the end of the award period in order to meet the requirements of this priority.
These priorities are:
We award five points to an application submitted by an Indian tribe, Indian organization, or Indian institution of higher education that is eligible to participate in the Professional Development program. A consortium application of eligible entities that meets the requirements of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 of EDGAR and includes an Indian tribe, Indian organization, or Indian institution of higher education will be considered eligible to receive the five competitive preference points. The consortium agreement, signed by all parties, must be submitted with the application in order to be considered a consortium application.
We award five points to an application submitted by a consortium of eligible applicants that includes a tribal college or university and that designates that tribal college or university as the fiscal agent for the application. The consortium application of eligible entities must meet the requirements of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 of EDGAR to be eligible to receive the five competitive preference points. These points are in addition to the five competitive preference points that may be awarded under Competitive Preference Priority One. The consortium agreement, signed by all parties, must be submitted with the application in order to be considered a consortium application.
A consortium application must include a consortium agreement, signed by all parties, submitted with the application.
Tribal colleges and universities are those Indian institutions of higher education cited in section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), any other institution that qualifies for funding under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1801
20 U.S.C. 7442.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
An application from a consortium of eligible entities must meet the requirements of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129. An application from a consortium of eligible entities must submit a consortium agreement, signed by all parties, with the application. Letters of support do not meet the requirement for a consortium agreement.
In order to be considered an eligible entity, applicants, including institutions of higher education, must be eligible to provide the level and type of degree proposed in the application or must apply in a consortium with an institution of higher education that is eligible to grant the target degree.
Applicants applying in a consortium with or as an “Indian organization” must demonstrate eligibility by showing how the “Indian organization” meets all requirements of 34 CFR 263.3.
The term “Indian institution of higher education” means an accredited college or university within the United States cited in section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), any other institution that qualifies for funding under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1801
We will reject any application that does not meet these requirements.
2.
3.
1.
You may also contact ED Pubs at its Web site:
You may also obtain the application package electronically by downloading it from the following Web site:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.299B.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the program contact person listed elsewhere in this notice under
2.
• A page is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is 12 point or larger in size but no smaller than 10 point.
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, you must include all of the application narrative in Part III.
The page limit of 35 pages for Part III is mandatory. We will reject your application if:
• You apply these standards and exceed the page limit; or
• You apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 6.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a.
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under
You may access the electronic grant application for Professional Development at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted, and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application if it is date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at
• To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance).
• You must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed elsewhere in this notice under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Lana Shaughnessy, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5C152, Washington, DC 20202-6335. FAX: (202) 260-4149.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
We encourage applicants to demonstrate a strong capacity to provide reliable data on these measures in their responses to the selection criteria “Quality of project services” and “Quality of the project evaluation.”
All grantees will be expected to submit, as part of their performance report, information with respect to these performance measures.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in this section.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Dates:
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
This priority is:
Each applicant must propose to carry out each of the following activities:
(1) Provide to the participants from eligible countries—
(A) Seminars on the basic principles of United States constitutional democracy, including seminars on the major governmental institutions and systems in the United States, and visits to such institutions;
(B) Visits to school systems, institutions of higher education, and nonprofit organizations conducting exemplary programs in civics and government education, in the United States;
(C) Translations and adaptations with respect to United States civics and government education, curricular programs for students and teachers, and in the case of training programs for teachers, translations and adaptations into forms useful in schools in eligible countries, and joint research projects in such areas; and
(D) Independent research and evaluation assistance to determine the effects of the cooperative education exchange programs on students' development of the knowledge, skills, and traits of character essential for the
(2) Provide to the participants from the United States—
(A) Seminars on the histories and systems of government of eligible countries;
(B) Visits to school systems, institutions of higher education, and organizations conducting exemplary programs in civics and government education, located in eligible countries;
(C) Assistance from educators and scholars in eligible countries in the development of curricular materials on the history and government of such countries that are useful in United States classrooms;
(D) Opportunities to provide onsite demonstrations of United States curricula and pedagogy for educational leaders in eligible countries; and
(E) Independent research and evaluation assistance to determine the effects of the cooperative education exchange programs assisted through this grant on students' development of the knowledge, skills, and traits of character essential for the preservation and improvement of constitutional democracy.
(3) Assist participants from eligible countries and the United States to participate in international conferences on civics and government education for educational leaders, teacher trainers, scholars in related disciplines, and educational policymakers.
The Secretary is particularly interested in projects that use pre- and post-intervention testing, or more rigorous methods, to measure the effects of the Cooperative Civic Education and Economic Education Exchange Program on the knowledge and skills of students and the classroom practice(s) of participating teachers.
20 U.S.C. 6711-6716.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call (toll free): 1-877-576-7734.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the program person listed in this section of the notice.
2.
Page Limit: The program narrative section should not exceed 25 double-spaced pages using standard font not smaller than 12-point, with 1-inch margins (top, bottom, left, and right). The narrative should follow the format and sequence of the selection criteria.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition may be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov application site, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery. For information about how to submit your application electronically, or by mail, or by hand delivery, please refer to section 6.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
4.
5.
6.
a.
If you choose to submit your application electronically, you must use the Government-wide Grants.gov Apply site at
You may access the electronic grant application for the Grant Competition for the Cooperative Civic Education and Economic Education Exchange Program at
Please note the following:
• Your participation in Grants.gov is voluntary.
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application if it is date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at
• To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit your application in paper format.
• If you submit your application electronically, you must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. Please note that two of these forms—the SF 424 and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424—have replaced the ED 424 (Application for Federal Education Assistance).
• If you submit your application electronically, you must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by e-mail. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed elsewhere in this notice under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
b.
Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in this section.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
You may also view this document in text or PDF at the following site:
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada Test Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 5 p.m.
7710 West Cheyenne Avenue, Conference Room # 130, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Kelly Snyder, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193. Phone: (702) 295-2836; E-mail:
Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.
1. Briefing entitled “Radiation 101”
2. Discussion of upcoming SSAB Chairs Meeting
3. Updates by the Board's working committees
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Advisory Board (EMAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Tuesday, March 6, 2007, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.; Wednesday, March 7, 2007, 9 a.m.-12 p.m.
The Knoxville Marriott, 500 Hill Avenue SE., Knoxville, Tennessee 37915.
Terri Lamb, Executive Director of the Environmental Management Advisory Board (EM-13), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Phone (202) 586-9007; fax (202) 586-0293 or e-mail:
• Approval of August Meeting Minutes.
• Action Items.
• New Business.
• Roundtable Discussion.
• Set Date for Next Meeting.
Take notice that on February 6, 2007, Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) tendered for filing a compliance filing pursuant to Commission's January 24, 2007 order, in Docket No. CP07-21-000.
Algonquin states that copies of the filing have been served upon all affected customers of Algonquin and interested state commissions and all parties on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on February 5, 2007, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company (CEGT) tendered for filing and approval a negotiated rate agreement between CEGT and Roll Coater Inc. CEGT has entered into an agreement to provide firm transportation service to this shipper under Rate Schedule FT and requests the Commission accept and approve the transaction under which transportation service will commence upon the later of May 1, 2007, or the “in-service” date following completion of necessary delivery facilities.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on February 5, 2007, El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1-A, Thirty-Second Revised Sheet No. 1, to become effective March 1, 2007.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on February 6, 2007, Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C. (Petal) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Original Sheet No. 100A and Second Revised Sheet No. 140, to become effective March 6, 2007.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on February 6, 2007, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing a compliance filing pursuant to Commission's January 24, 2007 order, in Docket No. CP07-20-000.
Texas Eastern states that copies of the filing have been served upon all affected customers of Texas Eastern and interested state commissions and all parties on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on January 30, 2007, Windy Hill Gas Storage, LLC (Windy Hill) tendered for filing an application under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act for an order amending the certificate of public convenience and necessity issued in Docket No. CP06-19-000 to authorize Windy Hill to replace its pro forma FERC Gas Tariff with a new pro forma tariff.
Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) under the above-referenced docket. Gulf South's East Texas to Mississippi Expansion Project (Project) would be located in various counties and parishes in eastern Texas, northern Louisiana, and western Mississippi.
The Draft EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that the proposed Project, with the appropriate mitigation measures as recommended, would have limited adverse environmental impact.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) are federal cooperating agencies for the development of this EIS. A federal cooperating agency has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved with the proposal and is involved in the NEPA analysis.
The general purpose of the proposed Project is to transport up to 1.7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from production fields in eastern Texas to markets in the Gulf coast, Midwestern, Northeastern and Southeastern regions of the United States.
The Draft EIS addresses the potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the following facilities:
• Approximately 240.0 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending easterly from DeSoto Parish, Louisiana to Simpson County, Mississippi;
• Approximately 3.3 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending northward from Gulf South's existing Carthage Junction Compressor Station in Panola County, Texas to interconnect with existing natural gas facilities within Panola County;
• Two new compressor stations, the Vixen and the Tallulah Compressor Stations, located in Ouachita and Madison Parishes, Louisiana, respectively;
• Modifications to three existing compressor stations, the Carthage Junction, Hall Summit, and McComb Compressor Stations in Panola, County, Texas, Bienville Parish, Louisiana and Walthall County, Mississippi, respectively; and
• Other ancillary facilities including six meter and regulator (M/R) facilities, eleven mainline valves, nine side valves, and six pig launcher and/or receiver facilities.
Project construction would be initiated in May 2007 and completed by September 2007, at which point Gulf South would place the proposed Project in-service.
Any person wishing to comment on the Draft EIS may do so. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded so that they may be considered in the Final EIS, please carefully follow these instructions:
• Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
• Label one copy of your comments to the attention of Gas Branch 2, DG2E; and Reference Docket No. CP06-446-000 on the original and both copies.
• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before March 27, 2007.
Please note that the Commission strongly encourages the electronic filing (“eFiling”) of comments. Instructions on how to “eFile” comments can be found on the Commission's Web site at
In lieu of or in addition to sending written comments, we invite you to attend the public comment meetings the FERC will conduct in the project area to receive comments on the Draft EIS. All meetings will begin at 6 p.m. (CDT), and are scheduled as follows:
The public comment meetings will be posted on the FERC's calendar located at
After the comments received are reviewed, any significant new issues are investigated, and modifications are made to the Draft EIS, a Final EIS will be published and distributed by the FERC staff. The Final EIS will contain the staff's responses to timely comments received on the Draft EIS.
Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to
The Draft EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street N.E., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.
A limited number of copies of the Draft EIS are available from the Public Reference Room identified above. In addition, CD copies of the Draft EIS have been mailed to affected landowners; various Federal, State, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; intervenors; and other individuals that expressed an interest in the proposed Project. Hard-copies of the Draft EIS have also been mailed to those who requested that format during the scoping and comment periods for the proposed Project.
Additional information about the proposed Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site (
To access information via the FERC Web site click on the “eLibrary” link then click on “General Search” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. The “eLibrary” link provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. For assistance with “eLibrary”, please contact FERC Online Support at
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to these documents. To learn more about eSubscription and to sign-up for this service please go to
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Ellisburg Replacement Well Project involving the installation and operation of two new injection/withdrawal wells by Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) within its Ellisburg Storage Field located in Potter County, Pennsylvania.
This notice announces the opening of the public comment period that will be used to gather environmental input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Comments are requested by March 9, 2007.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by a company representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law.
A brochure prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site at
DTI seeks authority to install and operate two new wells, EW-210 and EW-326, located in its Ellisburg Storage Field. The new wells would replace two previously abandoned wells, EW-203 and EW-313. The previous well abandonments were completed under DTI's blanket certificate authorization in Docket No. CP06-419-000.
The new well EW-210 would be installed approximately 32 feet northwest of EW-203, and the new EW-326 well would be located approximately 49 feet northeast of EW-313. In addition, DTI would connect the new wells to the existing storage pipeline network by installing approximately 230 feet of new well pipeline. The construction and operation of the new pipeline would be performed under DTI's existing blanket certificate authorization in Docket No. CP82-537-000. The new wells are required to maintain the overall deliverability of the Ellisburg Storage Field.
The general locations of the new wells are shown in Appendix 1.
Construction of the new wells would require about 3.31 acres of land and includes access roads, staging areas and extra work areas. Each well site would require approximately 1.62 acres. Following construction, about 1.26 acres would be permanently maintained. The remaining 2.05 acres of land would be restored and allowed to revert to its former use.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping”. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the
Our
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative locations), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please carefully follow the instructions below to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
• Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
• Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 3.
• Reference Docket No. CP07-067-000.
• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before March 9, 2007.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of comments. Please refer to 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
The determination of whether to distribute the EA for public comment will be based on the response to this notice. If you are interested in receiving a copy of the EA, please return the Information Request form (Appendix 2). An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities.
In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an official party to the proceeding, or “intervenor”. To become an intervenor, you must file a motion to intervene according to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214). Intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. Motions to Intervene should be electronically submitted using the Commission's eFiling system at
Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your environmental comments considered.
If you wish to remain on our environmental mailing list, please return the Information Request form included in Appendix 3. If you do not return this form, you will be removed from our mailing list.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site (
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to the documents. Go to
Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a. Type of Application: Exemption From Licensing
b. Project No.: P-12769-000
c. Date Filed: January 22, 2007
d. Applicant: Ice House Partners, Inc.
e. Name of Project: Ice House Power Project
f. Location: On the Nashua River in the Town of Ayer, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. The project does not utilize lands of the United States.
g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. 2705, 2708
h. Applicant Contact: Liisa Dowd, Ice House Partners, Inc., 323 West Main Street, Ayer, MA 01432, (978) 772-3303
i. FERC Contact: Tom Dean, (202) 502-6041
j. Cooperating Agencies: We are asking Federal, state, and local agencies and Indian tribes with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments described in item l below.
k. Pursuant to Section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status: March 23, 2007.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
Additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at (
m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
n. Description of Project: The Ice House Power Project would consist of the existing facilities: (1) The 300-foot-long, 10-foot-high Ice House Dam consisting of a 210-foot-long spillway topped with flashboards; (2) a 137-acre reservoir with a normal full pond elevation of 215 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum; (3) a 50-foot-wide, 600-foot-long power canal; (4) a restored powerhouse containing two generating units with a total installed capacity of 270 kilowatts; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an average annual generation of 2,500 megawatt-hours.
o. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
p. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.
q. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate. The Commission staff proposes to issue one environmental assessment rather than issue a draft and final EA. Comments, terms and conditions, recommendations, prescriptions, and reply comments, if any, will be addressed in an EA. Staff intends to give at least 30 days for entities to comment on the EA, and will take into consideration all comments received on the EA before final action is taken on the license application.
Issue Acceptance Letter or Deficiency Letter—April 2007.
Issue Scoping Document—May 2007.
Notice of application is ready for environmental analysis—July 2007.
Notice of the availability of the EA—November 2007.
Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. In its PAD, MeadWestvaco stated it was evaluating its options relative to rehabilitating the 100 kW unit, or potentially increasing the overall hydraulic capacity of the facility. Pursuant to 18 CFR 5.11, MeadWestvaco filed a Proposed Study Plan on September 26, 2006. The plan included a Hydropower Redevelopment Study to evaluate the feasibility of rehabilitating the existing facility, replacing the generator units with newer models, or expanding the overall facility capacity. In its Revised Study Plan, filed January 23, 2007, MeadWestvaco withdrew the Hydropower Redevelopment Study proposal. Rather, MeadWestvaco now states that it will rehabilitate the 100-kW unit during 2007, and otherwise has no plans to upgrade or expand the project.
l. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.7, information on the project is available at: Ms. Patricia C. Begrowicz, MeadWestvaco, 40 Willow Street, South Lee, MA 01260.
m. Willow Mill Project information is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
n. Register online at
On February 1, 2007, staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission convened a technical conference to address issues related to the California Independent System Operator Corporation's (CAISO) tariff, which reflects the Market Redesign and Technology Upgrade (MRTU) program. The purpose of the technical conference was to explore and discuss the CAISO's proposed methodology for allocating transmission import capacity in conjunction with resource adequacy requirements in the MRTU Tariff. Two notices were issued prior to the technical conference providing commentors until February 16, 2007, to file post-technical conference comments with the Comission.
This notice rescinds the previously-announced February 16, 2007 period to file post-technical conference comments with the Commission. Instead, commentors should submit their comments with the CAISO, consistent with the directions given by the CAISO in its February 7, 2007 market notice,
For more information, please contact Aileen Roder at 202-502-6022,
As announced in the Notice of Conference issued on January 8, 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold the first in a series of conferences on February 27, 2007, to examine the state of competition in wholesale power markets. The first conference will be held from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (EST) at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in the Commission Meeting Room. All interested persons are invited to attend, and registration is not required.
The agenda for this conference, with a list of participating panelists, is attached. In order to allot sufficient time for questions and responses, each speaker will be provided with eight (8) minutes for prepared remarks. Due to the limitation of time, slides and graphic displays (e.g., PowerPoint® presentations) will not be permitted during the conference. Presenters who wish to distribute copies of their prepared remarks or handouts should bring 100 double-sided copies to the conference. Presenters who wish to include comments, presentations, or handouts in the record for this proceeding should file their comments with the Secretary of the Commission. Comments may either be filed on paper or electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at
Transcripts of the conference will be immediately available from Ace Reporting Company (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646) for a fee. They will be available for the public on the Commission's eLibrary system seven calendar days after FERC receives the transcript.
A free webcast of this event will be available through
Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to
For more information about this conference, please contact: Moon Paul, Esq., Office of the General Counsel—Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6136,
a.
b.
c.
d.
Take notice that the Commission will convene a technical conference on Wednesday, March 14, 2007, at 10 am (EST), in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426.
The technical conference will address issues raised by Natural's January 4, 2007, filing in the referenced docket related only to Natural's gas interchangeability and maximum Btu limit tariff proposals.
Natural and the other parties should be prepared to address the following topics at the technical conference:
1.
2.
3.
Any parties in this proceeding that wish to make a presentation at this technical conference should notify the Commission prior to the conference.
FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an e-mail to
All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further information please contact Sandra Elliott at (202) 502-8694 or e-mail
Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at 202-564-7167.
An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 7, 2006 (71 FR 17845).
EIS No. 20060045, ERP No. D-AFS-L65504-ID, Payette National Forest Travel Management Plan, Designate a System of Road, Trails and Areas Open to Motorized and Non-Motorized Use, Implementation, Adam, Washington, Idaho, Valley Counties, ID
EIS No. 20060401, ERP No. D-FRC-K05062-CA, Oroville Facilities Project, Issuing an New Federal License to Continue Hydroelectric Power (FERC No. 2100), Feather River, Sierra Nevada, Butte County, CA
EIS No. 20060406, ERP No. D-BLM-L65524-PA, Bay Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Located within the Bristol Bay and Goodnews Bay Areas, AK
EIS No. 20060449, ERP No. D-AFS-L65526-ID, Salmon-Challis National Forest, Lost River/Lemhi Grazing Allotments, To Improve Range
EIS No. 20060486, ERP No. D-NPS-D65038-MD, White-Tailed Deer Management Plan, Implementation, Catoctin Mountain Park, Frederick and Washington Counties, MD
EIS No. 20060274, ERP No. DD-AFS-L65155-00, Northern Spotted Owl Management Plan, Removal or the Modification to the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measures, Standards and Guidelines (to the Northwest Forest Plan) New Information to Address Three Deficiencies in Final Supplemental EIS (2004), Northwest Forest Plan, OR, WA, and CA
EIS No. 20060307, ERP No. DS-FHW-L40222-WA, WA-99 Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Project, Additional Information and Evaluation of Construction Plan, Provide Transportation Facility and Seawall with Improved Earthquake Resistence, U.S. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Seattle, WA
EIS No. 20060451, ERP No. F-CGD-B03015-MA, Neptune Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), Construction and Operation, Deepwater Port License Application, (Docket Number USCG-2004-22611) Massachusetts Bay, Gloucester and Boston, MA
EIS No. 20060495, ERP No. F-FHW-L40226-WA, WA-28
Eastside Corridor Project, Proposal to Improve WA-28 (Sunset Highway) Corridor from WA-2-97 (Ocdabashian Bridge) to 9th Street NE. in East Wenatcheee, City of East Wenatchee, Douglas County, WA
EIS No. 20060515, ERP No. F-FHW-C40161-NY, NY-17 Parksville/SH-5223, Liberty-County Line, Part 1 Construction and Reconstruction to Interstate Standards, Funding and U.S. Army COE Permit Issuance, Town of Liberty, Sullivan County, NY
EIS No. 20060531, ERP No. F-FRC-L05236-0R, Clackamas River Hydroelectric Project, Application for Relicensing of an Existing 173 megawatt(MS) Project, (FERC No. 2195-011) Clackamas River Basin, Clackamas County, OR
EIS No. 20060545, ERP No. F-FTA-G40191-TX, Southeast Corridor Project, Proposed Fixed-Guideway Transit System, Funding, Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO) of Harris County, Houston, Harris County, TX
EIS No. 20070002, ERP No. F-FHW-F40420-MN, I-94/TH-10 Interregional Connection from St. Cloud to Becker Transportation Improvements, Funding and U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, Sherurne, Stearns, and Wright Counties, MN
EIS No. 20070005, ERP No. F-IBR-K39082-AZ, Welton-Mohawk Title Transfer Project, Transfer of the Facilities, Works, and Lands of the Welton Mohawk Division of the Gila Project, Welton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District, Yuma County, AZ
EIS No. 20070009, ERP No. F-AFS-K65317-CA, Antelope-Pardee 500kV Transmission Project, Construct, Operate and Maintain a New 25.6 mile 500kV Transmission Line, Right-of-Way Permit and Special Use Authorization, Angeles National Forest, Los Angeles County, CA
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Tribal Pesticide Program Council (TPPC) will hold a 2 and ½ day meeting, beginning on March 7 and ending on March 9, 2007. This notice announces the location and times for the meeting, and sets forth the tentative agenda topics. The TPPC Tribal Caucus meeting on March 7, 10:30 until noon and the March 9, ½ day meeting from 9 a.m. to noon are scheduled for the TPPC members only.
The meeting will be held on March 7 and 8, 2007 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will be held at 2777 South Crystal Dr., One Potomac Yards (South Bldg.) 4th Floor Conference Center/South, Arlington, VA.
Georgia A. McDuffie, Field and External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 605-0195; fax number: (703) 308-1850; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you [are interested in TPPC's information exchange relationship with EPA regarding important issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process. All parties are invited and encourage you to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate.” Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: Those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the application of this action to a particular entity, consult either person listed under
1.
2.
1. TPPC State of the Council Report
2. EPA/OPP, OECA and Region Update/Report
3. Pesticides and Health Impacts/Focus on impacts on Children
4. TPPC Update/Report
5. Endangered Species Update
6. Pesticide Labeling and Personal Protective Equipment
7. Strategic Planning Discussion
8. Success Story/ Use of IPM in Controlling Invasives
Environmental protection.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice to extend period for objections.
EPA is extending the period for submission of objections concerning the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for EGU NO
The EPA is establishing a period ending on June 1, 2007 only for objections (including data) related to biomass cogeneration units. Objections must be postmarked by the last day of the period for objection and sent directly to the Docket Office listed in
Submit your objections, identified by Docket Number OAR-2004-0076 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
General questions concerning today's action and technical questions concerning heat input or fuel data should be addressed to Brian Fisher, USEPA Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Mail Code 6204 J, Washington, DC 20460. Telephone at (202) 343-9633, e-mail at
In the August 4, 2006 NODA (71 FR 44283), EPA provided notice that it had placed in the CAIR FIP docket allocation tables for EGU NO
The EPA originally provided a 30-day period for the unit owners, unit operators, and the public to submit objections regarding individual units' treatment as potentially covered or not covered by CAIR and, for units treated as potential CAIR units, the data used in the allocation calculations and the allocations resulting from such calculations. In response to a request from the American Forest and Paper Association, EPA extended the period for all objections an additional 30 days to October 5, 2006.
In requesting an additional extension of the period, certain biomass cogeneration unit owners noted the unique nature of the fuels utilized by biomass cogeneration units and the difficulties encountered in collecting data necessary to apply the efficiency standard to this type of cogeneration unit. In light of these circumstances, the EPA had extended the period until February 20, 2007 for objections (including data) related to any biomass cogeneration units, and further extends it to June 1, 2007 in this notice. For all other objections, the deadline was October 5, 2006.
EPA believes the additional time will provide the Agency more adequate time to receive and evaluate necessary data and, if appropriate, address the concerns raised about application of the efficiency standard to biomass cogeneration units.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before March 19, 2007. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Allison E. Zaleski, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10236 NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-6466, or via fax at (202) 395-5167 or via Internet at
For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Leslie F. Smith at (202) 418-0217 or via the Internet at
Federal Communications Commission.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 6, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 13, 2007.
This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. E7-2377) published on page 6566 of the issue for Monday, February 12, 2007.
Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta heading, the entry for FBG Holding Corporation, Tampa, Florida, is revised to read as follows:
Comments on this application must be received by March 9, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 12, 2007.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center Web site at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 12, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 12, 2007.
This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. E7-2377) published on page 6566 of the issue for Monday, February 12, 2007.
Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta heading, the entry for FBG Holding Corporation, Tampa, Florida, is revised to read as follows:
Comments on this application must be received by March 9, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 12, 2007.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center Web site at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 12, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 12, 2007.
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 March 16, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 13, 2007.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
The Consumer Advisory Council will meet on Thursday, March 8, 2007. The meeting, which will be open to public observation, will take place at the Federal Reserve Board's offices in Washington, D.C., in Dining Room E on the Terrace level of the Martin Building. Anyone planning to attend the meeting should, for security purposes, register no later than Tuesday, March 6, by completing the form found online at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/secure/forms/cacregistration.cfm.
Additionally, attendees must present photo identification to enter the building.
The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and is expected to conclude at 12:45 p.m. The Martin Building is located on C Street, NW, between 20th and 21st Streets.
The Council's function is to advise the Board on the exercise of the Board's responsibilities under various consumer financial services laws and on other matters on which the Board seeks its advice. Time permitting, the Council will discuss the following topics:
•
Members will discuss various issues related to home lending practices and mortgage foreclosures.
•
With the objective of designing alternative privacy notices that are easier for consumers to understand and use, the Board, the other banking agencies, the FTC, and the SEC have been conducting cognitive and usability consumer research into how privacy notices may be made more effective for consumers. Members will discuss several aspects of the model notices as well as findings from the accompanying project report.
•
Members will discuss proposed amendments to Regulation E that would create an exception for certain small-dollar transactions from the requirement that terminal receipts be made available to consumers at the time of the transaction.
•
Members will discuss check holding guidelines and practices with a focus on issues related to fraudulent official checks, counterfeit cashier's checks and money orders.
Reports by committees and other matters initiated by Council members also may be discussed.
Persons wishing to submit views to the Council on any of the above topics may do so by sending written statements to Kyan Bishop, Secretary of the Consumer Advisory Council, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C. 20551. Information about this meeting may be obtained from Ms. Bishop, 202-452-6470.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 13, 2007.
Notice.
The General Services Administration is publishing a Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed construction of a new commercial port of entry in San Luis, Arizona.
Mr. Morris Angell, Regional Environmental Quality Advisor (REQA), Capital Investment Branch, Portfolio Management Division, US General Services Administration, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, phone 415-522-3473, or email:
The US Border Station at San Luis, Arizona is a full-service land port of entry (POE) where the Federal Government inspects privately-owned vehicles (POV), pedestrians, and commercial vehicles seeking to enter the United States. Immediately to the south is the Mexican City of San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora. An average of 180 commercial vehicles, 350 bicycles, 10,000 automobiles, and 11,000 pedestrians cross the border at this station every day. Since the POE was constructed in 1984, the population of the region has grown, illegal immigration and smuggling have become epidemic, inspection technology has significantly improved, law enforcement activities have increased, and trade policies have changed dramatically. Consequently, the existing facilities are overloaded and in need of repair, upgrades, and expansion.
The General Services Administration (GSA) proposes to relocate the existing commercial port of entry, currently in downtown San Luis, Arizona to a vacant former Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) property to the east of the City. Details of the Proposed Action are described in a NEPA document entitled
The BoR used the 2000 EA to support a previous FONSI which determined that Federal lands could be transferred to the Greater Yuma Port Authority (GYPA) for a new port of entry without any significant environmental impacts. Because the BoR EA included detailed descriptions of the affected area and the proposed facilities to be constructed the GSA has adopted the BoR's 2000 EA and FONSI in support of this FONSI regarding the impacts of constructing of the commercial POE.
This action includes mitigation measures to reduce impacts identified in the BoR EA to a level that is less than significant. The GYPA's commitments to implement these mitigation measures have also been included as conditions of the transfer of 80 acres of land within the project area to the General Service Administration (GSA) for the construction of the commercial POE. The original EA and BoR FONSI were published and circulated among responsible government agencies for a period of no less than 30 days. Comments received during circulation were considered by GSA in this final decision.
Pursuant to the provision of GSA Order ADM 1095.1F, the PBS NEPA Desk Guide, and the regulations issued by the Council of Environmental Quality, (40 CFR parts 1500 to 1508), this notice advises the public of our finding, that the action described above will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The environmental impacts of constructing and operating the proposed facilities were considered in the Final EA and FONSI pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA. The Final EA and FONSI are available for review at the San Luis Public Library, 731 N 1st Ave., San Luis, AZ 85349. The Final EA and FONSI can also be viewed on the GSA Web site at
The build alternative will result in temporary construction impacts involving the air quality (dust) and noise, a minor loss of soil and vegetation, and potential stormwater pollution runoff from the site. To mitigate potential long-term impacts, GSA will implement the measures that are discussed in the Environmental Assessment and FONSI.
The Finding of No Significant Impact will become final thirty (30) days after the publication of this notice, provided that no information leading to a contrary finding is received or comes to light during this period.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
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 a proposed collection 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
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, e-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and OS document identifier, to
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 council meeting of the aforementioned committee.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Margie Scott-Cseh, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., M/S E-07, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone (404) 639-8317.
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 of the aforementioned committee.
1. Breakout Group Discussions:
Vaccine Preventable Disease Surveillance
Respiratory Outbreaks
Ecology of Emerging Zoonoses and Other Infectious Diseases
Food-Borne Diseases: The New Way Forward
Working with Academic Partners
Chlamydia Screening Programs in the U.S.
Antimicrobial Resistance
Infectivity Component of Infection Control
Exotic Animal Importation and Trade
2. Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases Updates
3. Strategies for Identifying New Pathogens
Other agenda items include announcements/introductions; follow-up on actions recommended by the Board in May 2006; consideration of future directions, goals, and recommendations.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Written comments are welcome and should be received by the contact person listed below prior to the opening of the meeting.
Tony Johnson, Office of the Director, NCID, CDC, Mailstop A-45, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, e-mail
The Director, Management Analysis and Services office has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Establishing and Maintaining a List of U.S. Dairy Product Manufacturers/Processors with Interest in Exporting to Chile” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by March 19, 2007.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974.
Denver Presley, Jr., Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1472.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance:
Section 512(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(j)) gives FDA the authority to set conditions under which animals treated with investigational new animal drugs may be marketed for food use. Under this authority, the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), issues to a new animal drug sponsor (sponsors) a slaughter authorization letter that sets the terms under which investigational animals may be slaughtered. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) also monitors the slaughter of animals treated with investigational new animal drugs under the authority of the Meat Inspection Act (21 USC 601-95). Sponsors must submit slaughter notices each time investigational animals are presented for slaughter, unless this requirement is waived by an authorization letter (21 CFR 511.1(b)(5), 9 CFR 309.17). These notifications assist CVM and USDA in monitoring the safety of the food supply. Slaughter notices were previously submitted to CVM and USDA on paper (OMB No. 0910-0450). CVM's guidance on “How to Use E-Mail to Submit a Notice of Intent to Slaughter for Human Food Purposes” provides sponsors with the option to submit a slaughter notice as an e-mail attachment to CVM and USDA via the Internet. The electronic submission of slaughter notices is part of CVM's ongoing initiative to provide a method for paperless submissions.
In the
The likely respondents for this collection of information are new animal drug sponsors.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The number of respondents in table 1 of this document is the number of sponsors registered to make electronic submissions (25). The number of total annual responses is based on a review of the actual number of submissions made between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006 (2 x hours per response (.41) = .82 total hours).
Submitting a slaughter notice electronically represents an alternative to submitting a notice of intent to slaughter on paper. The reporting burden for compilation and submission of this information on paper is included in OMB clearance of the information collection provisions of 21 CFR 511.1 (OMB No. 0910-0450). The estimates in table 1 of this document reflect the burden associated with putting the same information on FDA Form #3488 and resulted from previous discussions with sponsors about the time necessary to complete this form.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by April 17, 2007.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to:
Denver Presley, Jr., Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1472.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
FDA issued the “Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Labeling for Male Condoms Made of Natural Rubber Latex” on November 14, 2005 (70 FR 69156). Section 21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the act) states that the Secretary, through the Commissioner, shall be responsible to conduct research relating to devices in carrying out this chapter. In order to evaluate the understandability of the condom labeling language currently on the market and the labeling language proposed in this draft guidance, as well as a future revised version of the labeling, FDA plans to evaluate readers' comprehension of three versions of condom labeling through a label comprehension study.
The proposed label comprehension study will measure current and potential condom consumers' understanding of the current market labeling and the proposed condom labeling in the draft guidance of the retail package, foil and package insert of condom labeling, as well as a future revised version of the labeling. The label comprehension study will follow a sequential design, first testing both the current market labeling (Part A) and the draft labeling in the guidance (Part B) in Stage 1, and then a revised version of the labeling in Stage 2.
FDA will conduct a label comprehension study via a mall intercept/central location intercept methodology with pre-screened participants. FDA will administer a screening instrument, the REALM (Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine) test, an informed consent, and a questionnaire with approximately 20 questions related to the condom labeling language to a total of 1,200 participants: 400 participants for Part A of Stage 1, 400 participants for Part B of Stage 1, and 400 participants for Stage 2 of the study. Results of the study will be considered in FDA's condom labeling recommendations to provide important risk/benefit and use information associated with condoms in an easily understood language.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
This was based on similar types of FDA studies conducted in the past. FDA has conducted both focus group studies and label comprehension studies, where similar participant activities, such as reading the labeling, taking the REALM test, signing the informed consent, and answering questions on a self-administered questionnaire took place. In order to achieve the 1,200 participants for the condom label comprehension study, FDA estimates screening 3,300 to achieve 1,200 interviews.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by March 19, 2007.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974.
Denver Presley, Jr., Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1472.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
In the
FDA requested public comment on the information collection requirements in the June 7, 2006, interim final rule.
The collection of information requirements for the June 7, 2006, interim final rule were approved under the emergency processing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and assigned OMB control 0910-0586. With this approval, OMB informed the agency that the preamble and solicitation of public comment by the June 7, 2006, interim final rule would serve as a 60-day notice for the 3 year extension of this collection of information. In addition, OMB also requested that FDA, in submitting its extension request, summarize comments received in response to the 60-day notice, describe how the agency will address substantive issues raised by the commenters, and provide an update on the status of the final rule. FDA is responding to OMB's requests below:
FDA received 10 comments on the interim final rule, three of which related to the information collection requirements. The other comments on the rule will be addressed in the preamble to the final rule. FDA expects to publish the final rule in 2009.
One comment suggested that the requirement that a laboratory certify to an institutional review board (IRB) that the testing was done in a life-threatening situation and that it was not feasible to obtain consent serves no purpose, since these issues have already been pre-determined by FDA and provide the basis for exemption. FDA disagrees. The certification requirement ensures that the laboratory documents for the IRB that it is complying with the requirements of the regulation. The comment also stated that the concurrence of an independent physician, which will occur post-
Another comment requested that § 50.32(e)(4) explicitly require investigators to notify the jurisdictional public health authority upon suspicion of need for testing for a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agent with the investigational device; and further that the language should reinforce that investigators must provide test results to the jurisdictional public health authority in accordance with State and/or Federal law. This comment falls out of the scope of the questions posed in the
The last comment encouraged FDA to consider increasing the length of time in which the written certification for the exception is required to be submitted, with the goal of easing the reporting burden. The certification is required to be submitted within 5 working days of the use of the investigational device. FDA believes that the 5-day reporting period is important because it helps ensure that IRBs will receive timely notice of instances in which this rule is used. In addition, the 5-day reporting period appears in other FDA human subject protection regulations that address other exceptions to the general requirement of obtaining informed consent and the agency believes that it is important to maintain consistency within its regulations wherever possible.
The likely respondents for this collection of information are clinical laboratories and physicians.
FDA estimates the burden of the collection of information as follows:
FDA is adding § 50.23(e)(1) (21 CFR 50.23(e)(1)) to provide an exception to the general rule that informed consent is required for the use of an investigational in vitro diagnostic device. This exception will apply to those situations in which the in vitro investigational diagnostic device is used to prepare for and respond to a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear terrorism event or other public health emergency, if the investigator and an independent licensed physician make the determination and later certify in writing that: (1) There is a life-threatening situation necessitating the use of the investigational device; (2) obtaining informed consent from the subject is not feasible because there was no way to predict the need to use the investigational device when the specimen was collected and there is not sufficient time to obtain consent from the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative; and (3) no satisfactory alternative device is available. Under the June 7, 2006, interim final rule these determinations are made before the device is used, and the written certifications are made within 5 working days after the use of the device. If use of the device is necessary to preserve the life of the subject and there is not sufficient time to obtain the determination of the independent licensed physician in advance of using the investigational device, § 50.23(e)(2) provides that the certifications must be made within 5 working days of use of the device. In either case, the certifications are submitted to the IRB within 5 working days of the use of the device.
From its knowledge of the industry, FDA estimates that there are approximately 150 laboratories that could perform this type of testing. FDA estimates that in the United States each year there are approximately 450 naturally occurring cases of diseases or conditions that are identified in CDC's list of category ‘A’ biological threat agents. The number of cases that would result from a terrorist event or other public health emergency is uncertain. Based on its knowledge of similar types of submissions, FDA estimates that it will take about 2 hours to prepare each certification.
Section 50.23(e)(4) provides that an investigator must disclose the investigational status of the device and what is known about the performance characteristics of the device at the time test results are reported to the subject's health care provider and public health authorities, as applicable. Under the June 7, 2006, interim final rule, the investigator provides the IRB with the information required by § 50.25 (21 CFR 50.25) (except for the information described in § 50.25(a)(8)) and the procedures that will be used to provide this information to each subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. Based on its knowledge of similar types of submissions, FDA estimates that it will take about 1 hour to prepare this information and submit it to the health care provider and, where appropriate, to public health authorities.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for TYGACIL and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Submit written comments and petitions to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy (HFD-007), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the human drug product becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted, as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product TYGACIL (tigecycline). TYGACIL is indicated for the treatment of infections caused by susceptible strains of the designated microorganisms in the conditions listed in this paragraph for patients 18 years of age and older: (1) Complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for TYGACIL is 2,487 days. Of this time, 2,304 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 183 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,335 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Comments and petitions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of Recertification.
Under the Oil Terminal and Tanker Environmental Oversight Act of 1990, the Coast Guard may certify on an annual basis, an alternative voluntary advisory group in lieu of a regional citizens' advisory council for Prince William Sound, Alaska. This certification allows the PWSRCAC to monitor the activities of terminal facilities and crude oil tankers under the Prince William Sound Program established by the statute. The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the Coast Guard has recertified the alternative voluntary advisory group for Prince William Sound, Alaska.
This recertification is effective for the period from March 1, 2007 through February 28, 2008.
You may request a copy of the recertification letter by writing to Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpi), by phone at (907)463-2809, or by mail at P.O. Box 25517, Juneau, Alaska 99802.
As part of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Congress passed the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight and Monitoring Act of 1990 (the Act), 33 U.S.C. 2732, to foster a long-term partnership among industry, government, and local communities in overseeing compliance with environmental concerns in the operation of crude oil terminals and oil tankers.
On October 18, 1991, the President delegated his authority under 33 U.S.C 2732 (o) to the Secretary of Transportation in Executive Order 12777, section 8(g) (see 56 FR 54757; October 22, 1991) for purposes of certifying advisory councils, or groups, subject to the Act. On March 3, 1992, the Secretary redelegated that authority to the Commandant of the USCG (see 57 FR 8582; March 11, 1992). The Commandant redelegated that authority to the Chief, Office of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection (G-M) on March 19, 1992 (letter #5402).
On July 7, 1993, the USCG published a policy statement, 58 FR 36504, to clarify the factors that shall be considered in making the determination as to whether advisory councils, or groups, should be certified in accordance with the Act.
The Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental Protection (G-M), redelegated recertification authority for advisory councils, or groups, to the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District on February 26, 1999 (letter #16450).
On September 16, 2002, the USCG published a policy statement, 67 FR 58440, that changed the recertification procedures such that applicants are required to provide the USCG with comprehensive information every three years (triennially). For each of the two years between the triennial application procedure, applicants submit a letter requesting recertification that includes a description of any substantive changes to the information provided at the previous triennial recertification. Further, public comment is not solicited prior to recertification during streamlined years, only during the triennial comprehensive review.
By letter dated January 30, 2007, the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard certified that the PWSRCAC qualifies as an alternative voluntary advisory group under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o). This recertification terminates on February 28, 2008.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD.
Notice; Announcement of Rescheduled Meeting.
On January 25, 2007, HUD announced through
Additionally, HUD's LEP Final Guidance was scheduled to become effective on February 21, 2007. By notice published elsewhere in today's
HUD will conduct the meeting on LEP Final Guidance on February 28, 2007.
The LEP Guidance meeting will be held from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. (Eastern time) on February 28, 2007, at HUD Headquarters for which the address is the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. HUD is no longer soliciting participation in the meeting.
Pamela D. Walsh, Director, Program Standards and Compliance Division, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5226, Washington, DC 20410-0500; telephone (202) 402-2288 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
On January 22, 2007, HUD published in the
The January 22, 2007, LEP Final Guidance was preceded by proposed guidance published on December 19, 2003 (68 FR 70968) for which HUD solicited public comment. The LEP Final Guidance takes into consideration the public comments received on the December 19, 2003, proposed guidance. There are no significant changes between the proposed guidance and the final guidance. However, for purposes of clarification, several minor changes were made in Appendix A, and a new Appendix B has been added to the Guidance. Appendix B, “Questions and Answers (Q&A),” responds to frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to providing meaningful access to LEP persons. HUD's LEP Final Guidance can be found at
HUD will hold a meeting on the guidance on February 28, 2007, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., at HUD Headquarters. Interested members of the public were earlier invited to attend this meeting, originally scheduled for February 13, 2007, by notice published in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD.
Notice: Change in Effective Date of Final Guidance.
Through this notice, HUD advises members of the public that its final “Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons,” as required by Executive Order (EO) 13166, published in the
HUD is moving the effective date to March 7, 2007, in order to allow HUD the opportunity to brief interested members of the public on the guidance before it takes effect. A meeting for this purpose originally scheduled to be held at HUD Headquarters on February 13, 2007, had to be rescheduled for February 28, 2007. Please see notice published elsewhere in today's
Effective Date: March 7, 2007.
Pamela D. Walsh, Director, Program Standards and Compliance Division, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5226, Washington DC 20410,
On January 22, 2007, HUD published in the
In order to allow HUD to brief interested members of the public and affected parties, HUD is moving the effective date to March 7, 2007. HUD's briefing was originally scheduled for February 13, 2007, and has been rescheduled. Please see rescheduled meeting notice published elsewhere in today's
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability and receipt of applications.
We announce our receipt of applications to conduct certain activities pertaining to enhancement of survival of endangered species.
Written comments on this request for a permit must be received by March 19, 2007.
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Assistant Regional Director, Fisheries-Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225-0486; facsimile 303-236-0027. Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act [5 U.S.C. 552A] and Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552], by any party who submits a request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to Kris Olsen, by mail or by telephone at 303-236-4256. All comments received from individuals become part of the official public record.
The following applicants have requested issuance of enhancement of survival
Applicants: Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo, Omaha, Nebraska, TE-053961; Turner Endangered Species Fund, Cimarron, New Mexico, TE-051139; Louisville Zoological Gardens, Louisville, Kentucky, TE-051826; Phoenix Zoo, Phoenix, Arizona, TE-051832; National Zoo, Front Royal, Virginia, TE-051828; National Zoo, Washington, DC, TE-051827; and Lee Richardson Zoo, Garden City, Kansas, TE-051825.
The applicants request renewed permits to possess black-footed ferrets (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability and receipt of applications.
We announce our receipt of applications to conduct certain activities pertaining to enhancement of survival of endangered species.
Written comments on this request for a permit must be received by March 19, 2007.
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Assistant Regional Director-Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225-0486; facsimile 303-236-0027. Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act [5 U.S.C. 552A] and Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552], by any party who submits a request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to Kris Olsen, by mail or by telephone at 303-236-4256. All comments received from individuals become part of the official public record.
The following applicants have requested issuance of enhancement of survival permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability and receipt of applications.
We announce our receipt of applications to conduct certain activities pertaining to enhancement of survival of endangered species.
Written comments on this request for a permit must be received by March 19, 2007.
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Assistant Regional Director, Fisheries-Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center,
The following applicants have requested issuance of enhancement of survival permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species.
We must receive written data or comments on these applications at the address given below, by
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (Attn: Victoria Davis, Permit Biologist).
Victoria Davis, telephone 404/679-4176; facsimile 404/679-7081.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species. This notice is provided under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the administrative record. We will honor such requests to the extent allowable by law. There may also be other circumstances in which we would withhold from the administrative record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
The applicant requests authorization to take (receive, hold, rehabilitate, release, euthanize) the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle (
The applicant requests authorization to take (receive, hold, rehabilitate, release, euthanize) the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle (
The applicant requests authorization to take (receive, hold, rehabilitate, release, euthanize) the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle (
The applicant requests authorization to take (capture, collect tissues, collect vouchers, ear tag, release) the watercress darter (
The applicant requests authorization to take (capture, mark, release) the Key Largo cotton mouse (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species.
We must receive written data or comments on these applications at the address given below, by March 19, 2007.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (Attn: Victoria Davis, Permit Biologist).
Victoria Davis, telephone 404-679-4176; facsimile 404-679-7081.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species. This notice is provided under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the administrative record. We will honor such requests to the extent allowable by law. There may also be other circumstances in which we would withhold from the administrative record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
The applicant requests authorization to take (capture, release, translocate) the American burying beetle (
The applicant requests authorization to take (capture, release, transport, chemically immobilize, hold temporarily, radio collar, take tissue and blood samples, provide medical treatment, release) the Florida panther (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications.
The following applicants have applied for scientific research permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before March 19, 2007.
Written comments should be submitted to the Chief, Endangered Species Division, Ecological Services, P.O. Box 1306, Room 4102, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103. Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act. Documents will be available for public inspection, by appointment only, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Ave., SW., Room 4102, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when submitting comments. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the official administrative record and may be made available to the public.
Chief, Endangered Species Division, P.O. Box 1306, Room 4102, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103, (505) 248-6920.
16 U.S.C. 1531,
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321
The Draft RMP/EIS will be available for public review for 90 calendar days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes its Notice of Availability (NOA) in the
To ensure that the public has an opportunity to comment on the draft document, formal public hearings and open houses will be scheduled in Jackson, Rock Springs, Marbleton, and Pinedale, Wyoming. All meetings, hearings, or other public involvement activities will be announced at least 15 days in advance through public notices, media news releases, Web site announcements, or mailings.
Copies of the Draft RMP/EIS have been sent to affected Federal, State and local governments and to interested parties. The document will be available electronically on the following Web site:
• Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.
• Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, 432 East Mill Street, P. O. Box 768, Pinedale, Wyoming 82941.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kellie Roadifer, Team Leader, BLM Pinedale Field Office, 432 East Mill Street, P.O. Box 768, Pinedale, Wyoming 82941. Ms. Roadifer may also be contacted by telephone: (307) 367-5309. Requests for information may be sent electronically to:
The Pinedale Field Office planning area is located in Sublette and Lincoln Counties, Wyoming. It includes approximately 922,880 acres of public land surface and 1,199,280 acres of Federal mineral estate administered by the BLM.
The existing Pinedale RMP was completed and its Record of Decision (ROD) signed on December 12, 1988. Since completion of the Pinedale RMP, as amended and maintained, new information and changed conditions within the planning area have resulted in a need for the BLM to update that RMP. These changes include but are not limited to: increased oil and gas exploration and development activities, heightened public awareness of and interest in BLM management actions and permitted uses, increasing demand for recreation activities on public lands, increasing conflicts between land uses, changes in national policies and interests, and expanded scientific knowledge and information.
Consistent with Federal regulations found at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1610.2, the BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and initiate its revision of the Pinedale RMP (1988). The plan revision process would include review and analyses of current conditions, consideration of new data, new or revised policies, and consideration of circumstances affecting major portions of or the entire geographic area addressed in the 1988 Pinedale RMP. As part of the planning process, the BLM would develop goals and objectives for its management of the public land and resources that it administers. As required by the FLPMA planning regulations, the BLM would produce a revised plan and an EIS.
After its completion and issuance of a ROD, a revised Pinedale RMP/EIS would establish new land allocations and management guidance for the Pinedale planning area. Adoption of the revised RMP/EIS would not alter previously approved site-specific activities and developments such as the natural gas development of the Jonah Field and Pinedale Anticline. Existing leases and development would continue to be managed consistent with their respective operating plans and authorizations. However, if requested by operators or other permit holders, the BLM would consider revising leases and other authorizing instruments to incorporate revised RMP guidance or conditions included in its EIS ROD.
The Draft RMP/EIS describes existing conditions of the physical, biological, cultural, historic, and socioeconomic resources of and surrounding the planning area. Based on planning criteria and resource issues and concerns identified during scoping, alternatives for management were developed and impacts analyzed. Concerns about planning decisions to be made for the following were considered:
1. Energy and mineral resources exploration and economic development;
2. Access to and transportation systems on public lands;
3. Land ownership pattern adjustments;
4. Fire management;
5. Livestock grazing and vegetation management, including management of non-native and invasive species;
6. Air and water quality;
7. Management of impacts land uses and human activities to threatened, endangered, candidate and sensitive species, and wildlife habitat;
8. Management of cultural properties, visual resources, paleontological resources, recreation activities and off-road vehicles;
9. Existing lease rights; and
10. Potential socio-economic consequences of implementing revised plan decisions.
Based on the analyses of alternative management strategies and guidance and interdisciplinary team and cooperating agencies discussions, the Draft RMP
The BLM analyzed four alternatives for resource management planning in detail:
•
•
•
•
As established by the Pinedale RMP, there are two Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), Rock Creek and Beaver Creek, totaling approximately 8,900 acres. With the Preferred Alternative, the BLM proposes to establish two additional ACECs:
•
•
Three areas were proposed for consideration as ACECs: Ross Butte, White-tailed Prairie Dog and the Wind River Front. While the BLM found that these areas meet relevance and importance criteria and effects of including these proposals analyzed, none of them were recommended for inclusion in BLM's Preferred Alternative. Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative) would establish two Special Recreation Management Areas (SMRAs): CCC Ponds and Boulder Lake. Alternative 4 also describes special management goals and objectives for Miller Mountain, Ross Butte, and the Wind River Front.
Much of the Pinedale planning area is considered to have a high potential for energy development. For those areas with high potential, the Draft RMP/EIS considers oil and gas, and wind energy development in support of the National Energy Plan and the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Performance-based land use objectives would be emphasized in Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative), and applied where appropriate in all alternatives except Alternative 1 (No Action). The Draft RMP/EIS considers and is in conformance with the BLM's National Fire Plan and Healthy Forest Initiative.
The BLM published its Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the revised RMP/EIS in the
Cooperating agencies assisting BLM in the development and preparation of the Draft RMP/EIS included county governments, conservation districts, other Federal agencies and the State of Wyoming. The BLM contacted tribal governments with possible interests, and offered opportunities for participation in the plan revision process. In preparation of the Draft RMP/EIS, the BLM considered all comments presented throughout the process. Background information and maps used in developing the Draft RMP/EIS are available for public review at the Pinedale Field Office.
The BLM welcomes your comments. To facilitate analysis of comments and information, the public is encouraged to submit comments in an electronic format either through the Web site identified in this notice or through electronic mail.
All comment submittals must include the commenter's name and street address. Comments including the names and street addresses of respondents will be available for public review at the Pinedale Field Office during its business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday except for Federal holidays. Your comments may be published as part of the EIS process. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or street address from public review or disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comments. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. Anonymous comments will not be considered. All submissions from organizations or businesses will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing Area and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period. The main issues addressed in the Draft EIS are geothermal resource leasing, recreation, and special status species. The area is within the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) and the preferred alternative is in conformance with the land use plan for the area. There are no species listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that occur in the area; however, the listed desert pupfish occurs within two miles of the area and potential impacts to that species are addressed in the Draft EIS. BLM will consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service on the desert pupfish. The most common public use of the area currently is motorized recreation. Impacts to recreation are addressed in the Draft EIS. Mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate conflicts with these uses have been developed in coordination with the California Department of Parks and Recreation, a cooperating agency on the project. These measures will apply to both action alternatives.
BLM must receive written comments on the Draft EIS within 60 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes their Notice of Availability in the
You may submit comments by e-mail to
John Dalton, 951-697-5311.
The Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing Area encompasses approximately 14,700 acres of Federal minerals in western Imperial County, California, north of State Route 78 and generally west and south of County Highway S-22. The area is part of the California Desert Conservation Area. The main issues addressed in the Draft EIS are geothermal resource leasing, recreation, and special status species. Three alternatives are analyzed in the Draft EIS: (1) No action, which would not lease any geothermal resources; (2) leasing only lands with existing noncompetitive lease applications; and
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) examined and found suitable for classification for lease and subsequent conveyance under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, as amended, approximately 15 acres of public land in Clark County, Nevada. The Legacy Vineyard Church proposes to use the land for a church and related facilities.
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the proposed lease/conveyance or classification of the lands until April 2, 2007.
Send written comments to the Field Manager, BLM Las Vegas Field Office, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89130.
Sharon DiPinto, Assistant Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Field Office, at (702) 515-5062.
The following described public land in Clark County, Nevada, has been examined and found suitable for classification for lease and subsequent conveyance under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869
In accordance with the R&PP Act, the Legacy Vineyard Church filed an application for the above-described 15 acres of public land to be developed as a church and related facilities. These related facilities include a sanctuary building (offices, classrooms, kitchen, restrooms, utility/storage rooms, and a lobby), sidewalks, landscaped areas, paved parking areas, youth athletic fields, and off site improvements. Additional detailed information pertaining to this application, plan of development, and site plans is in case file N-75855 located in the BLM Las Vegas Field Office at the above address.
Churches are a common applicant under the “public purposes” provision of the R&PP Act. The Legacy Vineyard Church is an Internal Revenue Service registered non-profit organization and is, therefore, a qualified applicant under the R&PP Act.
The land is not needed for any Federal purpose. The lease/conveyance is consistent with the Las Vegas Resource Management Plan dated October 5, 1998, and would be in the public interest. The lease/patent, when issued, will be subject to the provisions of the R&PP Act and applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, and will contain the following reservations to the United States:
1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).
2. All minerals together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe.
The lease/patent will be subject to:
1. An easement in favor of Clark County for roads, public utilities and flood control purposes.
2. All valid existing rights documented on the official public land records at the time of lease/patent issuance.
On February 16, 2007, the land described above will be segregated from all other forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the general mining laws, except for lease/conveyance under the R&PP Act, leasing under the mineral leasing laws, and disposals under the mineral material disposal laws.
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the State Director. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification of the land described in this notice will become effective April 17, 2007. The lands will not be offered for lease/conveyance until after the classification becomes effective.
43 CFR part 2741.
National Park Service, Interior.
Announcement of park boundary revision.
Notice is hereby given that the boundary of Golden Gate National Recreation Area is modified to include five acres of real property adjacent to the park. This adjustment is accomplished to include private property that the owner wishes to donate to the United States for the use of Golden Gate National Recreation Area and which the National Park Service has concluded would be a valuable addition to the park. The real property added to the park is depicted as Tract 05-168 on Drawing No. 641/80,046, Sheet 6 of 26, Segment Map 05, dated November 3, 2006.
National Park Service, Gregory F. Gress, Chief, Pacific Land Resources Program Center, Pacific West Region, 1111 Jackson St., Suite 700, Oakland, CA 94607, (510) 817-1414.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The Act of October 27, 1972 provides that, after notifying the House Committee on Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Secretary of the Interior may make minor revisions to the boundary of Golden Gate National Recreation Area by publication of a revised map or description in the
National Park Service, Interior.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(c)), the National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement/General Management Plan (EIS/GMP) for Niobrara National Scenic River, Nebraska.
The Final EIS/GMP will remain available for public review for 30 days following the publishing of the notice of its availability in the
Requests for copies should be sent to the Superintendent, Niobrara National Scenic River, P.O. Box 591, O'Neill, Nebraska 68763. You may also view the document via the Internet through the NPS Planning, Environment, and Public Comment Web site (
The NPS prepared a Draft EIS/GMP for the Niobrara National Scenic River, pursuant to section 102(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The draft was made available for public review for 90 days (mid-August through mid-October 2005) during which time the NPS distributed over 400 copies of the draft. The draft was also made available at the park offices, on the Internet, and at area libraries. Over 400 people attended the 32 public meetings, which included four open houses. Twenty-three written comment letters were received from Agencies, organizations, and the public. Comments from individuals and public agencies did not require the NPS to add other alternatives, alter existing alternatives, or make significant changes to the impact analysis of the effects of any alternative.
The Superintendent, Niobrara National Scenic River, P.O. Box 591, O'Neill, Nebraska 68763, telephone 402-336-3970.
This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on February 13, 2007.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (PL 92-463) that the Boston Harbor Islands Advisory Council will meet on Wednesday, March 7, 2007. The meeting will be held on Spectacle Island in the Boston Harbor Islands national park area. The boat will depart promptly at 3 p.m. from Fan Pier, 2 Northern Avenue, Boston, MA 02210. We suggest you arrive at least 20 minutes prior to departure to allow time for boarding. The boat will return to Fan Pier at 6:30 p.m. Meeting attendees should sign up in advance by contacting Mary Raczko at
The Advisory Council was appointed by the Director of National Park Service pursuant to Pub. L. 104-333. The 28 members represent business, educational/cultural, community and environmental entities; municipalities surrounding Boston Harbor; Boston Harbor advocates; and Native American interests. The purpose of the Council is to advise and make recommendations to the Boston Harbor Islands Partnership with respect to the development and implementation of a management plan and the operations of the Boston Harbor Islands national park area.
The Agenda for this meeting is as follows:
The meeting is open to the public. Further information concerning Council meetings may be obtained from the Superintendent, Boston Harbor Islands. Interested persons may make oral/written presentations to the Council or file written statements. Such requests should be made at least seven days prior to the meeting to: Superintendent, Boston Harbor Islands NRA, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA 02110, telephone (617) 223-8667.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App 1, Section 10), that a meeting of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission will be held on March 5, 2007.
The Commission was reestablished pursuant to Public Law 87-126 as amended by Public Law 105-280. The purpose of the Commission is to consult with the Secretary of the Interior, or her designee, with respect to matters relating to the development of Cape Cod National Seashore, and with respect to carrying out the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act establishing the Seashore.
The Commission members will meet at 1 p.m. in the meeting room at Headquarters, Marconi Station, Wellfleet, Massachusetts for the regular business meeting to discuss the following:
The meeting is open to the public. It is expected that 15 persons will be able to attend the meeting in addition to Commission members.
Interested persons may make oral/written presentations to the Commission during the business meeting or file written statements. Such requests should be made to the park superintendent at least seven days prior to the meeting. Further information concerning the meeting may be obtained from the Superintendent, Cape Cod National Seashore, 99 Marconi Site Road, Wellfleet, MA 02667.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before February 3, 2007. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by the United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by March 5, 2007.
Requests for removal have been made for the following resources:
International Trade Commission.
Revised schedule for the subject investigation.
February 9, 2007.
Nathanael Comly (202-205-3174), 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 January 8, 2007, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigation (72 FR 1342, January 11, 2007). Subsequently, the Department of Commerce extended the date for its final determination in the investigation from March 12, 2007 to April 10, 2007 (72 FR 6201, February 9, 2007). The Commission, therefore, is revising its schedule to conform with Commerce's new schedule.
Revisions to the Commission's current schedule for the investigation are as follows: the deadline for filing posthearing briefs is changed from March 20 to March 22, 2007; the deadline for a non-party to file a statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigation, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, is changed from March 20 to March 22, 2007; comments on Commerce's final determination of sales at less than fair value (not to exceed 5 pages) may be filed on or before April 16, 2007; the date for final release of information by the Commission is changed from April 5 to May 8, 2007; the deadline for filing final party comments is changed from April 9 to May 10, 2007. All written submissions shall conform to the filing requirements set forth in our scheduling notice issued January 8, 2007 (72 FR 1341, January 11, 2007)
For further information concerning this investigation see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR Part 504) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of meetings for the transaction of Commission business and other matters specified, as follows:
Thursday, February 22, 2007, at 10 a.m.
Issuance of Proposed Decisions, Amended Proposed Decisions, and Amended Final Decisions in claims against Albania.
Open.
All meetings are held at the Foreign claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Administrative Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Room 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6988.
30-Day notice of information collection under review: Survey of state criminal history information systems.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until March 19, 2007. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gerard Ramker, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh St., NW, Washington, DC 20531.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review; Extension of Currently Approved Collection. Report of Public Safety Officers' Permanent and Total Disability Benefits
The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, will be submitting the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until April 17, 2007. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact M. Pressley at 202-353-8643 or 1-866-859-2687, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 810 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20531.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required, please contact Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC, 20530.
30-day notice of new information collection: 2007 Survey of Public Defenders Offices.
The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. The proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment until March 19, 2007. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-5806.
Written comments and suggestions from the pubic and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
Overview of this information:
(1) Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired. 2007 Survey of Public Defenders Offices.
(2) The Title of the Form/Collection: 2007 Survey of Public Defenders Offices.
(3) The Agency Form Number, if any, and the Applicable Component of the Department Sponsoring the Collection: Previous OMB number was 1121-0095. The agency form numbers are 06-SPDO Form-A and 06-SPDO Form-B. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice.
(4) Affected Public Who Will be Asked or Required to Respond, as well as a Brief Abstract: Primary: All State- and locally-funded attorneys serving as the head public defender for a county, city, or judicial district. Other: None.
This nationwide information collection will identify the number and characteristics of state- and county-funded public defender offices. Information will be gathered on type of offenses represented, expenditures, caseloads, training requirements, funding sources, reliance on outside legal services, and other related administrative issues. The information collected will provide a comprehensive portrait of state and local efforts to meet the needs of indigent criminal defendants through designated public defender offices.
(5) An Estimate of the Total Number of Respondents and the Amount of Time Estimated for an Average Respondent to Respond: An estimated 1,400 public defender offices will complete a 1-hour county questionnaire (06-SPDO Form-A).
(6) An Estimate of the Total Public Burden (in hours) Associated with the Collection: The estimated public burden associated with this collection is 1,400 hours. (1,400 data collection forms completed by each public defender office* one hour per form = 1,400 burden hours).
If additional information is required contact: Mrs. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained from RegInfo.gov at
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316; Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not toll-free numbers), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Employers use the certification required in paragraph (a)(2) of the Standard as a record of equipment modification and to demonstrate to interested parties (
Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Office of Trade and Labor Affairs.
Notice.
In response to the subject solicitation, inquiries have been received regarding the requirements of the solicitation. This notice publishes the inquiries and the responses to the inquiries. Due to the pending closing date of February 23, 2007 no further questions will be entertained.
Lisa Harvey, Department of Labor, Procurement Services Center, S-4307, 200 Constitution Ave, NW., Washington DC, 20210, Telephone (202) 693-4592, e-mail:
Q: Could you confirm that the grant seeks projects serving Central American laborers working in the countries listed,
A. The project seeks to serve Central American Laborers working in the countries listed.
Q. Is the aim of the project to help Central American laborers vindicate their rights under existing labor laws in their countries of origin, or also to help influence change in those laws for the better?
A. The SGA states “this project provides assistance to improve the
Q. If an organization wishes to apply to tackle part of the project (
A. The Applicant must demonstrate how it will undertake activities in all countries listed, whether alone or through an association of organizations.
Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Office of Trade and Labor Affairs.
Notice.
In response to the subject solicitation, inquiries have been received regarding the requirements of the solicitation. This notice publishes the inquiries and the responses to the inquiries. Due to the pending closing date of February 23, 2007 no further questions will be entertained.
Lisa Harvey, Department of Labor,
Q: I am aware that this proposal concerns all C.A.F.T.A. countries but I am wondering if there are priority countries concerning this specific grant. My question is whether or not it is possible to submit a proposal for just one of the C.A.F.T.A countries (such as Honduras), or perhaps just 3 or 4 of the C.A.F.T.A. countries, or does the grant require a regional proposal?
A: The project must undertake activities in all countries within the lifetime of the grant, beginning at a minimum the first year in El Salvador and Nicaragua. The applicants experience may be in only one or more of the countries, but the proposed activities must eventually roll out to all the countries and will be judged on the merits of how it plans to do this. Specifically, the SGA states: Applicants should submit proposals that are regional in scope and demonstrate the organization's capabilities to implement a project in accordance with the Statement of Work and the selection criteria. Proposals must provide for activities in all countries, and begin the first year at a minimum in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Applicants will not be penalized for lacking previous experience working on regional projects. For example, organizations with experience in only one country will be judged based on the success they achieved in that country and their proposal for working successfully throughout the rest of the targeted region. USDOL encourages applicants to be creative in proposing innovative and cost-effective interventions that will produce a demonstrable and sustainable impact.
Q: Would DOL be interested in receiving a proposal that focuses on DOL's stated objectives but as related to migrant workers? Such a proposal/project could potentially compliment other proposals?
a. Related question to that, given that migrant populations are more significant in some Central American countries than others, could IOM propose activities based on the countries with significant populations, rather than in all the stated countries?
b. And finally, if DOL would be interested in migrant focused proposal, would they prefer we submit a joint proposal with another organization that could take on all the other non-migrant workers?
A: Please ensure that any proposals submitted respond to the objectives outlined in the SGA, which do not specify migrant worker rights.
Q. The solicitation asks that labor law compliance is improved in the DR, Nicaragua, and either Guatemala or Honduras. Is there a preference one way or the other on Guatemala or Honduras? Would DOL like an explanation for why one country is chosen over the other?
A. DOL does not have a preference between either country. Regarding your question as to whether DOL needs an explanation as to why one country was chosen over another, the Applicant would be expected to demonstrate “the extent to which the application sets forth a clear and supportable course of action to improve labor law compliance” in the particular countries included in their proposal.
Q. The Award Information explains that the duration of the project funded by this solicitation is up to four years. Does DOL place additional weight on proposals that are for the full 4 years or are projects that run for less time (2 or 3 years) considered on an equal playing field as those that propose 4 years? Obviously we would need to weight the amount of programming that can get done in 3 countries over a considerable amount of time with the amount of funding allocated.
A. The Applicant will be judged on the merits of their proposed strategy to achieve sustainable results. The SGA states “Applicants will be evaluated on the clear identification and description of the specific strategy(s) the applicant proposes to use, and the effectiveness and attainability of project objectives by the end of the grant period”.
Q. The RFA reads “an applicant must demonstrate a country presence, independently or through a relationship with another organization(s) with country presence, which gives it the ability to initiate program activities upon award of the Cooperative Agreement”. (said organization) currently has a country office in Honduras and has worked in Nicaragua and the DR in the past. I read that to mean that we would need to identify local partners that would be working with (said organization) on implementation in each country and they would be prepared and ready to begin implementation upon reception of the award. Is this an accurate reading or would (said organization) need to have some sort of office open in each country prior to the award?
A. (Said organization) would not necessarily need to have an office open in each country prior to the award, however it would have to demonstrate country presence “independently or through a relationship with another organization(s) with country presence, which gives it the ability to initiate program activities upon award of the Cooperative Agreement.”
Q. From what I understand, DOL requires that our agreements with local organizations be in the form of contracts. Is this an accurate representation of DOL requirements everywhere? From our work in (country X), local NGOs would not have the capacity to operate under a traditional contract mechanism in that they do not have the capital to advance funding for work, but would instead require a sub-award to implement a project. Would this be acceptable?
A: The SGA consistently uses the terms “subaward” which can be either be a sub-contract or a sub-grant.
The President's High Growth Job Training Initiative (HGJTI) is a strategic effort to prepare workers for new and increasing job opportunities in high-growth, high-demand, and economically vital industries and sectors of the
Grant funds awarded under this Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA) should be used to implement industry-driven training solutions that address the long-term care sector's critical workforce challenges. Each solution must take place in the context of a regional strategic partnership between the workforce investment system, long-term care employers, and education and training providers, as well as other public and private sector partners that bring critical assets to the table. Proposed solutions should take full advantage of existing workforce development models, promising practices, and tools. Solutions must either take an existing promising solution, model, or approach to scale in the region or adapt a solution that has been demonstrated to have positive impact on the identified workforce development challenges in another region.
Applicants may be public, private for-profit, and private non-profit organizations. It is anticipated that average individual awards will be approximately $500,000.
This solicitation provides background information on the High Growth Job Training Initiative and critical elements required of projects funded under the solicitation. It also describes the application submission requirements, the process that eligible applicants must use to apply for funds covered by this solicitation, and how grantees will be selected. This announcement consists of seven parts:
• Part I provides background information on the High Growth Job Training Initiative and workforce development for the long-term care sector.
• Part II describes the size and nature of the anticipated awards.
• Part III describes the qualifications of an eligible applicant.
• Part IV provides information on the application and submission process.
• Part V explains the review process and rating criteria that will be used to evaluate applications.
• Part VI provides award administration information.
• Part VII contains ETA contact information.
• Part VIII contains other information for applicants.
The growth of the elderly population in the United States is expected to rise from 8 million in 2000 to 19 million by 2050, according to the U.S. Census. As regions across the country begin to experience these significant demographic shifts, demand for long-term health care services will increase exponentially. Already, a growing gap is emerging between the supply of long-term care workers and the mounting needs of the elderly and people with disabilities for long-term care services—translating into rapidly increasing demand for well-trained direct care givers. As a highly regulated industry impacted by a range of complex factors, the need for systemic regional coordination around long-term care workforce development is clear. The workforce system is a key component in this regional coordination. Building strategic partnerships, integrating assets, connecting to broader long-term care delivery strategies and trends, and effectively managing resources and workforce strategies regionally will lead to better outcomes for both workers and employers.To support regional strategic partnerships focused on developing systemic solutions to long-term care workforce challenges, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is making funds available through the President's High Growth Job Training Initiative. The remaining sections of this part describe ETA's key strategies and approaches to workforce development and describe critical elements for the High Growth Job Training Initiative grants for the long-term care sector.
The world is now witnessing one of the greatest economic transformations in history. Revolutions in technology and information have ushered in the globalization of the economic marketplace. Globalization is marked by tremendous advances in communications, travel, and trade—allowing individuals instant access to commerce from almost anywhere in the world. At the same time, American businesses now compete not only with companies across the street, but also with companies around the globe.
Global competition is typically seen as a national challenge. In reality, regions are where companies, workers, researchers, entrepreneurs and governments come together to create a competitive advantage in the global marketplace. That advantage stems from the ability to transform new ideas and new knowledge into advanced, high quality products or services—in other words, to innovate.
Regions that are successful in creating a competitive advantage demonstrate the ability to organize “innovation assets”—people, institutions, capital and infrastructure—to generate growth and prosperity in the region's economy. These regions are successful because they have connected three key elements: Workforce skills and lifelong learning strategies, investment and entrepreneurship strategies, and regional infrastructure and economic development strategies.
In the new global economy, a region's ability to develop, attract, and retain a well educated and skilled workforce is a key factor in our nation's economic competitiveness. A region may possess a strong infrastructure and the investment resources for success, but without the talented men and women to use those elements for economic growth, they are meaningless. Talent can also drive infrastructure and investment because investment capital is smart money and will follow talent, while infrastructure can be built to support a growing economy.
The health care industry plays a critical role in regional economic and talent development strategies for many regions across the country. As the largest industry in the U.S. economy in 2004, health care provided 13.5 million jobs nationally. The industry is frequently an engine of regional job growth, often serving as both a critical point of entry into the workforce and as a source of opportunities for career advancement. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more new jobs—about 19 percent, or 3.6 million—created between 2004 and 2014 will be in health care than in any other industry. Trends in the long-term care sector play a crucial role in driving this job growth. In fact, over 800,000 jobs for direct care workers in the long-term care sector will be created between 2004 and
Each year, the federal government invests billions of dollars in a state and local workforce investment network to assist businesses in recruiting, training, and retaining a skilled workforce. This network is called the workforce investment system, and consists of state and local workforce investment boards, state workforce agencies, and One-Stop Career Centers and their cooperating partners.
In this 21st century globally competitive economy, it is becoming increasingly important that the workforce system act as a strategic partner in regional economic development. As the leader in regional talent development, the workforce system aligns workforce investment dollars with regional economic growth goals by focusing on workforce and lifelong learning strategies that are demanded by employers and based on an understanding of future job growth in emerging, high-growth and economically vital industries and sectors of the American economy. Through this strategic alignment, the workforce system helps to ward off and respond to economic shocks, creating more stable and rewarding employment opportunities for the workforce. In addition, the system serves as a galvanizing partner by bringing together entities that can both grow talent, as well as leverage that talent base in attracting industry investment to the local or regional economy.
To maximize the impact of talent development activities, workforce investment boards must partner with a strong team composed of individuals and organizations necessary to transform the regional economy, including: Employers; educators at all levels, including community colleges; economic development entities; local, regional, and state government; the philanthropic community; faith-based and community organizations; research institutions; and other civic leaders with a stake in economic growth and talent development.
Within the context of these strategic partnerships, the workforce system should take a solutions-based approach to workforce development, focusing on systemic solutions that address short term challenges while contributing to long-term talent development and economic growth. Partners should work collaboratively to:
(1) Identify the regional economy;
(2) Form a core leadership group that is responsible for developing and implementing solutions and guiding the effort;
(3) Collect and analyze information about regional workforce needs and critical capacity constraints;
(4) Work collaboratively to explore, frame, and implement solutions; and
(5) Leverage resources and measure progress and outcomes.
Please note, this process is not linear—the steps may occur and reoccur depending on regional circumstances. The goal of this process is to ensure that workforce system resources help workers get education and training that aligns with regional industry-identified needs and job opportunities, and that these needs reflect economic development priorities in the region.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has modeled the role of strategic partnerships in demand-driven workforce investment through the President's High Growth Job Training Initiative (HGJTI). Through the initiative, ETA has identified high-growth, high-demand industries; evaluated their skill needs; and funded local and national partnership-based demonstration projects that provide workforce solutions to ensure that individuals can gain the skills to get good jobs with career pathways in rapidly expanding or transforming industries.
The foundation of the HGJTI has been partnerships between the publicly funded workforce investment system, business and industry representatives, and the continuum of education. These partnerships engage each partner in its area of strength. Industry representatives and employers define workforce challenges facing the industry and identify the competencies and skills required for the industry's workforce. Education and training providers, such as community colleges, assist in developing competency models and curricula and train new and incumbent workers. The workforce investment system compiles and analyzes local labor market information, accesses human capital (e.g. youth, unemployed, underemployed, and dislocated workers), provides funding to support training for qualified individuals, and connects trained workers to good jobs.
Recognizing the growing need for regional economic competitiveness in the global economy, ETA has continued to evolve its strategies for supporting strategic workforce development. In February 2006, ETA launched the Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED) Initiative, focusing on the role of talent development in driving regional economic competitiveness, leading to increased job growth and new opportunities for American workers. To optimize innovation and successful regional economic transformation, the WIRED framework brings together all the key players in a region to leverage their collective public and private sector assets and resources, and to devise strategies that focus on infrastructure, investment, and talent development.
The WIRED strategic framework supports regions in incorporating demand-driven talent and skills development into their larger economic strategies and integrating workforce development, economic development, and education efforts into a comprehensive system that is both flexible and responsive to the needs of business and workers.
The long-term care sector is a powerful regional job engine for direct care occupations as well as an important entry point into licensed health-related occupations. Talent development strategies to support recruitment, retention, and career pathways in this sector are critical to the current and future health of the American people, as well as the economic vitality of regions throughout the United States.
In 2004, approximately 2.09 million direct care workers in long-term care occupations provided care to Americans in long-term care settings, including nursing and personal care facilities, residential care facilities, and home health and community-based care services. Direct care workers include registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical and vocational nurses, paraprofessionals, including nurse aides, home health aides, and home and personal care workers, and direct support professionals. More than 70 percent of long-term care workers are paraprofessionals.
The long-term care sector is facing rapidly increasing demand for care over
Changes in service delivery systems in long-term care are also impacting job growth. For example, a trend in the long-term care system in which services are increasingly provided in home and community-based settings is creating stronger projected growth in home health aides and personal and home care aides occupations. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, home health aides is expected to be the fastest growing occupation in the United States through 2014, growing at a rate of 56 percent, adding 350,000 new jobs.
ETA began its engagement with the long-term care sector of the health care industry in 2003 with a series of forums through which industry executives shared their workforce challenges. Simultaneously, the Department of Labor began to collaborate with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to help support mutual understanding and collaboration between long-term care employers and the workforce investment system. Since that time, ETA has continued to support and further develop the role of the workforce system in response to long-term care workforce challenges through information sharing, partnership development, technical assistance, and investment in workforce solutions.
Through ETA-sponsored industry forums, long-term care employers and industry representatives identified numerous workforce challenges, as identified below. Applicants are encouraged to address one or more of these challenges in their proposal.
Numerous factors contribute to the difficulty in recruiting and retaining paraprofessionals. For example:
• Wages are generally low and benefits are poor because facilities, in particular, remain strongly dependent on public reimbursement rates;
• Job preparation, continuing education, and training frequently fail to prepare these workers for what they face in caring for people with increasingly complex needs;
• Advancement opportunities are often limited; and
• Paraprofessionals report that they often do not feel valued or respected by their employers and supervisors.
The long-term care sector, workforce development practitioners, and educators have developed a number of approaches for addressing long-term care workforce challenges. Broadly speaking, these approaches involve efforts to improve wages and benefits, create opportunities for skill development and career advancement (e.g. career ladders and lattices), and improve the workplace environment, including management and supervision of paraprofessional workers. The workforce investment system has been particularly engaged in solutions that focus on recruiting workers to the sector, developing opportunities for training and career advancement, and helping to impact job quality by delivery of incumbent worker supervisory training. Examples of promising solutions include:
• Career lattices that provide pathways to advancement and specialization from all points of entry in the long-term care sector;
• Expansion of education capacity, including the integration of learning technology that offers flexibility in time and place of training, and maximizes effectiveness of limited training resources and the adoption of innovative training methodologies such as apprenticeship and on-the-job training;
• Targeted recruitment strategies;
• Mentoring programs for new employees;
• Development of a diverse pipeline of future workers; and
• Competency-based training for incumbent workers in supervisory and team leadership skills.
Grants funded through this SGA are expected to contain at least five critical elements. These elements consist of: (A) Strategic regional partnerships; (B) data driven analysis of regional long-term care workforce challenges and solutions; (C) systemic solutions to industry identified workforce challenges; (D) shared and leveraged resources for implementation; and (E) clear and specific outcomes. Each of these characteristics will be reflected in the ratings criteria in Part V and is described in further detail below.
ETA believes that strategic partnerships between the workforce investment system, employers, and education and training providers need
In addition to the required entities, the partnership should include a strong, broad consortium of the individuals and organizations necessary to resolve systemic long-term care workforce challenges, including partners such as organizations representing the long-term care industry, the long-term care workforce, and/or consumers; state Medicare/Medicaid offices and other state agencies addressing long-term care delivery, payment, or workforce issues; technical assistance providers such as Area Health Education Centers and Quality Improvement Organizations; faith-based and community organizations that provide recruitment and retention support to entry-level workers; and other stakeholders.
A regional approach is necessary to ensure that the full range of assets, resources, knowledge, and leadership are at the table. The strategic partnership should focus broadly on the workforce challenges facing the long-term care sector, and should work collaboratively to identify and implement a wide range of solutions. Additionally, the partnership should include entities that can act as levers of change to identify and address barriers to success. Partners should have a demonstrated record of close collaboration or coordination. If a high level of coordination or collaboration does not exist, applicants must demonstrate their capacity to quickly establish these links and discuss strategies for strengthening the partnership. Applicants are advised that grant funds may not be used for partnership development.
In order to maximize the long-term success of the proposed solution and to keep pace with the rapid changes both in the economy and the nature of the skills and competencies necessary for work in this sector, these partnerships need to be substantial and sustained. Therefore, the proposed solution to be funded through this solicitation should be one of many strategies that evolve from the partnership. ETA encourages partners to plan for the partnership's sustainability beyond the HGJTI investment period to enable ongoing assessment of industry workforce needs and collaborative development of solutions.
Each partner should have clearly defined roles in the proposed solutions. The exact nature of these roles may vary depending on the issue areas being addressed and the scope and nature of the activities undertaken. However, ETA expects that each collaborative partner will, at minimum, significantly contribute to one or more aspects of the project. For example, employers must be actively engaged in the project and may contribute to many aspects of grant activities including defining the program strategy and goals, identifying needed skills and competencies, and, where appropriate, hiring qualified training graduates and/or training existing staff. Education and training providers from the continuum of education, which includes K-12, community and technical colleges, four year colleges and universities, and other training entities, should assist in developing and implementing industry-driven workforce education strategies in partnership with employers including competency models, curricula, and new learning methodologies such as apprenticeship training.
The workforce investment system may play a number of roles, including compiling and analyzing labor market information, identifying and assessing candidates for training and employment, providing wrap-around support services and training funds for qualified individuals, where appropriate, and connecting qualified training graduates to employers that have existing job openings.
Partnerships with faith-based and community organizations are also encouraged. Grantees may elect to sub-award funds to faith-based and community organizations to perform a variety of grant services such as case management, mentoring, and English language programs, among others. Faith-based and community organizations can also provide wrap-around holistic and comprehensive support services where appropriate, such as employability training and career awareness activities. Faith-based and community organizations can also be helpful in identifying under-employed populations and pipelines of potential trainees, including low-income populations, immigrants, etc., and can provide the culturally-relevant supports and follow-up services necessary to aid in job retention.
The basis of partnership engagement and activity should be a data-driven analysis of workforce development challenges and the regional assets available for solutions. Economic regions do not typically correspond to geographic or political jurisdictions such as municipal boundaries or state, county, local workforce investment areas. Thus, partners should develop a regional understanding of the long-term care sector that is comprised of multiple jurisdictions within a state or across state borders.
Grants funded under this SGA should demonstrate how a demand-driven workforce system can more effectively meet the regional workforce needs of long-term care employers while at the same time helping workers find good jobs with promising career pathways. Proposed solutions should be focused and integrated, and should be driven by an accurate and comprehensive understanding of regional industry-identified workforce challenges and the educational, workforce, and other assets available to support systemic solutions.
Applicants should note that grants under this SGA are not intended to support the development of entirely new solutions to long-term care workforce challenges. Rather, they are intended to support partnerships that either a) take an existing promising solution, model, or approach to scale in the region and/or b) adapt a solution, model, or approach that has been demonstrated to have positive impact on the identified workforce challenges in another region or context. The long-term care sector and many public and private partners have been developing solutions to long-term care workforce challenges for many years. Grants funded under this SGA should demonstrate an understanding of the growing body of knowledge from public, private, and governmental sources about effective workforce development practices for this sector. A sampling of resources for workforce solutions and workforce development tools is available in Appendix A to assist applicants in identifying appropriate existing solution models.
Applicants are not limited in the strategies and approaches they may use to implement solutions provided the strategy is well developed, addresses industry-defined regional workforce challenges, and includes training to prepare entry level and/or incumbent workers for the long-term care industry. To the extent possible, applicants are encouraged to design training activities that (a) occur within the context of workforce education that supports long-term career growth, such as an
Examples of potential solutions include:
1. A program to create articulated career pathways for workers from entry-level occupations, such as direct support specialists, CNAs, and home health aids, to more advanced or specialized positions, drawing on a variety of education and development techniques, including apprenticeship training.
2. A program to support recruitment and retention of direct care workers through strategic recruitment campaigns and enhanced training opportunities.
3. A program to promote workplace retention by providing peer mentoring and supervisory training to incumbent workers.
Where appropriate, applicants are encouraged to align long-term care solutions with broader health care workforce development strategies in the region to further strengthen recruitment, retention, skill development, education capacity-building, and career ladder/lattice development.
ETA recognizes that a great deal of work is being done in the area of improving job quality for long-term care workers. While the goal of this SGA is to support workforce development solutions targeted at training and skill enhancement, grantees are encouraged to link activities under this grant to broader state and regional activities and strategies to improve long-term care job quality.
Investments under this SGA should leverage funds and resources from key entities in the strategic partnership. Leveraging resources in the context of strategic partnerships accomplishes three goals: (1) It allows for the pursuit of resources driven by the strategy; (2) it increases stakeholder investment in the project at all levels including design and implementation phases; and (3) it broadens the impact of the project itself by creating alignment with other funding streams. Projects funded under this SGA should demonstrate that their efforts align with federal, state, regional, and local assets and resources.
Leveraged resources include both federal and non-federal funds and may come from many sources. Businesses, faith-based and community organizations, economic development entities, state and local government agencies, education systems, and philanthropic foundations often invest resources to support workforce development. In addition, other federal, state, and local government programs may have resources available that can be integrated into the proposed project. Examples of such programs include other Department of Labor (DOL) programs such as registered apprenticeship and Job Corps, as well as non-DOL-funded One-Stop partner programs such as Vocational Rehabilitation and Adult Education. ETA encourages grantees and their partners to be entrepreneurial as they seek out, utilize, and sustain these resources when creating effective solutions to the workforce challenges identified by the industry.
Please note that this grant opportunity has a match requirement. Information on the match requirement can be found in Part III.4.
Grants awarded under this initiative are results-oriented and demonstrate clear and specific outcomes that are appropriate to the nature of the solution and the size of the project and that indicate progress towards the workforce challenges identified by the partnership. Because HGJTI grants invest in customized strategies to address local workforce challenges and skill shortages, ETA recognizes that outcomes will vary from project to project based on the specific activities proposed. HGJTI grants should demonstrate the effectiveness of all activities by creating appropriate benchmarks and measuring against them on a regular basis.
Training outcomes must include those tracked by the Common Measures, OMB-approved uniform evaluation metrics for job training and employment programs. These outcomes include average earnings, job placements, and job retention. A detailed description of ETA's policy on the Common Measures can be found on the Common Measures/Individual Program Performance webpage at
Grants that include additional non-training activities should track the impact of those activities on employers, workers, and appropriate partners. All outcomes and impacts of the proposed project should satisfactorily address the workforce needs identified by the partnership. Where appropriate, grants should use standard industry outcome measures.
ETA intends to fund five projects at approximately the $500,000 level; however, this does not preclude funding grants at either a lower or higher amount, or funding a smaller or larger number of projects, based on the type and the number of quality submissions. Applicants are encouraged to submit budgets for quality projects at whatever funding level is appropriate to the project. Nevertheless, applicants should recognize that the limited funds available through this SGA are intended to supplement project budgets rather than be the sole source of funds for the proposal.
The period of grant performance will be 36 months from the date of execution of the grant documents. This performance period shall include all necessary implementation and start-up activities as well as participant follow-up for performance outcomes and grant close-out activities. A timeline clearly detailing these required grant activities and their expected completion dates must be included in the grant application. If applied for and with significant justification, ETA may elect to exercise its option to award no-cost extensions to these grants for an additional period at its own discretion, based on the success of the program and other relevant factors.
Applicants may be public, private for-profit, and private non-profit organizations including faith-based and community organizations. The application must clearly identify the applicant and describe its capacity to administer the HGJTI long-term care grant, in terms of organizational and strategic leadership capacity and data management capabilities. Applications for supplementation of distinct on-going projects, regardless of funding source, are eligible for consideration under this SGA; however, applications for renewal of existing projects will not be considered. Please note that the applicant and fiscal agent must be the same organization.
Applicants must demonstrate the existence of a partnership that includes at least one entity from each of three categories: (1) The publicly funded Workforce Investment System, which may include state and local Workforce Investment Boards, State Workforce
This SGA is intended to support regional long-term care workforce development strategies that take full advantage of existing solutions, models, promising practices, and tools while meeting the specific needs and circumstances of the identified region. Therefore applicants must demonstrate that proposed solutions meet one of two criteria. Either a) the applicant proposes to take an existing promising solution, model, or approach to scale in the region and/or b) the applicant is implementing a solution, model, or approach that has been demonstrated to have positive impact on the identified workforce development challenges in another location. To the greatest extent possible, applicants are also encouraged to use existing tools and curricula as part of their proposed grant activities.
All grants funded under this solicitation must include the direct provision of training to individual participants. Applicants are not limited in the strategies and approaches they may employ to implement training activities; however, the training must: (a) Target skills and competencies demanded by the long-term care sector; (b) support participants' long-term career growth along a defined career pathway such as an articulated career ladder or lattice; and (c) result in an industry-recognized certificate, degree, or license that indicates a level of mastery and competence in a given field or function. The credential awarded to participants should be based on the type of training provided through the grant and the requirements of the targeted occupation, and should be selected based on consultations with industry partners. For example:
1. Customized and short-term training should result in a performance-based certification or certificate. This certification may be developed jointly by employers and the project partners, based on defined knowledge and skill requirements for specific high-growth occupations.
2. Training in fields with established professional standards and examinations should result in certification.
3. In states where licensure is required for the specific occupation targeted by the training, the credentialing requirement should be set accordingly.
4. In some instances, training provided under the HGJTI grant may lead to a degree. In these instances, the credential will be the degree itself or the successful completion of coursework required for the degree.
Aligning resources and leveraging funding are key components of success under the High Growth Job Training Initiative. Therefore, applicants must provide cash or in-kind resources equivalent to at least 25 percent of the grant award amount as matching funds. Please note that neither prior investments nor Federal resources may be counted as match.
To be allowable as part of match, a cost must be an allowable charge for Federal grant funds. Determinations of allowable costs will be made in accordance with the applicable Federal cost principles as indicated in Part IV.4. If the cost would not be allowable as a grant-funded charge, then it also cannot be counted toward matching funds. Matching funds must be expended during the grant period of performance.
Please note that applicants are expected to fulfill the match amount specified on their SF-424 application and SF-424a budget form. Upon completion of the grant, if the match amount specified by the applicant is not met or if a portion of the matching funds are found to be an unallowable cost, the amount of DOL grant funds may be decreased on a dollar for dollar basis. This may result in the repayment of funds to DOL.
Applicants are encouraged to leverage additional funds outside of the match to supplement the project as a whole. Matching funds and leveraged resources could come from a variety of sources including: public sector (e.g., state or local governments); non-profit sector (e.g., community organizations, faith-based organizations, or education and training institutions); private sector (e.g., businesses or industry associations); investor community (e.g., angel networks or economic development entities); and the philanthropic community (e.g., foundations).
Applicants should clearly make the distinction of what will be considered matching funds versus leveraged funds. Only the matching funds shall be shown on the SF-424 and SF-424a. The amount of funds specified on these forms will be considered by DOL as the applicant's match. All other leverage resources should be explained in the budget narrative separate from the explanation of match.
Generally, the scope of potential trainees is very broad. Training may be targeted to a wide variety of populations, including unemployed individuals and incumbent workers. The identification of targeted and qualified trainees should be part of the larger project planning process by the required partnership and should relate to the workforce issues addressed by the training.
This program is subject to the provisions of the “Jobs for Veterans Act,” Public Law 107-288, which provides priority of service to veterans and spouses of certain veterans for the receipt of employment, training, and placement services in any job training program directly funded, in whole or in part, by the Department of Labor. Please note that to obtain priority of service, a veteran must meet the grantee's program eligibility requirements. ETA Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 5-03 (September 16, 2003), available at
This announcement includes all information and links to forms needed to apply for this funding opportunity.
The proposal must consist of two (2) separate and distinct parts, Parts I and II. Applications that fail to adhere to the instructions in this section will be considered non-responsive and may not be given further consideration.
Part I of the proposal is the Cost Proposal and must include the following three items:
• The Standard Form (SF) 424, “Application for Federal Assistance” (available at
• All applicants for federal grant and funding opportunities are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) number. See Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Notice of Final Policy Issuance, 68 FR 38402 (June 27, 2003). Applicants must supply their DUNS number on the SF 424. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number that uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access this Web site:
• The SF 424A Budget Information Form (available at
Please note that applicants that fail to provide a SF 424, SF 424A and/or a budget narrative will be removed from consideration prior to the technical review process. Only an applicant's match amount (not other leveraged resources) should be listed on the SF 424 (Block 18) and SF 424A Budget Information Form (Section A & C). The amount of federal funding requested for the
Part II of the application is the technical proposal which demonstrates the applicant's capabilities to plan and implement a demonstration project under the High Growth Job Training Initiative in accordance with the selection criteria. The Technical Proposal is limited to twenty (20) double-spaced, single-sided, 8.5-inch-by-11-inch pages with 12-point font and 1-inch margins. Any pages over the 20 page limit will not be reviewed. In addition, the applicant may provide resumes, a staffing pattern, statistical information, and related materials in attachments which may not exceed 10 pages. Letters of commitment from partners may be submitted as attachments and will not count against the allowable maximum page totals. The applicant must reference any participating entities and articulate their role in grant activities clearly in the text of the Technical Proposal.
Except for the discussion of match and leveraged resources in response to the evaluation criteria, no cost data or reference to prices should be included in the technical proposal. The following information is required as part of the technical proposal:
• A table of contents listing the application sections.
• A 2-3 page abstract summarizing the proposed project and applicant profile information including: (1) Applicant name; (2) project title; (3) identification of region; (4) overview of strategies; (5) regional partnership members; and (6) requested funding level.
• A 1-2 page timeline.
• An implementation plan outlining project activities.
Please note that the table of contents, the abstract, and the timeline are not included in the 20-page limit. The implementation plan will be included in the 20-page limit. Applications that do not meet these requirements will not be considered. Please note that applicants should not send letters of commitment or support separately to ETA because letters are tracked through a different system and will not be attached to the application for review.
Applications may be submitted electronically on www.grants.gov or in hard-copy via U.S. mail, professional delivery service, or hand delivery. These processes are described in further detail in Section IV(3). Applicants submitting proposals in hard-copy must submit an original signed application (including the SF 424) and one (1) “copy-ready” version free of bindings, staples or protruding tabs to ease in the reproduction of the proposal by DOL. Applicants submitting proposals in hard-copy are also requested, though not required, to provide an electronic copy of the proposal on CD-ROM.
The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement is April 5, 2007. Applications must be received at the address below, or electronically received at the website below, no later than 4 p.m. (Eastern Time), except as identified in the “Late Applications” paragraph below. Applications sent by e-mail, telegram, or facsimile (fax) will not be honored. No exceptions to the mailing and delivery requirements set forth in this notice will be granted.
Mailed applications must be addressed to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Division of Federal Assistance, Attention: Eric Luetkenhaus, Reference SGA/DFA PY 06-07, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-4716, Washington, DC 20210. Applicants are advised that mail delivery in the Washington area may be delayed due to mail decontamination procedures. Hand-delivered proposals will be received at the above address.
Applicants may apply online at
A Webinar for prospective applicants will be held for this grant competition
This funding opportunity is not subject to Executive Order (EO) 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs”.
Determinations of allowable costs will be made in accordance with the applicable Federal cost principles as indicated in Part VI.2. Disallowed costs are those charges to a grant that the grantor agency or its representative determines not to be allowed in accordance with the applicable Federal Cost Principles or other conditions contained in the grant. As discussed above, only costs that would be allowable with grant funds may be counted as part of the recipients' share of project costs.
This section identifies and describes the criteria that will be used to evaluate the proposals under this SGA: (A) Statement of Need (15 points); (B) Strength of Partnership (20 points); (C) Strategies for Long-Term Care Workforce Development (30 points); (D) Outcomes (15 points); (E) Leveraged Resources (10 points); and (F) Program Management and Organization Capacity (10 points).
Applicants must identify the region in which grant activities will take place and demonstrate a clear and specific need for the federal investment in the proposed activities. Scoring for this factor will be based on the following.
• Economic interdependence (relating how the long-term care industry contributes to and is impacted by the regional economy)
• Assets (e.g., human capital, educational capacity, financial capital, research and development institutions, infrastructure, etc.)
• Networks (e.g., how strategic partners are collaborating to develop talent in the context of the regional economy)
• Demonstrated knowledge of the long-term care sector in the region,
• Demonstrated existence of identified workforce challenges in the region, and if capacity building activities are proposed, demonstrated existence of a capacity constraint in addressing those challenges, in the area in which the grant activity will take place.
• Discussion of how the industry workforce challenges affect the specific employer partners contained in the proposal.
• Description of the resource analysis and mapping that has been conducted to date that demonstrates that local resources are not sufficient to address the workforce challenges.
The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed grant activities were developed and will be implemented by a strategic partnership comprised of a strong team of regional leaders. The partnership must be representative of the entire region as defined by the applicant and have the authority to drive the proposed investment strategy. One or more long-term care employers, representatives of the workforce system (i.e., state and/or local workforce investment boards and One-Stop Career Centers), and education and training providers are required partners. Applicants should also demonstrate that they have included a broader consortium of partners where appropriate, including organizations representing entities such as the long-term care industry, the long-term care workforce, or consumers; state Medicare/Medicaid offices and other state agencies addressing long-term care delivery, payment, or workforce issues; technical assistance providers such as Area Health Education Centers and Quality Improvement Organizations; and others. Scoring on this criterion will be based on the following factors:
• A comprehensive list of the strategic partners that will be included in the project and the articulation of each partner's role in the project within an overall project governance structure. Please note that, in order to receive full points, applicants must demonstrate that each required partner will play a well-developed and committed role in the project. (5 points).
• Demonstration that the partnership includes all the key regional assets and institutions necessary to address the identified workforce challenges. If all key regional assets and institutions are not currently engaged in the partnership, then the applicant must clearly identify how appropriate organizations or individuals will be brought into the partnership quickly. (4 points).
• Demonstration that integration or a high level of coordination already exists between partners. If a high level of integration or coordination does not exist, then the applicant must demonstrate that it has the capacity to quickly establish these links and discuss strategies for strengthening the partnership. (2 points).
• Identification of how the partnership will ensure the integration of education, workforce development, industry and other partner assets. (2 points).
• Indication that the partnership has addressed sustainability beyond the High Growth Job Training Initiative investment. (2 points).
The applicant must describe the proposed workforce development solution strategy in full, including all solution elements and implementation strategies, how the solutions address the workforce challenges described in the statement of need, and how the proposed solution draws on existing best practices, models, and tools. Points for this criterion will be awarded for the following factors:
• The proposed project activities will effectively address one or more workforce challenges identified by the long-term care sector as discussed in Sections I.5 of this SGA and the proposed activities were developed in the context of a solutions-based approach. (5 points).
• The solution models and workforce development approaches that guide the proposed activities have been clearly explained, and their source identified. The applicant explains how the partnership has drawn upon existing tools and approaches in building its solution. (4 points).
• The proposed strategy is cohesive in nature and includes training activities that target skills and competencies demanded by the long-term care industry and support participants' long-term career growth along a defined career pathway such as an articulated career ladder and lattice. The proposed training activities should also lead to an appropriate credential. If the credential targeted by the training project is a certificate- or performance-based certification, applicants should either (a) demonstrate employer engagement in the curriculum development process, or (b) indicate that the certification will translate into concrete job opportunities with an employer. (5 points).
• Strategies are present to increase synergy between the workforce system, education community, and the long-term care sector. If appropriate, the applicant discusses the nature of larger strategic economic development, long-term care sector, or workforce investment projects with which the proposed project is aligned. (4 points).
• The proposed activities lay the foundation for long-term workforce planning and development for the long-term care sector in the region, and the applicant describes a reasonable strategy for sustaining the partnership-driven solutions-based approach for the long-term care sector beyond the federal investment. (2 points).
Applicants should demonstrate a results-oriented approach to managing and operating the proposed project by fully describing the proposed outcome measures relevant to measuring the success or impact of the project. Scoring on this criterion will be based on the following factors:
•
•
Applicants should clearly describe the required matching funds and any additional funds or resources leveraged in support of the proposed strategies and demonstrate how these funds will be used to contribute to the goals of the project. Important elements of the explanation include:
• Which partners and/or grant subrecipient have contributed match and leveraged resources and the extent of each contribution, including an itemized description of each contribution.
• The quality of the match and leveraged resources, including the extent to which each contribution will be used to further the goals of the project.
• Evidence, such as letters of commitment, that key partners have expressed a clear commitment to provide the contribution.
Assessment of this criterion will be based on the extent to which the application fully describes the amount, commitment, nature, and quality of match and leveraged resources. A match in the sum of at least 25 percent of the Federal funding request must be provided. Matching funds may be either cash or in-kind. Both matching funds and additional leveraged resources will be scored based on the degree to which the source and use of those resources are clearly explained and the extent to which all resources are fully integrated into the project to support grant outcomes.
To satisfy this criterion, applicants must describe their proposed project management structure including, where appropriate, the identification of a proposed project manager, discussion of the proposed staffing pattern, and the qualifications and experience of key staff members. The applicant should also show evidence of the use of data systems to track outcomes in a timely and accurate manner. The applicant should include a description of organizational capacity and the organization's track record in projects similar to that described in the proposal and/or related activities of the primary partners.
Scoring under this criterion will be based on the extent to which applicants provide evidence of the following:
• The time commitment of the proposed staff is sufficient to ensure proper direction, management, and timely completion of the project.
• The roles and contribution of staff, consultants, and collaborative organizations are clearly defined and linked to specific objects and tasks.
• The background, experience, and other qualifications of the staff are sufficient to carry out their designated roles.
• The applicant organization has significant capacity to accomplish the goals and outcomes of the project, including the ability to collect and manage data in a way that allows consistent, accurate, and expedient reporting.
Applications will be accepted after the publication of this announcement until the closing date. A technical review panel will make a careful evaluation of applications against the criteria set forth in Section V of this Solicitation. These criteria are based on the policy goals, priorities, and emphases set forth in this SGA. Up to 100 points may be awarded to an application, based on the required information described in Section V of this Solicitation. The ranked scores will serve as the primary basis for selection of applications for funding, in conjunction with other factors such as urban, rural, and geographic balance; balance across long-term care occupations served, as stated in Part I (5) of this SGA; the availability of funds; and which proposals are most advantageous to the Government. The panel results are advisory in nature and not binding on the Grant Officer, who may consider any information that comes to his attention. DOL may elect to award the grant(s) with or without prior discussions with the applicants. Should a grant be awarded without discussions, the award will be based on the applicant's signature on the SF 424, which constitutes a binding offer.
All award notifications will be posted on the ETA homepage at
All grantees will be subject to all applicable Federal laws (including provisions in appropriations law), regulations, and the applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars. The applicants selected under the SGA will be subject to the following administrative standards and provisions, if applicable:
• Workforce Investment Act—20 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 667.200 (General Fiscal and Administrative Rules).
• Non-Profit Organizations—Office of Management and Budget (OMB Circulars A-122 (Cost Principles) and 29 CFR Part 95 (Administrative Requirements).
• Educational Institutions—OMB Circulars A-21 (Cost Principles) and 29 CFR Part 95 (Administrative Requirements).
• State and Local Governments—OMB circulars A-87 (Cost Principles) and 29 CFR Part 97 (Administrative Requirements).
• All entities must comply with 29 CFR Parts 93 and 98, and where applicable, 29 CFR Parts 96 and 99.
• In accordance with Section 18 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, Public Law 104-65 (2 U.S.C. 1611) non-profit entities incorporated under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4) that engage in lobbying activities will not be eligible for the receipt of Federal funds and grants.
• 29 CFR part 2, subpart D—Equal Treatment in Department of Labor Programs for Religious Organizations; Protection of Religious Liberty of Department of Labor Social Service Providers and Beneficiaries.
• 29 CFR part 30—Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training.
• 29 CFR part 31—Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of the Department of Labor—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• 29 CFR part 32—Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Receiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial Assistance.
• 29 CFR part 33—Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Department of Labor.
• 29 CFR part 35—Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from the Department of Labor.
• 29 CFR part 36—Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.
• 29 CFR part 37—Implementation of the Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Provisions of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA).
Except as specifically provided in this notice, ETA's acceptance of a proposal and award of Federal funds to sponsor any program(s) does not provide a waiver of any grant requirements and/or procedures. For example, the OMB Circulars require that an entity's procurement procedures must ensure that all procurement transactions are conducted, as much as practical, to provide open and free competition. If a proposal identifies a specific entity to provide services, the ETA's award does not provide the justifications or basis to sole-source the procurement, i.e., avoid competition, unless the activity is regarded as the primary work of an official partner to the application.
DOL may require that the program or project participate in an evaluation of overall HGJTI grant performance. To measure the impact of grants funded under the HGJTI, ETA may arrange for or conduct an independent evaluation of the outcomes and benefits of the projects. Grantees must agree to make records on participants, employers, and funding available and to provide access to program operating personnel and to participants, as specified by the evaluator(s) under the direction of ETA, including after the expiration date of the grant.
As a condition of participation in the High Growth Job Training Initiative, successful applicants will be required to submit performance information as well as Quarterly Financial Reports, Progress Reports and Final Reports.
The quarterly progress report must be in narrative form and must include:
1. In-depth information on accomplishments including project success stories, upcoming grant activities, and promising approaches and processes.
2. Progress toward performance outcomes, including updates on product, curricula, and training development.
3. Status of project as it relates to the approved implementation plan.
4. Challenges, barriers, or concerns regarding project progress.
5. Lessons learned in the areas of project administration and management, project implementation, partnership relationships, and other related areas.
Any technical questions regarding this SGA should be faxed to Jeannette Flowers, Fax number (202) 693-2705 (not a toll-free number). You must specifically address your fax to the attention of Jeannette Flowers and should include the following: SGA/DFA PY 06-07, a contact name, fax, and telephone number.
Jeannette Flowers, at (202) 693-3322 (not a toll-free number). This announcement is also being made available on
OMB Information Collection No. 1205-0458.
Expires September 30, 2009.
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Labor, the OMB Desk Officer for ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. Please do not return your completed application to the OMB. Send it to the address provided by the sponsoring agency.
This information is being collected for the purpose of awarding a grant. The information collected through this “Solicitation for Grant Applications” will be used by the Department of Labor to ensure that grants are awarded to the applicant best suited to perform the functions of the grant. Submission of this information is required in order for the applicant to be considered for award of this grant. Unless otherwise specifically noted in this announcement, information submitted in the respondent's application is not considered to be confidential.
Workforce3One.org is an integrated Web space designed to support the demand-driven workforce investment system. Workforce3One offers performance support tools, products, and resources that help to 1) build awareness of the “demand-driven workforce system” philosophy; 2) share valuable information about emerging high growth/high-demand and economically vital industries; and 3) share best practices, strategies, solutions, and tools for addressing industry-identified workforce challenges. Resources specific to the long-term care industry are available here:
The Competency Model Clearinghouse was created by the Employment and Training Administration to support the development of competency-based training that meets industry need. The Clearinghouse hosts a searchable database of competency models, training strategies, and curricula, including apprenticeship models, for the long-term care sector. The Clearinghouse can be accessed at
Better Jobs Better Care is a 4-year $15.5 million research and demonstration program, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and The Atlantic Philanthropies. As part of the program, participants seek to achieve changes in long-term care policy and practice that help to reduce high vacancy and turnover rates among direct care staff across the spectrum of long-term care settings and contribute to improved workforce quality. Access to program models, solutions, and tools funded under the initiative are available through their Web site,
The National Clearinghouse on the Direct Care Workforce is a national on-line library for people in search of solutions to the direct-care staffing crisis in long-term care. A project of the Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute (PHI), the Clearinghouse includes government and research reports, news, issue briefs, fact sheets, and other information on topics such as recruitment, career advancement supervision, workplace culture, and caregiving practices. The Clearinghouse also houses training manuals and how-to guides, a list of direct-care worker associations and listings to other associations, resources, and events. The Clearinghouse can be accessed at
The National Direct Service Workforce (DSW) Resource Center, funded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the U.S. Department for Health and Human Services, supports efforts support the successful implementation of efforts to improve recruitment and retention of direct support professionals who assist people with disabilities and older adults to live independently and with dignity in the community. This includes direct support professionals, personal care attendants, personal assistance providers, home care aides, home health aides and others. The Resource Center houses a resource database for information, policy research, technical expertise, training tools, and more covering a variety of topics such recruitment, retention, training, supervision, and consumer direction. The Resource Center can be accessed at
The National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice of Meetings.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given that the following meetings of Humanities Panels will be held at the Old Post Office, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.
Heather Gottry, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington, DC 20506; telephone (202) 606-8322. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the Endowment's TDD terminal on (202) 606-8282.
The proposed meetings are for the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including discussion of information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. Because the proposed meetings will consider information that is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential and/or information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that these meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections (c) (4), and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by April 17, 2007, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site:
Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Margaret A. Janney (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7245, or by Internet electronic mail to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by April 17, 2007, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated
A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site:
Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Margaret A. Janney (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7245, or by Internet electronic mail to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Solicitation of public comment.
The NRC is soliciting public comment on its Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-02 (LR-ISG) on the acceptance review criteria for environmental reports (ER) provided by applicants for reactor license renewal. This LR-ISG summarizes the Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51) requirements for ERs submitted with license renewal applications (LRAs), and provides a checklist that will be used by the NRC staff to verify the completeness of these reports prior to docketing. The NRC staff issues LR-ISGs to facilitate timely implementation of the license renewal rule and to review activities associated with an LRA. Upon receiving public comments, the NRC staff will evaluate the comments and make a determination to incorporate the comments, as appropriate. Once the NRC staff completes the LR-ISG, it will issue the LR-ISG for NRC and industry use. The NRC staff will also incorporate the approved LR-ISG into the next revision of the license renewal guidance documents.
Comments may be submitted by April 17, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Comments may be submitted to: Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments should be delivered to: 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, Room T-6D59, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Persons may also provide comments via e-mail at
Ms. Jennifer A. Davis, Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,DC 20555-0001; telephone 301-415-3835 or by e-mail at
Attachment 1 to this
The NRC staff is issuing this notice to solicit public comments on the proposed LR-ISG-2006-02. After the NRC staff considers any public comments, it will make a determination regarding issuance of the proposed LR-ISG.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The NRC staff intends to use a checklist of acceptance criteria when evaluating environmental reports submitted with license renewal applications. This guidance summarizes the 10 CFR Part 51 requirements for environmental reports submitted with license renewal applications, and provides a checklist that documents the review process used by NRC staff to verify the completeness of these reports.
The NRC developed a checklist of the requirements in 10 CFR Part 51 to document the NRC staff's acceptance review standards regarding the information that needs to be included in an environmental report. The staff finds that the utilization of the guidance provided in the checklist will facilitate consistency and efficiency in the NRC staff's acceptance reviews of environmental reports submitted with license renewal applications.
Each applicant for renewal of a license to operate a nuclear power plant is required to submit with its application a separate environmental report (ER) in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 54.23). As stated in 10 CFR 54.23, the ER must comply with the requirements of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51. The requirements governing the contents of an ER submitted at the operating license renewal stage are specified in 10 CFR 51.45 and 10 CFR 51.53(c). This LR-ISG is being proposed to document the staff's practice in
The NRC staff routinely reviews ERs against the requirements of 10 CFR 51.45 and 10 CFR 51.53(c) as part of the acceptance review of reactor license renewal applications. Staff review guidance governing reactor license renewal environmental reviews and the preparation of environmental impact statements is provided in NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal.
In conducting its acceptance review, the staff also relies on the guidance provided to applicants in Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Reports for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses. The regulatory guide provides methods acceptable to the staff for implementing the provisions of 10 CFR 51.45 and 10 CFR 51.53(c). While conformance with the suggested format of the regulatory guide is not required, use of the guide is expected to ensure the completeness of the information provided, assist the NRC staff and others in locating information, and result in more efficient and timely NRC staff review.
The acceptance review checklist for ERs submitted with license renewal applications, available via ADAMS at Accession No. ML063190452, will be incorporated into the next revision of NUREG-1555, Supplement 1. The acceptance checklist is intended to be a tool to ensure efficiency and consistency in the staff's acceptance reviews and ensure that all necessary components of license renewal stage ERs are submitted in accordance with governing regulations. As noted in the checklist instructions, the absence of any of the information recommended in Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, would not require that supplemental information be provided prior to acceptance of an application; however, applicants should expect that the absence of such information may result in more intensive environmental audit activities and/or issuance of early requests for additional information to support the staff's review. The docketing and subsequent finding of a timely and sufficient application (including the ER) does not preclude NRC reviewers from requesting additional information as a review proceeds, nor does it predict the NRC's final determination regarding the approval or denial of a license renewal application. This proposed LR-ISG is not intended to substitute or re-interpret requirements outlined in 10 CFR 51.45 and 10 CFR 51.53(c). The checklist is also expected to serve as a knowledge management tool for NRC staff members by specifying review criteria in a simplified, user-friendly format.
Postal Service.
Notice of availability.
On January 17, 2007, the Postal Service published an updated proposal in the
In addition to the new document, you can find our earlier proposals at
The document is available beginning February 14, 2007.
Joel Walker, 202-268-7261.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to request a revision to the following collection of information: 3220-0025, RUIA Investigations and Continuing Entitlement, consisting of RRB Form(s) UI-9, Applicant's Statement of Employment and Wages, UI-23, Claimant's Statement of Service, UI-44, Claim for Credit for Military Service, ID-4F, Advising of Ineligibility for RUIA Benefits, ID-4U, Advising of Service/Earnings Requirements for RUIA Benefits, ID-4Y, Advising of Ineligibility for Sickness Benefits, ID-4X, Advising of Service/Earnings Requirements for Sickness Benefits, ID-20-1, Advising that Normal Unemployment Benefits Are About to Be Exhausted, ID-20-2, Advising that Normal Sickness Benefits Are About to Be Exhausted, ID-20-4, Advising That Normal Sickness Benefits Are About to Be Exhausted/Non-Entitlement, ID-5I, Letter to Non-Railroad Employers on Employment and Earnings of a Claimant, ID-5R (SUP), Report of Employees Paid RUIA Benefits for Every Day in Month Reported as Month of Creditable Service, ID-49R, Letter to Railroad Employers for Payroll Information, and UI-48, Claimant's Statement Regarding Benefit Claim for Days of Employment. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and approval by OIRA ensures that we impose appropriate paperwork burdens.
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine (1) The practical utility of the collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of publication date.
The RRB has already published the initial 60-day notice (71 FR 66991 on November 17, 2006) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That request elicited no comments.
Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 or
Notice is hereby given that, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.
Rule 17f-6 (17 CFR 270.17f-6) under the Investment Company Act of 1940(15 U.S.C. 80a) permits registered investment companies (“funds”) to maintain assets (
The rule requires a written contract that contains certain provisions designed to ensure important safeguards and other benefits relating to the custody of fund assets by FCMs. To protect fund assets, the contract must require that FCMs comply with the segregation or secured amount requirements of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) and the rules under that statute. The contract also must contain a requirement that FCMs obtain an acknowledgment from any clearing organization that the fund's assets are held on behalf of the FCM's customers according to CEA provisions. Finally, FCMs are required to furnish to the Commission or its staff on request information concerning the fund's assets in order to facilitate Commission inspections.
The Commission estimates that approximately 2,275 funds effect commodities transactions and could deposit margin with FCMs under Rule 17f-6 in connection with those transactions. Commission staff estimates that each fund uses and deposits margin with two different FCMs in connection with its commodity transactions.
The Commission estimates that each of the 2,275 funds spends an average of 1 hour annually complying with the contract requirements of the rule (
Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on the rule. If an FCM furnishes records pertaining to a fund's assets at the request of the Commission or its staff, the records will be kept confidential to the extent permitted by relevant statutory or regulatory provisions. The rule does not require these records be retained for any specific period of time. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Please direct general comments regarding the above information to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The CBOE proposes to amend its Marketing Fee Program. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. CBOE has substantially prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
CBOE proposes to amend its Marketing Fee Program as it relates to option classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program, which commenced on January 26, 2007. Currently, 13 option classes are scheduled to participate in the Penny Pilot Program: Whole Foods (WFMI), General Electric (GE), Microsoft (MSFT), Ishares Russell 2000 (IWM), Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock
With respect to the option classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program in which the marketing fee currently is assessed,
CBOE is not amending its marketing fee program in any other respects.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
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.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
CBOE proposes to extend an existing pilot program that increases the standard position and exercise limits for certain options traded on the Exchange (“Pilot Program”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at CBOE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, CBOE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Pilot Program, as previously approved by the Commission, provides for an increase to the standard position and exercise limits for equity option contracts and for options on QQQQs for a six-month period.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the Pilot Program for an additional
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements provided under Section 6(b)(5)
CBOE 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.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the forgoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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 Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to reduce the payment for order flow (“PFOF”) fees for options on issues that trade as part of the Penny Pilot (“Pilot”).
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ISE has substantially prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees in conjunction with the introduction of the Pilot by reducing the PFOF fees for options on issues that trade as part of the Pilot. The Pilot is scheduled to begin on January 26, 2007. The following issues will be included in the Pilot: Agilent Technologies (A), Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), Caterpillar (CAT), Flextronics International (FLEX), General Electric (GE), Intel (INTC), iShares Russell 2000 Index fund (IWM), Microsoft (MSFT), Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock (QQQQ), Semiconductor Holders Trust (SMH), Sun Microsystems (SUNW), Texas Instruments (TXN), and Whole Foods Markets (WFMI).
The Exchange currently operates a PFOF program as approved by the Commission.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
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.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
On June 22, 2006, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposal would delete references in NYSE Rule 638 to the mediation pilot program that expired on January 31, 2003. The proposed amendments would also codify or, in some cases, recodify certain existing mediation procedures, including that: (1) The mediator's fees and method of payment are subject to agreement of the parties and the mediator, and all such fees and costs incurred in mediation are the parties' responsibility; (2) an adjournment fee will be assessed if an arbitration hearing is adjourned for purposes of the parties pursuing mediation unless the fee is waived under Exchange Rule 617; (3) a mediator may not represent a party or act as an arbitrator in an arbitration relating to the matter mediated, nor be called to testify regarding the mediation in any proceeding;
In addition, the proposed rule change would clarify that any party may withdraw from mediation at any time prior to the execution of a settlement agreement upon written notification to all other parties, the mediator, and the Director of Arbitration. It also would clarify that parties may select a mediator on their own or request a list of potential mediators from the Exchange, and that, upon request of any party, the Director of Arbitration would send the parties a list of five potential mediators together with the mediators' biographical information described in Rule 608.
Finally, the proposed rule change would provide that the parties will advise the Exchange as to the name of the agreed-upon mediator. In addition, it would clarify that once the parties agree to mediate, the Exchange would facilitate the mediation, if requested, by contacting the mediator selected and by assisting in making necessary arrangements, as well as that parties to mediation may use the Exchange meeting facilities in New York, when available, without charge.
The Commission received one comment on the proposal.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the NYSE's rules be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 12, 2006, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-OCC-2006-01 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”).
OCC is amending Article VI (Clearance of Exchange Transactions), Section 11A of its By-Laws to (1) Eliminate the need to round strike prices and/or units of trading in the event of certain stock dividends, stock distributions, and stock splits and (2) provide for the adjustment of outstanding options for special dividends (
Prior to this rule change, OCC's By-Laws specified two alternative methods of adjusting for stock dividends, stock distributions, and stock splits. In cases where one or more whole shares are issued with respect to each outstanding share, the number of outstanding option contracts is correspondingly increased and strike prices are proportionally reduced.
Although these two methods have been used for many years, in certain circumstances either method can produce a windfall profit for one side and a corresponding loss for the other side due to rounding of adjusted strike prices. These profits and losses, while small on a per contract basis, can be significant for large positions. Because equity option strike prices are currently stated in eighths, OCC's By-Laws require adjusted strike prices to be rounded to the nearest eighth. For example, if an XYZ $50 option for 100 shares were to be adjusted for a 3-for-2 split, the deliverable would be increased to 150 shares, and the strike price would be adjusted to $33.33 and then be rounded up to $33
A loss/windfall can also occur when the split results in a fractional deliverable (
The windfall profits and correspondent losses resulting from the rounding process have historically been accepted as immaterial. However, due to recent substantial increases in trading volume and position size, they have become a source of concern to exchanges and market participants. In addition, OCC has been informed that some traders may be exploiting announcements of splits and similar events by quickly establishing positions designed to capture rounding windfalls at the expense of other market participants.
The inequity that results from rounding strike prices can be eliminated by using a different adjustment method whereby the deliverable is adjusted but the strike prices or the values used to calculate aggregate exercise prices and premiums are not. As an illustration of the new adjustment methodology, in the XYZ $50 option 3-for-2 split example described above, the resulting adjustment would be a deliverable of 150 shares of XYZ stock while the strike price would remain at $50. In this case, the presplit multiplier of 100, used to extend aggregate strike price and premium amounts, is unchanged. For example, a premium of 1.50 would equal $150 ($1.5 × 100) both before and after the adjustment. An exercising call holder would continue to pay $5,000 ($50 times 100) but would receive 150 shares of XYZ stock instead of 100.
The inequity that results from the need to eliminate fractional shares from the deliverable and to compensate by further reducing the strike price to the nearest eighth can be eliminated by adjusting the deliverable to include cash in lieu of the fractional share. As an illustration, consider a 4-for-3 split of the stock underlying an XYZ $80 option with a 100 share deliverable. Employing the new adjustment method, the deliverable would be adjusted to 133.3333 shares, which would be rounded down to 133 shares, and the strike price would remain $80. However, instead of compensating for the elimination of the .3333 share by
The revised adjustment methodology will not be applied to 2-for-1 or 4-for-1 stock distributions or splits (since such distributions or splits normally result in strike prices that do not require rounding to the nearest eighth) unless the split requires rounding of the strike price, which may occur where the strike price was previously adjusted due to an earlier stock distribution or split. In addition, the revised adjustment methodology will not generally be used for stock dividends, stock distributions, or stock splits with respect to any series of options having exercise prices stated in decimals.
The changes in adjustment methodology will not be implemented until the exchanges have conducted appropriate educational efforts and definitive copies of an appropriate supplement to the options disclosure document,
Currently, Article VI, Section 11A(c) of OCC's By-Laws provides that as a general rule, outstanding options will not be adjusted to compensate for ordinary cash dividends. Interpretation and Policy .01 under Section 11A of Article VI provides that a cash dividend will generally be deemed to be “ordinary” if the amount does not exceed 10% of the value of the underlying stock on the declaration date (“10% Rule”). The OCC Securities Committee is authorized to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to adjust for dividends exceeding that amount. As a result, OCC historically has not adjusted for special cash dividends unless the amount of the dividend was greater than 10% of the stock price at the close of trading on the declaration day.
The 10% Rule predated a number of significant developments, including the introduction of Long-term Equity AnticiPation Security (“LEAPS”) options, the sizeable open interest seen today, the large contract volume associated with trading and spreading strategies, and the modern option pricing models that take dividends into account. When open interests and individual positions were smaller, not adjusting for dividends of less than 10% did not have the pronounced impact it does today. Additionally, changes to the tax code which now tax dividends more favorably have provided an incentive for companies to pay more dividends, including special dividends. In light of these considerations, OCC believes it is appropriate to now revise the 10% Rule.
Under OCC's revision, a cash dividend or distribution would be considered ordinary (regardless of size) if the OCC Securities Committee determines that such dividend or distribution was declared pursuant to a policy or practice of paying such dividends or distributions on a quarterly or other regular basis. In addition, as a general rule, a cash dividend or distribution that is less than $12.50 per contract would not trigger the adjustment provisions of Article VI, Section 11A.
Dividends declared by an issuer pursuant to a policy or practice of such issuer are known and can thus be priced into option premiums. By definition, however, special dividends cannot be anticipated in advance and therefore cannot be integrated into option pricing models.
Adjusting for dividends can cause a proliferation of outstanding option symbols and series.
OCC believes that a threshold that is a set dollar amount is preferable to one that is a percentage of the stock price (like OCC's 10% Rule) because there are operational problems with applying a percentage threshold. Under the 10% Rule, in order to determine whether the threshold is met, the per share dividend amount is added to the closing price of the underlying security on the dividend declaration date. The date the dividend is announced (by press release or by some other means) is not normally the “declaration date” when the dividend is officially declared by an issuer's board of directors. Until the actual declaration date, investors and traders may not know whether or not an announced dividend will trigger an adjustment based on the company's share price. In the interim, it is difficult for traders and investors to price their options because they do not know if an adjustment will be made.
The advantage of a fixed dollar threshold is the avoidance of uncertainty. The per contract value of the dividend can be immediately determined without the need to wait until the declaration date and without the need to do a calculation based on the closing price of the underlying shares.
Interpretations and Policies .01 and .08 under Article VI, Section 11A apply to cash distributions. Interpretation and Policy .01 (as amended by this rule change) will apply in general to all cash distributions. Interpretation and Policy .08 currently carves out exceptions for fund share cash distributions and does not include a threshold minimum. In the interest of clarity and consistency with Interpretation and Policy .01, Interpretation .08 is being revised to provide for the same $12.50 per contract threshold for fund share cash distributions. Clause (ii) of Interpretation and Policy .08 sets forth an exception to the 10% Rule and will be deleted when the 10% Rule is abolished.
The Commission received fourteen comment letters in response to the proposed rule change.
Those commenters opposing elimination of the 10% Rule did so for various reasons. First, they felt that elimination of the 10% Rule for existing contracts would be unfair to the contract traders who have priced adjustments into their pricing models based on their estimated probability that an issuer will pay a special dividend with the assumption that OCC would adjust for special dividends based on the 10% Rule. OCC responded that it did not believe special dividends could be anticipated in advance and therefore could not be integrated into pricing models. However, OCC discussed the matter with market participants and now understands that some traders do estimate the probability of special dividends by selected issuers and do factor those estimates into their pricing models. In response, OCC amended the proposed rule change so that the 10% Rule would be eliminated and replaced with the dollar threshold test beginning with dividends announced on and after February 1, 2009. The few outstanding options series with expirations beyond that date will be grandfathered and will be assigned separate trading symbols.
Second, some commenters expressed their concerns that elimination of the 10% Rule would create uncertainty as to whether OCC would classify particular vidends as ordinary or special and that market liquidity for the affected options would disappear until OCC announced whether a dividend was ordinary or special. OCC responded that a dividend will be classified as ordinary if it is declared pursuant to a policy or practice of paying such dividends on a quarterly or other regular basis. The issue as to whether a particular dividend or distribution fits the criteria to be classified as ordinary or special would be determined by a panel of the OCC Securities Committee, which consists of two representatives of each exchange that lists options on the underlying security and one representative of OCC, who votes only in the event of a tie vote. OCC contends that most special dividends are in such amounts and/or payable on such dates that it will be immediately obvious to the market that they are not being declared pursuant to a policy or a practice of paying such dividends on a quarterly or other regular basis. In addition, issuers normally classify a dividend as special or ordinary when the dividend is announced. While this will not control OCC's determination of whether a dividend is ordinary or special, in the vast majority of cases a dividend classified by the issuer as special would not fit OCC's definition of ordinary cash dividends or distributions.
In certain cases the OCC Securities Committee will need to make a judgment as to whether to classify a dividend as ordinary or special. The uncertainty which may exist in such cases will diminish over time as OCC publishes interpretations and policies and a body of precedent develops. OCC intends to publish informational material indicating how these situations will be handled. Pursuant to the amendment, the elimination of the 10% Rule will only be effective for dividends announced on and after February 1, 2009, which should allow ample lead time for OCC's educational effort to get under way.
OCC also responded that a balance needs to be struck between uncertainty and fairness in that under the 10% Rule, market participants incur large losses in the case of a 9.9% special dividend but are made whole if the special dividend exceeds 10% of the closing stock price on the declaration date.
The commenters' third major concern in opposing elimination of the 10% Rule was that the rule change would lead to symbol proliferation in that any special dividend greater than $12.50 per contract would trigger a contract adjustment and a new symbol. The frequency of such adjustments could be very high, causing a sharp spike in symbol proliferation. OCC responded by acknowledging that this is true for the short term but that the need for additional symbols would end when the industry converts to decimal stike prices.
The fourth major concern raised by the commenters in opposing the 10% Rule was that the revised rule could reduce liquidity for adjusted options because investors are drawn to round increments in strike prices. The 10% Rule has always avoided liquidity loss by only creating odd strike prices when the dividend is so extraordinarily disproportionate as to require adjustment. OCC responded that despite the thousands of contractual adjustments made in over 33 years of options trading on U.S. markets, it knows of no case where liquidity was wiped out for an adjusted series. Market-makers on U.S. options exchanges are numerous, highly competitive, quick to exploit arbitrage opportunities, and in many cases obligated by exchange rules to make
The commenters who opposed the revised adjustment methodology for stock dividends, stock distributions, and stock splits did so by suggesting alternative models such as those employed by Eurex and other non-U.S. exchanges.
To address certain concerns expressed in the comment letters and by others, OCC amended the proposed rule change. OCC understands that certain option traders may have integrated into their pricing models the probability of special dividends and their being adjusted based on the OCC rules currently in effect and that eliminating the 10% Rule with respect to existing contracts may unfairly affect these options traders. To ensure that no options series that were opened before approval of the proposed rule change are affected by elimination of the 10% Rule, OCC's elimination of the 10% Rule and implementation of the fixed dollar threshold will take effect only for corporate events announced on or after February 1, 2009. OCC plans to provide ODD disclosure of this rule change before May 29, 2007, (after which date the exchanges would normally begin introducing LEAPS expiring in 2010 making a 2009 implementation impracticable). The delay in implementation will ensure that all options series opened before the ODD disclosure is made available (other than certain “flex” options that will be grandfathered under the old rule) will have expired before the change is effected.
After carefully considering the proposed rule change as amended and all of the written comments received, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder and particularly with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F).
OCC has amended the rule change in response to many of the commenters that opposed various portions of the rule change for various reasons.
Some commenters expressed concern that elimination of the 10% Rule would create uncertainty as to whether OCC would classify particular dividends as ordinary or special and that market liquidity for the affected options would disappear until OCC made an announcement whether a dividend is ordinary or special. The Commission feels that OCC's proposed rule is clear as to the procedure that will be used to classify a dividend as ordinary or special. A dividend will be classified as ordinary if it is declared pursuant to a policy or practice of paying such dividends on a quarterly or other regular basis. The Commission finds persuasive OCC's argument that most special dividends are in such amounts and/or payable on such dates that it will be immediately obvious to the market that they are not being declared pursuant to a policy or a practice of paying such dividends on a quarterly or other regular basis. In addition, issuers normally classify a dividend as special or ordinary when the dividend is announced, and in the vast majority of cases a dividend classified by the issuer as special would not fit OCC's definition of ordinary cash dividends or distributions. Any uncertainty which may exist in cases where the OCC Securities Committee will need be to make a judgment as to whether a dividend is ordinary or special should diminish over time as OCC publishes interpretations and policies and a body of precedent develops. In addition, the Commission is not convinced, considering that adjusted options have shown no lack of liquidity in the past, that the elimination of the 10% Rule will wipe out liquidity for adjusted options.
Some commenters stated that the elimination of the 10% Rule for existing contracts would be unfair to those traders that have built into their pricing models the possibility that an issuer would declare a special dividend and the effect of that dividend under the
Some commenters also argued that elimination of the 10% Rule would lead to symbol proliferation in that any special dividend greater than $12.50 per contract would trigger a contract adjustment and a new symbol. The Commission believes that any symbol proliferation should be short lived as the industry is planning to convert from fractional strikes to decimal strikes in November 2009 and that the benefits of the change outweigh any burdens.
Of particular concern to the Commission is the inequitable economic impact of unanticipated special dividends on market participants when the 10% Rule is applied. The Commission believes that OCC's rule change makes appropriate changes to the way that OCC handles special dividends to address this problem.
Those commenters that disagreed with the adjustment methodology for stock dividends, stock distributions, and stock splits suggested changes that would require major systems revisions. The Commission believes that such systems changes would be a tremendous burden on the industry and the costs would not outweigh any benefits.
Finally, it was argued that major systems changes would need to be undertaken and symbols changed to somehow alert investors that an option represents an adjusted contract. The Commission is not persuaded by this argument because the adjustment methodology OCC is going to apply to stock dividends, stock distributions, and stock splits is the same adjustment methodology it has used for over thirty years for spin-offs, mergers, and extraordinary cash dividends and identification of these adjusted contracts does not appear to have presented a problem.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Phlx proposes that Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (“Dow Jones”) will replace the Exchange as the party solely responsible for the calculation and dissemination of the current index values
In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide that Dow Jones, rather than the Exchange, will calculate and disseminate the current index values of the Bank Index. No other changes are proposed in respect of the Index.
Options on the Bank Index, a narrow-based (industry) index, were originally listed in 1992.
Even though the Index will be maintained by KBW, the Phlx represents that the Exchange will be solely responsible for the calculation of the Index and that the Index value will be calculated and disseminated in such a way that neither KBW nor any other party will be in receipt of the Index value prior to the public dissemination of the
The Exchange notes that the listing of options on the Bank Index preceded the adoption of the Exchange's generic index option listing standards in Phlx Rule 1009A. This rule permits the Exchange to list qualifying index options pursuant to a form filing per Rule 19b-4(e) under the Exchange Act (instead of a rule filing as with the Bank Index), and does not require a filing regarding the identity of the entity calculating or disseminating the current index values, so long as such values are publicly reported at least once every 15 seconds during the periods that the index options are traded on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change to make Dow Jones responsible for calculating and disseminating the Bank Index values is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
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.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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.
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-1680-DR), dated 02/08/2007.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 02/08/2007, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10805C and for economic injury is 108060.
Baby Trend, Inc. (Baby Trend) has determined that certain infant car seats that it produced in 2006 do not comply with S5.1.2.1(b) of 49 CFR 571.213, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, “Child Restraint Systems.” Baby Trend has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, “Defect and Noncompliance Reports.”
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Baby Trend has petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of Baby Trend's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
Affected are a total of approximately 30,450 infant car seats produced between June 21, 2006 and November 30, 2006. FMVSS No. 213, S5.1.2.1(b) requires the following statements on child restraints: For recall information, call the U.S. Government's Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY: 1-800-424-9153), or go to
The infant car seats do not have the markings required by S5.1.2.1(b). Baby Trend has corrected the problem that caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future production.
Baby Trend believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Baby Trend states that the child restraint seats comply with the stringent dynamic performance requirements of FMVSS No. 213. Baby Trend does not believe that a safety consequence exists for the technical labeling non-compliance. Further, they believe that given the existing lag time, the use of older information remains a viable means for contacting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Although telephone exchanges have changed, NHTSA still forwards calls in an integrated manner to provide consumer service to the general population. In addition, Baby Trend states that the use of the internet, improvements to NHTSA's websites, and the implementation of the integrated
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by any of the following methods. Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590-0001. Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It is requested, but not required, that two copies of the comments be provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System Web
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will be published in the
Comment closing date: March 19, 2007.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8)
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) has determined that the rims on certain vehicles that it produced in 2000 through 2005 do not comply with S5.2(a) and S5.2(c) of 49 CFR 571.120, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, “Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars.” Nissan has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, “Defect and Noncompliance Reports.”
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Nissan has petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of Nissan's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
Affected are a total of approximately 5,000 optional dealer accessory wheels that have been sold and have been installed on approximately 1,250-model year 2000 through 2005 Nissan Xterra multipurpose passenger vehicles and Frontier pickup trucks. S5.2 of FMVSS No. 120, rim marking, requires that each rim be marked with certain information on the weather side, including:
S5.2(a) A designation which indicates the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions, and S5.2(c) the symbol DOT.
The rims installed on the affected vehicles do not contain the markings required by S5.2(a) or S5.2(c). Nissan has corrected the problem that caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future production.
Nissan believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Nissan states that the affected rims are 16″x7″ aluminum alloy, which are commonly available and utilized in the United States. They are a correct specification for mounting 16″ original equipment tires specified for Xterra and Frontier models, and are capable of carrying the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. Nissan first became aware of the noncompliance of these vehicles during a regulatory compliance review during March 2006.
Nissan states that no accidents or injuries have occurred, and no customer complaints have been received related to the lack of the markings or any problem that may have resulted from the lack of the markings. Nissan further states that the missing markings do not affect the performance of the wheels or the tire and wheel assemblies.
The rims are marked in compliance with S5.2(b), rim size designation; S5.2(d), manufacturer identification; and S5.2(e) month, day and year or month and year of manufacture. The rims are also marked with a 4030S RSD20-10/20 part number.
The tire size is marked on the tire sidewalls, and the owner's manual and tire inflation pressure placard contain the appropriate tire size to be installed on the original equipment rims. Therefore, Nissan does not believe there is a possibility of a tire and rim mismatch as a result of the missing rim markings. All other requirements under FMVSS No. 120 are met.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by any of the following methods.
The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will be published in the
49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Koch Industries, Inc. (Koch Industries), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption to indirectly continue in control of Moscow Camden and San Augustine Railroad LLC (MCSA), upon MCSA's becoming a Class III rail carrier.
The transaction is scheduled to be consummated after the effectiveness of the exemption, and no earlier than March 2, 2007.
The transaction is related to STB Finance Docket No. 34990,
Koch Industries currently controls three other Class III rail carriers: Gloster Southern Railroad Company LLC (GSR), Blue Rapids Railway Company LLC (BRR), and Old Augusta Railroad, LLC (OAR).
Koch Industries states that: (i) The railroads will not connect with each other or any railroads within its corporate family, (ii) the transaction is not a part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect any of these railroads with one another or any other railroad, and (iii) the transaction does not involve a Class I railroad. Therefore, the transaction is exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323.
Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under sections 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here, because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34991, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on David H. Coburn, 1330 Connecticut Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20036.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) has agreed to grant non-exclusive, temporary overhead trackage rights to Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad Company (N&BE) over NSR's line between milepost 194.2, Lock Haven, PA, and milepost 139.2, Driftwood, PA, a distance of approximately 55 miles.
The transaction is scheduled to be consummated on or after March 4, 2007, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the exemption was filed). The temporary trackage rights will expire on December 30, 2007.
The purpose of the temporary trackage rights is to allow N&BE adequate bridge train service for temporary, seasonal traffic originating on the N&BE for delivery to an off-line destination.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee affected by the acquisition of the temporary trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(8). If it contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34956, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Richard R. Wilson, 127 Lexington Ave., Suite 100, Altoona, PA 16601.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Moscow Camden and San Augustine Railroad LLC (MCSA), a noncarrier, has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire and operate the assets of a Class III rail carrier, Moscow, Camden & San Augustine Railroad, including a 6.9-mile line which runs between an International Paper Company (International Paper) integrated plywood plant and lumber mill complex at Camden, TX, and a Union Pacific Railroad Company line at Moscow, TX.
MCSA states that, as part of a December 21, 2006 agreement, Georgia-Pacific Wood Products South LLC (Georgia-Pacific South), a subsidiary of Georgia-Pacific Corporation (now Georgia-Pacific LLC) (Georgia-Pacific), has agreed to purchase International Paper's Camden complex, including the assets of Moscow, Camden & San Augustine Railroad. Prior to the closing of the transaction, Georgia-Pacific South will assign its right to acquire the assets that constitute the rail line to MCSA, which is currently expected to be formed as a Delaware limited liability company and will acquire the railroad-related assets at closing.
This transaction is related to STB Finance Docket No. 34991,
MCSA certifies that its projected revenues as a result of this transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million.
The earliest this transaction may be consummated is the March 2, 2007 effective date of the exemption (30 days after the exemption was filed).
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34990, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on David H. Coburn, 1330 Connecticut Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20036. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Notice is hereby given that on February 12, 2007, the Assistant Managing Director, Examinations and Supervision—Operations, Office of Thrift Supervision, or her designee, acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the application of Community Mutual Savings Bank, White Plains, New York, 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:) at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the OTS Northeast Regional Office, Harborside Financial Center Plaza Five, Suite 1600, Jersey City, New Jersey 07311.
By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Notice is hereby given that on February 12, 2007, the Assistant Managing Director, Examinations and Supervision—Operations, Office of Thrift Supervision, or her designee, acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the application of ESSA Bank & Trust, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, 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:) at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the OTS Northeast Regional Office, Harborside Financial Center Plaza Five, Suite 1600 Jersey City, New Jersey 07311.
By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Kathy Ezzell, Room 7266, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to John Hicks, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Mark Johnston at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (