Food Safety and Inspection Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Engineers Corps
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Industry and Security Bureau
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Science and Technology Policy Office
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Federal Aviation Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Foreign Assets Control 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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule that amends a Class E airspace area to support Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Special Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) that serve the Du Bois Regional Medical Center, Du Bois, PA.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 20, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist, System Support, AJO2-E2B.12, FAA Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-5881; fax (404) 305-5572.
The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; confirmation of effective date.
This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule that amends a Class E airspace area to support Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Special Instrument Approach Procedures (IAPs) that serve the Philipsburg Area Hospital, Philipsburg, PA.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 20, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist, System Support, AJO2-E2B.12, FAA Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-5581; fax (404) 305-5572.
The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule that establishes a Class E airspace area to support Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) that serve Tappahannock-Essex County Airport, Tappahannock, VA.
Effective 0901 UTC, December 20, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist, System Support, AJO2-E2B.12, FAA Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-5581; fax (404) 305-5572.
The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; correction, confirmation of effective date.
The Federal Aviation Administration published in the
Effective 0901 UTC, December 20, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist, System Support, AJO2-E2B.12, FAA Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone (404) 305-5581; fax (404) 305-5572.
The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the
Additionally, a technical correction to the wording of the original airspace description is accomplished for clarification of the 700 foot Class E airspace. although the description and amendment was incorporated under 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, the reference to paragraph 6005, which addresses Class E airspace “extending upwards from 700 or more above the surface of the Earth”, was inadvertently omitted. Therefore, the publication in the
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the Earth within a 6-mile radius of the point in space (lat. 41°13′05″ N., long. 76°45′46″ W.) serving the Muncy Valley Hospital.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule.
We are adopting amendments to the proxy rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to facilitate electronic shareholder forums. The amendments clarify that participation in an electronic shareholder forum that could potentially constitute a solicitation subject to the proxy rules is exempt from most of the proxy rules if all of the conditions to the exemption are satisfied. In addition, the amendments state that a shareholder, company, or third party acting on behalf of a shareholder or company that establishes, maintains or operates an electronic shareholder forum will not be liable under the federal securities laws for any statement or information provided by another person participating in the forum. Therefore, the amendments remove legal ambiguity that might deter shareholders and companies from energetically pursuing this mode of communication.
Effective Date: February 25, 2008.
Lillian Brown, Tamara Brightwell, or John Fieldsend at (202) 551-3700, in the Division of Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-3010.
We are amending Rule 14a-2,
On July 27, 2007, the Commission published for comment a release proposing, among other things, amendments to the proxy rules relating to electronic shareholder forums.
The purposes of new Rule 14a-17 and the Rule 14a-2 exemption are to facilitate experimentation, innovation, and greater use of the Internet to further shareholder communications. By facilitating such communications on the Internet among shareholders, and between shareholders and their companies, we hope to tap the potential of technology to better vindicate shareholders' state law rights, including their right to elect directors, in ways that are potentially both more effective and less expensive for shareholders and companies.
In a series of proxy roundtables that we sponsored in May 2007, several participants observed that recent technological developments hold promise in this regard.
For example, the participants suggested that an online forum that would be for the exclusive use of shareholders of the company could protect the shareholders' privacy through encrypted unique identifiers,
Technology now makes it feasible to establish such electronic shareholder forums to perform these functions. As one commenter indicated, technology is available to establish “secure, shareowner-to-shareowner communications, with access restricted to eligible shareowners, and using the Internet as a medium for efficient, ongoing interaction between shareowners and issuers.”
If companies choose to participate in, or sponsor, electronic forums, they might find them of use in better gauging shareholder interest with respect to a variety of topics. A company-sponsored forum also could be used to provide a means for management to communicate with shareholders by posting press releases, notifying shareholders of record dates, and expressing the views of the company's management and board of directors.
Despite these potential benefits of electronic shareholder forums, shareholders and companies alike have been reluctant to establish, maintain, or operate them due, in part, to uncertainty over liability for statements and information provided by those participating in the forum. In addition, potential forum participants have expressed concern regarding whether views and statements expressed through the forum would be considered proxy solicitations. Therefore, we proposed a new exemption from the proxy rules (other than from the shareholder list provisions in Rule 14a-7 and the antifraud provisions in Rule 14a-9) for any solicitation in an electronic shareholder forum that satisfies the conditions of the exemption. We also proposed new Rule 14a-17 to provide liability protection for a shareholder, company, or third party acting on behalf of a shareholder or company that establishes, maintains or operates an electronic shareholder forum regarding statements or information provided by another party participating in the forum.
As we discuss further in Section III, we are adopting new Rule 14a-17 and the amendments to Rule 14a-2 substantially as proposed. We are taking these steps to remove both real and perceived impediments to continued private sector experimentation with, and use of the Internet for, communication among shareholders, and between shareholders and the companies in which they invest. We intend for the amendments to facilitate communication and thereby encourage the creation of, and participation in, electronic shareholder forums.
The majority of the public comment on the proposed amendments to facilitate electronic shareholder forums was favorable.
In our proposing release, we requested comment on five basic issues related to electronic shareholder forums. The first issue was whether the proposed amendments would have their intended effect of providing sufficient flexibility under the federal securities laws to establish forums that permit interaction among shareholders and between shareholders and the company. In this regard, we solicited comment on whether shareholders and companies desire such flexibility, and if they do, whether the amended rules would provide it. We also solicited comment on whether any additional measures are necessary to ensure that the federal securities laws do not hinder development of these forums. Finally, we asked whether the rules should provide more direction and guidance relating to the structure and purpose of the forums than we proposed.
The second issue on which we solicited comment concerned the potential liability under the federal securities laws associated with electronic shareholder forums. A primary purpose of the proposed amendments was to clarify that establishing, maintaining, or operating an electronic shareholder forum does not make one liable for statements or information provided by another person. We also asked commenters to identify any additional liability issues under the federal securities laws that we may not have addressed through the proposed amendments.
The third issue concerned the period of time during which electronic shareholder forums should be allowed to operate without being subject to most of the federal proxy rules. Under the proposed amendments, any solicitation in an electronic shareholder forum by or on behalf of a person that does not seek, directly or indirectly, the power to act as a proxy for a shareholder would be exempt from most of the proxy rules.
We proposed that such a person could avail himself or herself of the exemption provided that the solicitation was made more than 60 days before the date announced by the company for its next annual or special meeting, or not more than two days following the announcement of such a meeting if the announcement occurred fewer than 60 days before the meeting date. We solicited comment on whether an electronic shareholder forum could function effectively with this timing limitation. We also asked whether better alternatives exist to encourage free and open communication. Additionally, we solicited comment on whether we should require electronic shareholder forums to be closed down within 60 days of a scheduled shareholder meeting, whether shareholders whose communications remain posted inside the 60-day period should be required to file them with us, and how to best monitor these forums.
Fourth, we solicited comment regarding the use of electronic shareholder forums as a substitute for advancing referenda that otherwise would be presented in the form of non-binding shareholder proposals for inclusion in a company's proxy materials.
Finally, we solicited comment on the ways that an electronic shareholder forum might be used in connection with bylaw proposals regarding procedures for nominating candidates to the board of directors. In particular, we solicited comment on whether shareholders should be able to use an electronic shareholder forum to solicit other shareholders to join with them in submitting a bylaw proposal.
The vast majority of commenters supported the new exemption for electronic shareholder forums that we proposed to add to Rule 14a-2 and proposed new Rule 14a-17.
Despite the generally favorable reaction, some commenters predicted that electronic shareholder forums might develop into the same types of shareholder chat rooms that exist today.
Most of the commenters expressing concerns regarding non-binding shareholder proposals stated that they would oppose making the electronic shareholder forum a substitute for the current process under Rule 14a-8. Several of these commenters made it clear that they support electronic shareholder forums, provided that they are only a supplement to the current Rule 14a-8 process.
Additionally, some commenters mentioned that keeping the identity of participants who post messages on these electronic forums private would threaten meaningful communications among shareholders and with the company.
As stated above, the amendments that we are adopting in this release provide an additional means for shareholders to communicate, and do not in any manner restrict a shareholder's ability under Rule 14a-8 to submit a non-binding proposal to a company for inclusion in the company's proxy materials. Furthermore, the amendments neither mandate nor preclude private communications in electronic shareholder forums; instead, they allow for flexibility in different approaches and to allow innovation and experimentation.
The amendments are designed to facilitate greater online interaction among shareholders by removing two major obstacles to the use of electronic shareholder forums.
As defined by the Commission, the term “solicitation” encompasses not only a request that a shareholder execute a proxy, but also the “furnishing of a form of proxy or other communication to security holders under circumstances reasonably calculated to result in the procurement, withholding or revocation of a proxy.”
Therefore, we are adding a new exemption to Rule 14a-2 to state explicitly that Rules 14a-3 through 14a-6 (other than Rule 14a-6(g)), Rule 14a-8, and Rules 14a-10 through 14a-15 do not apply to any solicitation in an electronic shareholder forum if all of the conditions to the exemption are satisfied.
A solicitation on an electronic shareholder forum will be exempt so long as it occurs more than 60 days prior to the date announced by the company for its annual or special meeting of shareholders. If the company announces the meeting less than 60 days before the meeting date, the solicitation may not occur more than two days following the company's announcement.
A person who participates in an electronic shareholder forum and makes solicitations in reliance on the Rule 14a-2(b)(6) exemption will be eligible to solicit proxies after the date that the exemption is no longer available, or is no longer being relied upon, provided that any such solicitation complies with Regulation 14A. In fact, it is for this reason that Rule 14a-2(b)(6) is necessary. Existing Rule 14a-2(b)(1)
Therefore, statements on an electronic shareholder forum could be exempt under Rule 14a-2(b)(1), even if these amendments were not adopted. Once an exempt solicitation is made under Rule 14a-2(b)(1), however, the individual making the solicitation cannot later request proxy authority. Consequently, Rule 14a-2(b)(6) states that a person who participates in an electronic shareholder forum and makes a solicitation in reliance on this rule can later solicit proxies without threatening the exemption's validity.
We believe that exempting participation in an electronic shareholder forum only up until 60 days before an annual or special meeting will limit the potential for abuse, and therefore we are adopting the 60-day limitation.
We believe that the 60 day cut-off period will provide sufficient time for shareholders to consider the information disclosed to them about a planned shareholder meeting. We also believe that removing obstacles to shareholder participation in electronic forums outweighs the potential for such communications to impact a shareholder's vote. Of course, persons relying on Rule 14a-2(b)(6) who later solicit proxy authority will need to comply with other Commission rules as applicable.
Additionally, although commenters did not request specifically that we provide guidance on the potential proxy rule implications of stored communications available on a forum
The second major obstacle to the use of electronic shareholder forums is the concern that one who establishes, maintains, or operates the forum will be liable under the federal securities laws for statements made by forum participants. With respect to the establishment of such forums, which can be conducted and maintained in any number of ways, new Rule 14a-17 clarifies that a shareholder or company (or third party acting on behalf of a shareholder or company) that establishes, maintains, or operates an electronic shareholder forum is not liable for statements made by another person participating in the forum.
The persons providing information to or making statements on an electronic shareholder forum, however, will remain liable for the content of those communications under traditional liability theories in the federal securities laws, such as those in Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, Rule 14a-9, and Section 20(e) of the Exchange Act. The prohibitions in the antifraud provisions against primary or secondary participation in fraud, deception, or manipulation will continue to apply to those supplying information to the site, and claims will not face any additional obstacles because of the new rule. Also, any other applicable federal or state law will continue to apply to persons providing information or statements to an electronic shareholder forum.
As adopted, new Rule 14a-17 provides liability protection for all shareholders, companies, and third parties acting on behalf of a shareholder or company that establish, maintain, or operate an electronic shareholder forum under the federal securities laws, provided that the forum is conducted in compliance with the federal securities laws, applicable state law and the company's charter and bylaws. The proposed rule would have applied only to companies and shareholders, but we believe it is appropriate to expand liability protections to other types of forum sponsors or operators, such as Internet service providers and shareholder or corporate associations, acting at the request, and on the behalf, of a shareholder or company.
As noted above, liability under the federal securities laws for statements made on an electronic shareholder forum is one area of concern for shareholders, companies, or third parties acting on behalf of a shareholder or company when making the decision about whether to establish such a forum. The main purpose of Rule 14a-17 is to protect the person establishing, maintaining, or operating an electronic shareholder forum from liability under the federal securities laws in much the same way that the federal telecommunications laws protect an interactive computer service.
Commenters suggested certain other changes to the proposed rules. For instance, one commenter questioned whether statements made in reliance on Rule 14a-2(b)(6) are in fact solicitations as defined in Rule 14a-1(l),
We also considered whether certain persons who rely on the new Rule 14a-2(b)(6) exemption should be required to file a notification with the Commission. We concluded that filing such a notification would be unnecessary because the postings made in reliance on new Rule 14a-2(b)(6) will be limited to postings made in a shareholder forum by persons who are not seeking, directly or indirectly, the power to act as a proxy for a shareholder and to those made more than 60 days before any meeting of shareholders.
Further, one commenter highlighted the need for persons who may rely on the exemption in Rule 14a-2(b)(6) to give consideration to the impact of the postings under other Commission rules and regulations. In particular, the commenter cited the potential implications of electronic shareholder forum postings on Regulation 13D beneficial ownership reporting.
In conclusion, we intend to remove legal ambiguity that might inhibit shareholders, companies, or third parties acting on behalf of a shareholder or company from the energetic pursuit of this mode of communication. We also intend that the amendments will encourage shareholders, companies, or third parties acting on behalf of a shareholder or company to take advantage of electronic shareholder forums to facilitate better communication among shareholders and between shareholders and companies.
The proxy rules constitute a “collection of information” requirement within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the PRA.
We are adopting amendments to the proxy rules under the Exchange Act to facilitate electronic shareholder forums by removing legal ambiguity under the federal securities laws that might deter shareholders, companies, or third parties acting on a shareholder's or company's behalf from establishing or contributing to such forums. These amendments clarify that participation in an electronic shareholder forum which potentially could constitute a proxy solicitation subject to the proxy rules, is exempt from most of the proxy rules if the conditions to the exemption are satisfied. In addition, these amendments state that a shareholder, company, or third party acting on a shareholder's or company's behalf that establishes, maintains, or operates an electronic shareholder forum generally will not be liable under the federal securities laws for any statement or information provided by another person participating in the forum.
The most important benefit of the amendments that we are adopting is that they will eliminate a regulatory obstacle to electronic shareholder forums which hold the potential to significantly improve communications among shareholders and between shareholders and the companies they own. As a result of the amendments, shareholders and companies may be more willing to create or sponsor these forums, because the regulatory and liability regime will be more clearly defined.
Among the potential benefits to shareholders and companies are cheaper, more timely, and more relevant exchanges of information among shareholders and between shareholders and companies. Electronic shareholder forums could generate attention for sound proposals that could increase the value of share ownership, and they could filter out proposals not supported by other shareholders. They could also help disparate shareholders form stronger coalitions and coordinate their voices.
In this regard, the majority of the amendments' benefits flow from the potential reduction in costs of collective action among shareholders and the potential reduction of costs in communications between shareholders and companies if there is more extensive use of electronic forums. For example, a shareholder who does not agree with a corporate policy and therefore is considering taking steps to have the company change that policy may not be able to easily and inexpensively survey other shareholders and determine their sentiments regarding the policy. Therefore, that shareholder presently has to decide whether to take the costly steps of opposing the company's action by submitting a non-binding proposal or running a proxy contest without having the benefit of knowing whether the initiative is favored or will be supported by other shareholders.
Electronic shareholder forums may reduce communication and coordination costs among shareholders and also reduce companies' costs in replying if they choose to do so. A shareholder seeking to submit a non-binding proposal or conduct a proxy contest may be encouraged or discouraged from doing so in accordance with the better information that he or she will have acquired, at little or no cost, about the preference of other shareholders. And if a proposal is enthusiastically supported by a significant number of shares, the company might take notice and voluntarily adopt it; again, saving the shareholder considerable expense and benefiting the company and its shareholders overall.
Even if the company does not voluntarily adopt an initiative that reflects strong shareholder sentiment, knowledge of this fact by other shareholders will make it more likely that the initiative will be submitted and adopted. Shareholders may be encouraged to run successful proxy contests to pursue such changes, or management may be more responsive to the concerns in other ways. Thus, shareholders may benefit from a closer alignment between management and the interests of shareholders.
Another way that shareholders and companies may benefit from the amendments is that they could have more information to use in evaluating initiatives submitted for their consideration by other shareholders or by management. This information could be available at little or no incremental cost and could be readily accessible and searchable because it is in electronic form. Therefore, the amendments may reduce the cost of monitoring issues among shareholders.
Finally, more extensive use of electronic shareholder forums may be a step towards improving the informational efficiency of the market generally.
There are several potential costs to shareholders of implementing the amendments to the proxy rules, although all such costs would be voluntarily undertaken. One immediate cost of an electronic shareholder forum is that of maintaining and operating it. Although empirical data are not available for the exact costs of operating electronic shareholder forums, based on comparable costs of maintaining interactive Web sites, the costs of starting and maintaining a basic shareholder forum are not expected to be high. As more complicated features are included in a forum by its operators, such as eligibility verification procedures, anonymous accountability programs, and share ownership displays, costs could be expected to increase accordingly. Again, however, the decision to establish, operate, or maintain an electronic shareholder forum, and to add more expensive features, is voluntary.
Additionally, to the extent that the amendments to the proxy rules we are adopting result in an increase in the number of electronic forums, there could be increased costs related to the additional time that a shareholder or company chooses to spend monitoring, processing, and considering information that is posted on the forums. These costs will generally correspond to the number of shareholders using the forums, the frequency with which those shareholders post information on the forums, and the level of attention that shareholders or companies choose to
Should a company choose to sponsor or use an electronic shareholder forum, the company, and derivatively its shareholders, would bear the associated costs. If the company or its shareholders used the forum to conduct shareholder polls or surveys, the costs of the forums would be commensurately higher due to the time and effort necessary to accurately determine the results.
Moreover, because electronic shareholder forums may generally reduce the cost of communication among shareholders and between shareholders and companies, they may increase the frequency of that communication and thus, incidentally, the subset of that communication that constitutes misstatements, whether made intentionally or unintentionally. This could increase the costs of the forums to companies or shareholders. Although shareholders are held liable under the federal securities laws for fraudulent statements made on the forums, at least one commenter still expressed a concern that fraudulent information may lead to problems for a company, such as changes in stock prices,
It should be noted, however, that the opportunity for online fraudulent misstatements is not new, as a number of shareholder forums exist online already, and there is nothing in the nature of electronic shareholder forums that should attract misstatements in greater numbers than other more public areas of the Internet. Regardless, it is possible that misstatements on an electronic shareholder forum could be taken more seriously in cases where the forum is restricted, for example, to only shareholders and the company. Even so, given the inevitability of occasional miscommunication, an electronic forum in which both the shareholders and the company participate may provide a means to quickly dispel any misleading information.
Another potential cost is that shareholders may have less complete information with which to evaluate proposals than they would have otherwise because the amendment facilitates solicitation, outside the 60-day period prior to an annual or special meeting, without mandating extensive disclosure about the identity and the ownership of the participants that would occur otherwise. Because disclosures of this type may in some instances provide other shareholders with valuable information regarding possible motivations behind proposals that they would not otherwise receive, shareholders currently benefit from the proxy rules mandating such disclosure. Under the current rulemaking, some solicitations that would ordinarily be accompanied by these additional disclosures would proceed without them. The magnitude of this cost of lost information, however, depends on the extent to which shareholders have easy access to substitute sources of information and to the extent the information is material to the actions of shareholders and companies in the proxy voting process.
Finally, a shareholder that cannot, or chooses not to, use the Internet may be disadvantaged by not being able to fully participate in this form of dialogue among shareholders and between shareholders and the company. As a result, these shareholders may incur costs associated with adjusting to the use of electronic forums or in searching for the information being conveyed on the electronic forums in another medium. Alternatively, a shareholder who has never used the Internet but feels compelled to do so because of an electronic shareholder forum would incur the costs of obtaining Internet access. These costs, however, are similar to those that shareholders already must incur in to participate in existing electronic forums. Nonetheless, it is possible that if electronic shareholder forums are restricted to shareholders and companies, they will be considered more relevant and meaningful than existing forums that are available to any person. The costs to shareholders not willing or able to use electronic shareholder forums could be offset to some degree by the fact that other shareholders with whom they share a common financial interest may take advantage of the forums to propose initiatives and make their sentiments known to the company.
Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act
By removing legal ambiguity, we anticipate the rules will promote efficiency in shareholder communications. Electronic shareholder forums may reduce communication costs and coordination costs among shareholders and also reduce companies' costs in replying if they choose to do so. Finally, more extensive use of electronic shareholder forums may be a step towards improving the informational efficiency of the market generally.
To the extent shareholders express interest in starting or participating in forums, competition among service providers to host or operate the forums may increase. We do not anticipate any effect on capital formation.
This Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, the FRFA, has been prepared in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
These amendments to the proxy rules are necessary to remove legal ambiguity that might deter shareholders, companies, and others from establishing or participating in electronic shareholder forums. New Rule 14a-17 and the new Rule 14a-2(b)(6) exemption will clarify the responsibilities of those who establish, maintain, operate, and contribute to electronic shareholder forums, with the purpose of stimulating experimentation, innovation, and greater use of the Internet to further shareholder communications. By facilitating such communications on the Internet among shareholders, and between shareholders and their companies, we hope to tap the potential of technology to better vindicate shareholders' state law rights, including their rights to elect directors, in ways that are potentially both more effective and less expensive.
Despite the potential benefits of electronic shareholder forums, shareholders and companies alike have been reluctant to establish, maintain, or operate them due, in part, to uncertainty over liability for statements and information provided by those participating in the forum. In addition, shareholders and companies have expressed concern regarding whether views and statements expressed through a forum would be considered proxy solicitations.
Therefore, we are adopting Rule 14a-17 to provide liability protection for a shareholder, company, or third party acting on behalf of a shareholder or company that establishes or maintains an electronic shareholder forum regarding statements or information provided by others participating in the forum. Also, we are adopting the new Rule 14a-2(b)(6) exemption from the proxy rules to explicitly state that Rules 14a-3 through 14a-6 (other than Rule 14a-6(g)), Rule 14a-8, and Rules 14a-10 through 14a-15 do not apply to any solicitation in an electronic shareholder forum. By taking these steps, we hope to remove both real and perceived impediments to continued private sector experimentation with, and use of, the Internet for communication among shareholders, and between shareholders and the companies in which they invest. We intend for the amendments to encourage the creation of, and participation in, electronic shareholder forums.
In the Proposing Release, we published for comment a number of amendments to the proxy rules under the Exchange Act concerning shareholder proposals generally. The description of the proposed amendments regarding electronic shareholder forums constituted only one section of the release.
The majority of the public comment regarding electronic shareholder forums was favorable.
Additionally, some commenters believed that keeping the identity of shareholders who post messages on these electronic forums anonymous would threaten meaningful communications among shareholders and the company.
Despite the generally favorable reaction, some commenters were concerned about possible negative consequences of the amendments. First, some commenters worried that the electronic shareholder forums could develop into shareholder chat rooms, which may not provide for meaningful communication.
In the Proposing Release, we requested comment on many aspects of the proposed amendments to the proxy rules concerning shareholder proposals generally, including the number of small entities that would be affected by the proposed amendments, and the quantitative and qualitative nature of the impact. Commenters, including the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, addressed several aspects of the proposed rule amendments that potentially could have affected small entities. However, none of the commenters specifically discussed the effect of the proposed amendments regarding electronic shareholder forums on small businesses or entities. In particular, because the electronic shareholder forums authorized by the amendments that we are adopting are entirely voluntary, we believe that they will beneficially affect small businesses and entities in the same manner that they will beneficially affect larger businesses and entities. This is because presumably, only those businesses and entities that find them beneficial will choose to use them.
The amendments that we are adopting in this release will affect only shareholders and companies that voluntarily establish, maintain, or operate electronic shareholder forums or that post information on, or provide information to, such forums. Some of the companies or shareholders may be small entities. Exchange Act Rule 0-
We are adopting the amendments to the proxy rules to facilitate electronic shareholder forums by clarifying that participation in a forum, which could potentially constitute a proxy solicitation subject to the proxy rules, is exempt from most of the proxy rules if the shareholder or company satisfies all of the conditions to the exemption. Also, we are facilitating electronic shareholder forums by clarifying that any shareholder, company, or third party acting on behalf of a shareholder or company that establishes, maintains, or operates an electronic shareholder forum will not solely because of establishing, maintaining, or operating the forum be liable under the federal securities laws for any statement or information provided by another person participating in the forum. The amendments remove legal ambiguity that might deter shareholders and companies from relying on this mode of communication.
The amendments that we are adopting only apply to shareholders, companies, or third parties acting on their behalf if they choose to establish, maintain, operate, or participate in electronic shareholder forums. We are not requiring a small entity to have any involvement with electronic shareholder forums. We are only clarifying the liability provisions for establishing, maintaining, or operating such a forum and providing an exemption for forum communications that fall within the broad definition of a solicitation.
The amended rules do not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements on small entities. In fact, a small entity is not required to take any reporting or recordkeeping action or to comply with any other new requirements, unless it chooses to rely on the new Rule 14a-2(b)(6) exemption. If a small entity or shareholder posts information on a forum in reliance on Rule 14a-2(b)(6), and later solicits the power to act as a proxy for a shareholder, it will need to determine whether any earlier postings remaining on the forum after the Rule 14a-2(b)(6) exemption no longer is available must be filed as soliciting materials.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs us to consider alternatives that would accomplish our stated objectives, while minimizing any significant adverse impact on small entities. Our objective in adopting the amendments is to facilitate electronic shareholder forums by clarifying that participation in a forum is exempt from most of the proxy solicitation rules if the participant satisfies all of the exemption's conditions, and that forum operators are not liable for third-party statements on their forums. The amendments impact small entities only if the entities choose to involve themselves in the forums by establishing, maintaining, or operating them or by posting information on or providing information to the forums. We considered alternatives to accomplish our stated objective, but we could not think of one that would make electronic shareholder forums more useful to small entities because these amendments are voluntary and affect small entities only if they chose to participate in them.
We are adopting amendments pursuant to Sections 14, 23(a), and 36 of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Sections 20(a) and 38 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78
(b) * * *
(6) Any solicitation by or on behalf of any person who does not seek directly or indirectly, either on its own or another's behalf, the power to act as proxy for a shareholder and does not furnish or otherwise request, or act on behalf of a person who furnishes or requests, a form of revocation, abstention, consent, or authorization in an electronic shareholder forum that is established, maintained or operated pursuant to the provisions of § 240.14a-17, provided that the solicitation is made more than 60 days prior to the date announced by a registrant for its next annual or special meeting of shareholders. If the registrant announces the date of its next annual or special meeting of shareholders less than 60 days before the meeting date, then the solicitation may not be made more than two days following the date of the registrant's announcement of the meeting date. Participation in an electronic shareholder forum does not eliminate a person's eligibility to solicit proxies after the date that this exemption is no longer available, or is no longer being relied upon, provided that any such solicitation is conducted in accordance with this regulation.
3. Add § 240.14a-17 to read as follows:
(a) A shareholder, registrant, or third party acting on behalf of a shareholder or registrant may establish, maintain, or operate an electronic shareholder forum to facilitate interaction among the registrant's shareholders and between the registrant and its shareholders as the shareholder or registrant deems appropriate. Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the forum must comply with the federal securities laws, including Section 14(a) of the Act and its associated regulations, other applicable federal laws, applicable state laws, and the registrant's governing documents.
(b) No shareholder, registrant, or third party acting on behalf of a shareholder or registrant, by reason of establishing, maintaining, or operating an electronic shareholder forum, will be liable under the federal securities laws for any statement or information provided by another person to the electronic shareholder forum. Nothing in this
(c) Reliance on the exemption in § 240.14a-2(b)(6) to participate in an electronic shareholder forum does not eliminate a person's eligibility to solicit proxies after the date that the exemption in § 240.14a-2(b)(6) is no longer available, or is no longer being relied upon, provided that any such solicitation is conducted in accordance with this regulation.
By the Commission.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is creating special local regulations to regulate recurring marine events in the Seventh Coast Guard District. These regulations will apply to all permitted events listed on the table attached to the regulation, and include events such as regattas, parades, and fireworks displays. These regulations are being created to reduce the Coast Guard's administrative workload and expedite public notification of events.
This rule is effective 30 days after publication in the
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket [USCG-2007-0179] and are available for inspection or copying at the Brickell Plaza Federal Building, Miami, FL, between 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
LTJG John Lisko, U.S. Coast Guard District Seven Waterways Management Division, (305) 415-6730.
On November 13, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations; Recurring Marine Events in the Seventh Coast Guard District
Marine events are frequently held on the navigable waters within the boundary of the Seventh Coast Guard District. These include events such as sailing regattas, holiday parades, and fireworks displays. Currently, there are over 250 annually recurring marine events and many other non-recurring events within the district. In the past, the Coast Guard regulated these events by creating individual special local regulations on a case by case basis. Most of these events required only the establishment of a regulated area and assignment of a patrol commander to ensure safety. Issuing individual, annual special local regulations has created a significant administrative burden on the Coast Guard. In 2005, the Coast Guard created over 60 temporary regulations for recurring marine events in the Seventh District. That number rose to over 110 in 2006 and over 160 in 2007.
Additionally, for the majority of these events, the Coast Guard does not receive notification of the event or important details of the event are not finalized by event organizers with sufficient time to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and final rule before the event date. The Coast Guard must therefore create temporary final rules that sometimes are not completed until a few days before the event. This results in delayed notification to the public, potentially placing the public and event participants at risk.
This rule will significantly relieve the administrative burden on the Coast Guard, and at the same time allow the sponsor of the event and the Coast Guard to notify the public of these events in a timely manner. The public will be provided with notice of events through the table attached to this regulation. This table lists each recurring event that may be regulated by the Coast Guard, and indicates the sponsor, as well as the date and location of the event. Because the dates and location of these events may change slightly from year to year, the specific information on each event, including the exact dates, specific areas, and description of the regulated area, will be provided to the public through a Local Notice to Mariners published before the event, as well as through Broadcast Notice to Mariners. This table will be updated by the Coast Guard periodically to add new recurring events, remove events that no longer occur, and update listed events to ensure accurate information is provided.
No comments were received. However, slight changes were made to proposed events to clarify dates and sponsors. In the Captain of the Port Zone Key West the date for Marathon Super Boat Grand Prix was updated to the 3rd Weekend of May (FRI-SUN). The date for the FKCC Swim around Key West was updated to the 3rd Saturday in June. These changes were made to add information to the events for increased public knowledge.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the areas where marine events are being held. This proposed regulation will not
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule does not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits the category of paragraph 34(h) because it creates special local regulations for regattas and marine parades.
Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” is not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review.
Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1233.
The following regulations apply to the marine events listed in Table 1 of this section. These regulations will be effective annually, for the duration of each event listed in Table 1. Annual notice of the exact dates and times of the effective period of the regulation with respect to each event, the geographical area, and details concerning the nature of the event and the number of participants and type(s) of vessels involved will also be published in the local notice to mariners and broadcast over VHF.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the event, or the operation of any vessel participating in the event, at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.
(3) Only event sponsor designated participants and official patrol vessels are allowed to enter the regulated area.
(4) Spectators are only allowed inside the regulated area if they remain within a designated spectator area. Spectators may contact the Coast Guard Patrol Commander to request permission to pass through the regulated area. If permission is granted, spectators must pass directly through the regulated area at safe speed and without loitering.
(d)
(1) Captain of the Port Charleston, South Carolina: (843) 724-7616.
(2) Captain of the Port Savannah, Georgia: (912) 652-4353.
(3) Captain of the Port Jacksonville, Florida: (904) 247-7318.
(4) Captain of the Port Miami, Florida: (305) 535-8701.
(5) Captain of the Port Key West, Florida: (305) 292-8779.
(6) Captain of the Port Sector St. Petersburg, Florida: (727) 824-7506.
(7) Captain of the Port San Juan, Puerto Rico: (787) 289-2041.
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary anchorage area, designated Anchorage 8A, adjacent to existing Anchorage 8 that can be activated by Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) when the number of vessels requesting to anchor in Anchorages 8 and 9 exceeds the capacity of these two anchorages. Anchorage 8A may also be utilized during any emergency situation. This rule defines its use and location, and establishes procedures for activating the anchorage area and notifying the maritime public.
This rule is effective February 25, 2008.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD11-04-002 and are available for inspection or copying at Waterways Safety Branch, Sector San Francisco, 1 Yerba Buena Island, San Francisco, California 94130, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant Eric Ramos, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, Waterways Safety Branch at telephone (415) 399-7443.
We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Anchorage Regulation; San Francisco Bay, CA” in the
We published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) entitled “Anchorage Regulation; San Francisco Bay, CA” in the
Anchorage 8A is necessary due to the trend toward larger ships arriving in San Francisco Bay, the growth of faster Marine Transportation Systems, increased large vessel traffic, and increased use of Anchorages 8 and 9 in San Francisco Bay. In addition to more vessels needing to anchor while awaiting the departure of other vessels at berth, periodic labor strikes and disputes have caused delays in the turnaround time of cargo, and filled Anchorages 8 and 9 to capacity.
The Coast Guard received the following comments in response to the NPRM. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) requested that a consistency determination be submitted evaluating the proposal in relation to BCDC Coastal Zone Management Policies. A 15 CFR 930.35 Negative Determination was submitted to BCDC on September 18, 2006. In a letter dated October 17, 2006, BCDC suggested that the Coast Guard consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding threatened or endangered species. A biological
On December 4, 2006, USFWS copied the Coast Guard on a 2004 memorandum in which they found that proposed Anchorage 8A could adversely affect the endangered California least tern (Stern antillarum browni). The Coast Guard redefined the size and configuration of the proposed anchorage based on consultation with USFWS. As a result, USFWS concurred with the Coast Guard's determination of “not likely to adversely affect” as described below. BCDC also concurred that the proposed action would be consistent with their Amended Coastal Zone Management Program for San Francisco Bay.
NMFS wrote to the Coast Guard on June 4, 2007, that “based on the best available scientific information, the NMFS has determined that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect listed salmonids or green sturgeon,” populations which are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act and which may be present in the proposed Anchorage 8A area.
Based on those comments, we reduced the size of proposed Anchorage 8A. The NPRM originally proposed that Anchorage 8A be bounded by the following lines: Beginning at latitude 37°47′35.5″ N and longitude 122°21′50″ W; thence south-southwesterly to latitude 37°47′05″ N and longitude 122°22′07.5″ W; thence south-southeasterly to latitude 37°46′30″ N and longitude 122°21′56″ W; thence easterly along the northern border of Anchorage 9 to latitude 37°46′21.5″ N and longitude 122°19′07″ W; thence northerly to latitude 37°46′34.5″ N and longitude 122°19′05.5″ W; thence westerly to latitude 37°46′36.5″ N and longitude 122°19′52″ W; thence westerly along the southern border of Anchorage 8 to latitude 37°45′40″ N and longitude 122°21′23″ W; thence northwesterly along the southwestern border of Anchorage 8 back to the beginning point (NAD 83). The proposed perimeter of the original size of Anchorage 8A was approximately six and one-half nautical miles.
The SNPRM proposed that the new perimeter of Anchorage 8A be approximately four nautical miles and bounded by the following lines: Beginning at latitude 37°47′35″ N and longitude 122°21′50″ W; thence south-southwesterly to latitude 37°47′07″ N and longitude 122°22′09″ W; thence south-southeasterly to latitude 37°46′30″ N and longitude 122°21′57″ W; thence easterly along the northern border of Anchorage 9 to latitude 37°46′26″ N and longitude 122°20′42″ W; thence northerly to latitude 37°46′38″ N and longitude 122°20′42″ W; thence westerly along the southern border of Anchorage 8 to latitude 37°46′41″ N and longitude 122°21′23″ W; thence northwesterly along the southwestern border of Anchorage 8 back to the beginning point (NAD 83). The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the SNPRM.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
The effect of this regulation will not be significant because the anchorage will only be used when unusual circumstances require that it be activated, recreational traffic can still traverse the anchorage area when necessary, and the temporary anchorage area only takes up a small portion of San Francisco Bay. In addition, this temporary anchorage area has been used twice in the past to accommodate vessels during labor disputes that resulted in Anchorages 8 and 9 being filled to capacity.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Evaluation above.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that Order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because it establishes an anchorage ground.
A final “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a final “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are available in the docket where indicated under
Anchorage grounds.
33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(d) * * *
Notes: * * *
n. This temporary anchorage will be activated by VTS San Francisco when Anchorages 8 and 9 are at capacity and additional anchorage capacity in the vicinity of Alameda is required. VTS will notify a vessel that this temporary anchorage is activated and available for use when Anchorages 8 and 9 are full, and a vessel requests permission from VTS to anchor in Anchorage 8 or 9.
(e) * * *
(6)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has approved a temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the new Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-95) Bridge, mile 103.8, across Potomac River between Alexandria, Virginia and Oxon Hill, Maryland. This deviation will allow the contractor to complete commissioning and final testing for the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge construction project. This deviation allows the new drawbridge to remain closed-to-navigation each day from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. beginning on January 26, 2008 until and including March 1, 2008.
This deviation is effective from 10 a.m. on January 26, 2008, until 2 p.m. on March 1, 2008.
Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (757) 398-6222. Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6222.
In June 2006, the southernmost portion of the bascule spans for the new Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge, at mile 103.8, across Potomac River between Alexandria, Virginia and Oxon Hill, Maryland was publicly placed into service, switching I-95 Northbound traffic onto the new Outer Loop portion of the bridge. The newly-constructed portion of the bridge will be required to open for vessels in accordance with the current drawbridge operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.255(a).
While the drawbridge is operational, coordinators for the construction of the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project indicated that the bascule span is not yet fully commissioned and cannot run at full speed, resulting in extended Interstate 95/495 traffic stoppages during openings. Opening the new bascule span for a vessel at this time would take approximately 45 minutes in a best case scenario. This has the potential to have a significant impact upon I-95 traffic, especially during the 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. bridge-opening time frame currently available for commercial vessels, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.255(a).
Coordinators requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation for the new Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-95) Bridge set out in 33 CFR 117.255(a).
Though good progress has been made regarding commissioning of the north and south drawbridges (both now carrying I-95 vehicle traffic), the coordinators are requesting this deviation from the normal 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. opening period, to proceed with commissioning activities through March 1, 2008. From a river-user standpoint, the coordinators have received no requests from boaters or mariners for a bridge opening during the 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. timeframe since the passage of the tall ship “Gloria” in July 2007.
The coordinators requested that the new drawbridge not be available for openings for vessels each day between the hours of 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. from Saturday, January 26, 2008 through Saturday, March 1, 2008. The temporary deviation will only affect vessels with mast heights of 75 feet or greater. Management of the Federal and auxiliary channels will continue to be closely coordinated between the coordinators for the construction of the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project, the Coast Guard and vessels requesting transit through the construction zone. Furthermore, all affected vessels with mast heights greater than 75 feet will be able to receive an opening of the new drawbridge in the “off-peak” vehicle traffic hours (evening and overnight) in accordance with 33 CFR 117.255(a). Maintaining the new drawbridge in the closed-to-navigation position each day from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on January 26, 2008 through March 1, 2008, will help reduce the impact to vehicular traffic during this phase of the new bridge construction.
The Coast Guard has informed the known users of the waterway of the closure period for the bridge so that these vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has approved a temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, at mile 2.7, across the Elizabeth River—Eastern Branch at Norfolk, VA. This deviation allows the drawbridge to remain closed-to-navigation beginning at 7 a.m. on Monday, February 4, 2008 until and including 6 p.m. on Saturday, March 8, 2008, to facilitate rehabilitation of the operating machinery of the swing span.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on February 4, 2008 to 6 p.m. on March 8, 2008.
Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (757) 398-6222. Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation.
Bill H. Brazier, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6422.
The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge (NS#
Norfolk Southern Railways, the bridge owner, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.1007(a).
To facilitate the repairs to the operating machinery, the NS# V2.8 Bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position beginning at 7 a.m. on Monday, February 4, 2008 until and including 6 p.m. on Saturday, March 8, 2008.
The Coast Guard has informed the known users of the waterway of the closure periods for the bridge so that these vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must 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.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve, as a revision to Ohio's operating permits program, revisions to Ohio's Acid Rain Permits and Compliance Rules found in Chapter 3745-103 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC). The changes made to Ohio's OAC 3745-103 Rules include rules for phase II acid rain permits and new information on items incorporated by reference. EPA granted full approval of Ohio's operating permits program on August 15, 1995, which became effective on October 1, 1995. On March 23, 2007 Ohio submitted the revised acid rain rules to EPA for approval. This
This direct final rule will be effective on March 25, 2008, unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 25, 2008. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1198, by one of the following methods:
•
• E-mail:
• Fax: (312) 886-5824.
• Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
• Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region 5 address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Richard Angelbeck, (312) 886-9698, or by e-mail at
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
The Clean Air Act (Act) requires all state and local permitting authorities to develop operating permits programs that meet the requirements of Title V of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661(f), and its implementing regulations, 40 CFR part 70 (part 70). EPA fully approved Ohio's Title V operating permits program on August 15, 1995 (60 FR 42045). On December 19, 1996, EPA promulgated a final rule (61 FR 67111) for the second phase of the Nitrogen Oxides Program under Title IV of the Act. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) revised its acid rain rules in OAC Chapter 3745-103. The revised acid rain rules became effective on June 27, 2002.
On October 2, 2002, OEPA submitted to EPA the revised acid rain rules for approval into the Ohio Title V operating permits program. On November 27, 2002, EPA provided to OEPA comments on the acid rain rules. In response to EPA's comments, and pursuant to a five-year mandatory rule review, OEPA again revised its acid rain rules, which became effective on January 12, 2007. On March 23, 2007, OEPA submitted to EPA these new and revised acid rain rules as a revision to Ohio's fully approved Title V operating permits program.
On June 27, 2002 OEPA revised its acid rain rules in OAC chapter 3745-103 to include rules for Phase II acid rain permits. On May 12, 2005, EPA published amendments to the final acid rain rules (70 FR 25334), listing criteria for the state operating permit program (40 CFR 72.72) and requirements for the state issuance of Phase II permits (40 CFR 72.73). These requirements became effective July 1, 2006. OEPA was required to adopt these rules as part of its acid rain program. On January 12, 2007, OEPA again revised its acid rain rules in response to EPA comments on the June 27, 2002 rules, and also to correct typos, rule language formatting issues, and to add information on items incorporated by reference.
EPA has determined that, because OEPA's amendments to its acid rain rules do not interfere with the operation of the acid rain program, they meet the criteria of 40 CFR 72.72. The State submission likewise complies with the provisions of 40 CFR 72.73, which requires that a state authorized to administer and enforce an operating permit program under part 70 must have a state acid rain program accepted by the Administrator, and that the state must be responsible for administering and enforcing acid rain permits effective in Phase II for all affected sources. Among other things, Ohio has demonstrated that (a) it had issued all Phase II acid rain permits on or before December 31, 1997, and (b) for units subject to an acid rain NO
EPA is approving, and incorporating into OEPA's Title V operating permits program, the following revisions to OEPA's acid rain rules: OAC rules 3745-103-01 to 3745-103-09, 3745-103-11 to 3745-103-63, 3745-103-65, and 3745-103-66. EPA is also approving into the Ohio Title V program new OAC rule 3745-103-43, and the rescission of OAC rules 3745-103-10, 3745-103-43, 3745-103-64, and 3745-103-67. The new 3745-103-43 rule replaced the prior rule of the same title because Ohio's rule-writing procedures require that changes to this rule be managed as a rescission followed by a replacement. OEPA rules 3745-103-10, 3745-103-64, and 3745-103-67 were rescinded because OEPA judged that rule language to be obsolete.
EPA is approving into Ohio's Title V operating permits program the revision submitted by OEPA on March 23, 2007. EPA is taking this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601,
In reviewing State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.)
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, and Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency submitted an operating permits program amendment on March 23, 2007. The program amendment contained in the March 23, 2007 submittal will update Ohio's existing Acid Rain program. The state is hereby granted approval effective on March 25, 2008.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) furthers its ongoing efforts to ensure that its rules governing the Maritime Radio Services continue to promote maritime safety, maximize effective and efficient use of the spectrum available for maritime communications, accommodate technological innovation, avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens, and maintain consistency with international maritime standards to the extent consistent with the United States public interest. The Commission also seeks in this proceeding to ensure that it regulates the Maritime Radio Services in a manner that advances our nation's homeland security.
This regulation is effective March 25, 2008. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 25, 2008.
Jeffrey Tobias,
This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's
1. The WT Docket No. 00-48 rulemaking proceeding was established to develop rules for domestic implementation of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS), a ship-to-shore and ship-to-ship distress communications system using satellite and digital selective calling (DSC) technology. The
2. The Commission takes the following significant actions in the
3. This document contains a modified information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It was submitted and approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
4. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of amending § 80.409(e) of the Commission's rules to reduce the types of distress communications that must be entered into logs by ship station operators, and find that this relaxation of the log-keeping requirement will benefit businesses with fewer than 25 employees by allowing such businesses that own or operate vessels to devote fewer resources to log-keeping. Most significantly, this reduction of an existing information collection requirement will permit the employee charged with making log entries to devote more of his or her time to other tasks that will enhance the navigational safety of the vessel.
5. The Commission sent a copy of this
6. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
7. The rules adopted in the
8. No comments were submitted specifically in response to the IRFA. However, some commenters raised concerns about the effect that two of the rule changes might have on small entities. Specifically, the Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) and the North Pacific Marine Radio Council (NPMRC) expressed concern about the burden on small entities of being required to comply with the more rigorous international standards that have been developed for digital selective calling (DSC) radio equipment. In addition, the National Marine Charter Association (NMCA) and PVA expressed concern about the burden of having to carry a reserve power supply on small entities who own or operate small passenger vessels of less than 100 gross tons. We have considered the potential economic impact on small entities of these rules and the other rules discussed in the IRFA, and we have considered alternatives that would reduce the potential economic impact on small entities of the rules enacted herein, regardless of whether the potential economic impact was discussed in any comments.
9. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
10. Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use a marine very high frequency (VHF), medium frequency (MF), or high frequency (HF) radio, any type of emergency position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) and/or radar, an aircraft radio, and/or any type of emergency locator transmitter (ELT). The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to these small businesses. For purposes of this FRFA, therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to wireless telecommunications. Pursuant to this definition, a “small entity” for purposes of the ship station licensees, public coast station licensees, or other marine radio users that may be affected by these rules, is any entity employing 1,500 or fewer persons. 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS Code 517212).
11. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data. A “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and
12.
13.
14.
15. Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency (VHF) marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to these small businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” which is 1,500 or fewer employees. Between December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42 VHF Public Coast (VPC) licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a “small” business as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed fifteen million dollars. In addition, a “very small” business is one that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed three million dollars. There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as “small” businesses under the above special small business size standards.
16. In the
17. In the IRFA accompanying the
18. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
19. Although we received no comments specifically addressed to the IRFA for the
20. In determining to adopt more stringent requirements for DSC radio equipment, we carefully considered the impact of such action on small entities that manufacture or use such equipment. We ultimately concluded that we should not exempt any entities from compliance with the new DSC technical standards because indefinite reliance on equipment meeting the old standards could jeopardize the safety not only of passengers and crew on vessels using such equipment but also passengers and crew on other vessels. In addition to the undisputed safety benefits of DSC equipment meeting the new standards, we took into account record evidence indicating that the cost of such equipment is not excessive. Three commenters responded to the Commission's request for information on the compliance costs of this requirement, and their consensus view is that the retail cost of DSC equipment meeting the new standards is not more than $200, which is less than what DSC equipment meeting the earlier SC101 standard was retailing for just a few years ago. Moreover, we have provided affected entities with significant relief through a phase-in of the new requirements plus grandfathering protections. Specifically, the Commission will continue to accept applications for certification of non-handheld DSC equipment meeting the SC101 standard until one year after the effective date of these rule amendments. In addition, the Commission will continue to accept applications for certification of handheld DSC equipment meeting the SC101 standard for a full four years after the effective date of the new rules. With respect to grandfathering protection, we are permitting the continued manufacture, importation, sale and installation of non-handheld SC101 radio equipment until three years after the effective date of the new rules, and the continued manufacture, importation and sale of SC101 handheld units until seven years after the effective date. Finally, we are grandfathering indefinitely the use of any DSC equipment that was properly certified under the SC101 standard and placed in service prior to the expiration of the applicable three-year or seven-year grandfathering period; such equipment, therefore, may continue to be used until the end of its useful life. We conclude that these measures effectively mitigate the burden on small entities of complying with the new DSC standards, reasonably further the goals of the RFA, and allow a resolution of this matter that fairly balances the public interest in maritime safety with the public interest in reducing regulatory burdens on small entities.
21. We also carefully considered the impact on small entities of expanding the Section 80.917 requirement to carry a reserve power supply to additional classes of small passenger vessels. We have decided to expand this requirement because we believe that a reserve power supply “can make a life-or-death difference for passengers and crew on board a passenger vessel in distress.” We also have considered whether there are less costly alternatives to a reserve power supply that would be equally effective in addressing this safety concern. We conclude that no such less costly alternatives exist. However, in the interest of minimizing regulatory burdens on small entities, such as small charter boat operators, that own and operate small passenger vessels, we are not expanding the requirement to
22. The Commission will send a copy of the
Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Incorporation by reference.
Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082 as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
(b) There are eleven types of commercial radio operator licenses, certificates and permits (licenses). The license's ITU classification, if different from its name, is given in parentheses.
(11) GMDSS Radio Operator/Maintainer License (general operator's certificate/technical portion of the first-class radio electronic certificate).
(a) Each application to renew a First Class Radiotelegraph Operator's Certificate, Second Class Radiotelegraph Operator's Certificate, or Third Class Radiotelegraph Operator's Certificate must be made on FCC Form 605. The application must be accompanied by the appropriate fee and submitted in accordance with § 1.913 of this chapter.
(a) First Class Radiotelegraph Operator's Certificates, Second Class Radiotelegraph Operator's Certificates, and Third Class Radiotelegraph Operator's Certificates are normally valid for a term of five years from the date of issuance.
(b) General Radiotelephone Operator Licenses, Restricted Radiotelephone Operator Permits, Restricted Radiotelephone Operator Permits-Limited Use, GMDSS Radio Operator's Licenses, Restricted GMDSS Radio Operator's Licenses, GMDSS Radio Maintainer's Licenses, GMDSS Operator/Maintainer Licenses, and Marine Radio Operator Permits are normally valid for the lifetime of the holder.
(a) A written examination (written Element) must prove that the examinee possesses the operational and technical qualifications to perform the duties required by a person holding that class of commercial radio operator license. For each Element, the Commission shall establish through public notices or other appropriate means the number of questions to be included in the question pool, the number of questions to be included in the examination, and the number of questions that must be answered correctly to pass the examination. Each written examination must consist of questions relating to the pertinent subject matter, as follows:
(1) Element 1 (formerly Elements 1 and 2): Basic radio law and operating practice with which every maritime radio operator should be familiar. Questions concerning provisions of laws, treaties, regulations, and operating procedures and practices generally followed or required in communicating by means of radiotelephone stations.
(2) Element 3: General radiotelephone. Questions concerning electronic fundamentals and techniques required to adjust, repair, and maintain radio transmitters and receivers at stations licensed by the FCC in the aviation, maritime, and international fixed public radio services.
(3) Element 5: Radiotelegraph operating practice. Questions concerning radio operating procedures and practices generally followed or required in communicating by means of radiotelegraph stations primarily other than in the maritime mobile services of public correspondence.
(4) Element 6: Advanced radiotelegraph. Questions concerning technical, legal and other matters applicable to the operation of all classes of radiotelegraph stations, including operating procedures and practices in the maritime mobile services of public correspondence, and associated matters such as radio navigational aids, message traffic routing and accounting, etc.
(5) Element 7: GMDSS radio operating practices. Questions concerning GMDSS radio operating procedures and practices sufficient to show detailed practical knowledge of the operation of all GMDSS sub-systems and equipment; ability to send and receive correctly by radiotelephone and narrow-band direct-printing telegraphy; detailed knowledge of the regulations applying to radio communications, knowledge of the documents relating to charges for radio communications and knowledge of those provisions of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea which relate to radio; sufficient knowledge of English to be able to express oneself satisfactorily both orally and in writing; knowledge of and ability to perform each function listed in § 80.1081 of this chapter; and knowledge covering the requirements set forth in IMO Assembly Resolution on Training for Radio Personnel (GMDSS), Annex 3.
(6) Element 7R: Restricted GMDSS radio operating practices. Questions concerning those GMDSS radio operating procedures and practices that are applicable to ship stations on vessels that sail exclusively in sea area A1, as defined in § 80.1069 of this chapter, sufficient to show detailed practical knowledge of the operation of pertinent GMDSS sub-systems and equipment; ability to send and receive correctly by radio telephone and narrow-band direct-printing telegraphy; detailed knowledge of the regulations governing radio communications within sea area A1, knowledge of the pertinent documents relating to charges for radio communications and knowledge of the pertinent provisions of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea; sufficient knowledge of English to be able to express oneself satisfactorily both orally and in writing; knowledge of and ability to perform each pertinent function listed in § 80.1081 of this chapter; and knowledge covering the pertinent requirements set forth in IMO Assembly Resolution on Training for Radio Personnel (GMDSS), Annex 3.
(7) Element 8: Ship radar techniques. Questions concerning specialized theory and practice applicable to the proper installation, servicing and maintenance of ship radar equipment in general use for marine navigational purposes.
(8) Element 9: GMDSS radio maintenance practices and procedures. Questions concerning the requirements set forth in IMO Assembly on Training for Radio Personnel (GMDSS), Annex 5 and IMO Assembly on Radio Maintenance Guidelines for the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System related to Sea Areas A3 and A4.
The question pool for each written examination element will be composed of questions acceptable to the FCC. Each question pool must contain at least five
Secs. 4, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609; 3 UST 3450, 3 UST 4726, 12 UST 2377.
(e) * * *
(2) A 406.0-406.1 MHz EPIRB may be used by any ship required to carry an EPIRB pursuant to 46 CFR subpart 25.26 or 46 CFR 28.150, 117.64, 117.200, 133.60, 180.64, 180.200, 180.204, 180.205, or 199.510, or by any ship that is equipped with a VHF ship radio station. An INMARSAT-E EPIRB may be used by any ship required by these U.S. Coast Guard regulations to carry an EPIRB or by any ship that is equipped with a VHF radio station, provided that the ship is not operating in sea area A4 as defined in § 80.1069(a)(4).
Service to INMARSAT-E EPIRB stations terminated on December 1, 2006, so distress signals from INMARSAT-E EPIRB stations will not be received by any Rescue Coordination Center.
Transmitters listed in § 80.203 must be authorized for a particular use by the Commission based upon technical requirements contained in subparts E and F of this part, except for transmitters that are used on vessels in the Maritime Security Fleet and are deemed to satisfy all Commission equipment certification requirements pursuant to section 53108(c) of Title 46 of the United States Code.
A ship earth station must display the Commission license.
(a) Operating procedures for the use of DSC equipment in the maritime mobile service are as contained in ITU-R M.541-9, “Operational Procedures for the Use of Digital Selective-Calling Equipment in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 through 5, 2004, and subpart W of this part.
(c) DSC acknowledgment of DSC distress and safety calls must be made by designated coast stations and such acknowledgment must be in accordance with procedures contained in ITU-R M.541-9, “Operational Procedures for the Use of Digital Selective-Calling Equipment in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 through 5, 2004. Nondesignated public and private coast stations must follow the guidance provided for ship stations in ITU-R M.541-9, “Operational Procedures for the Use of Digital Selective-Calling Equipment in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 through 5, 2004, with respect to DSC “Acknowledgment of distress calls” and “Distress relays.” (
(e) ITU-R M.541-9 with Annexes 1 through 5, 2004, is incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of this standard can be inspected at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC (Reference Information Center) 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:
(d) Radio equipment used on land must be certified for use under part 22, part 80, or part 90 of this chapter. Such equipment must operate only on the public correspondence channels authorized for use by the associated public coast station;
Each compulsory vessel, while underway, must maintain a watch for radiotelephone distress calls on 156.800 MHz whenever such station is not being used for exchanging communications. For GMDSS ships, 156.525 MHz is the calling frequency for distress, safety,
(e) * * *
(1) The equipment must be using DSC in accordance with ITU-R Recommendation M.493-11, “Digital Selective-calling System for Use in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 and 2, 2004, and ITU-R Recommendation M.541-9, “Operational Procedures for the Use of Digital Selective-Calling Equipment in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 through 5, 2004, as modified by this section. ITU-R Recommendations M.493-11 with Annexes 1 and 2 and M.541-9 with Annexes 1 through 5 are incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of these standards can be inspected at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC (Reference Information Center) 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:
(b) * * *
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, programming of authorized channels must be performed only by a person holding a first or second class radiotelegraph operator's certificate or a general radiotelephone operator's license using any of the following procedures:
(i) Internal adjustment of the transmitter;
(ii) Use of controls normally inaccessible to the station operator;
(iii) Use of external devices or equipment modules made available only to service and maintenance personnel through a service company; and
(iv) Copying of a channel selection program directly from another transmitter (cloning) using devices and procedures made available only to service and maintenance personnel through a service company.
(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(3) of this section, authorized channels may be programmed via computerized remote control by any person, provided that the remote control operation is designed to preclude the programming of channels not authorized to the licensee.
(h) In addition to the certification requirements contained in part 2 of this chapter, applicants for certification of 406.0-406.1 MHz radiobeacons must also comply with the certification procedures contained in § 80.1061 of this part.
(n) Applications for certification of all marine radio transmitters operating in the 2-27.5 MHz band or the 156-162 MHz band received on or after June 17, 1999, must have a DSC capability in accordance with § 80.225. This requirement does not apply to transmitters used with AMTS or hand-held portable transmitters.
(d) The authorized classes of emission are as follows:
(e) The mean power of EPIRBs operating on 121.500 MHz, 243.000 MHz and 406.0-406.1 MHz must be as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) 2182 kHz must be able to operate with A3E or H3E and J2B and J3E emissions;
This section specifies the requirements for voluntary digital selective calling (DSC) equipment and selective calling equipment installed in ship and coast stations, and incorporates by reference ITU-R Recommendation M.476-5, “Direct-Printing Telegraph Equipment in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annex, 1995; ITU-R Recommendation M.493-11, “Digital Selective-calling System for Use in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 and 2, 2004; ITU-R Recommendation M.541-9, “Operational Procedures for the Use of Digital Selective-Calling Equipment in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 through 5, 2004; ITU-R Recommendation M.625-3, “Direct-Printing Telegraph Equipment Employing Automatic Identification in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annex, 1995; RTCM Paper 56-95/SC101-STD, “RTCM Recommended Minimum Standards for Digital Selective Calling (DSC) Equipment Providing Minimum Distress and Safety Capability,” Version 1.0, August 10, 1995; and IEC 62238, First edition, “Maritime navigation and
(a) The requirements for DSC equipment voluntarily installed in coast or ships stations are as follows:
(1) Prior to March 25, 2009, DSC equipment must meet the requirements of the following standards in order to be approved for use:
(i) RTCM Paper 56-95/SC101-STD, RTCM Recommended Minimum Standards for Digital Selective Calling (DSC) Equipment Providing Minimum Distress and Safety Capability,” Version 1.0, August 10, 1995, and ITU-R Recommendation M.493-10, “Digital Selective-calling System for Use in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 and 2, 2000 (including only equipment classes A, B, D, and E); or
(ii) ITU-R Recommendation M.493-11, “Digital Selective-calling System for Use in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 and 2, 2004, and, in the case of Class D DSC equipment only, IEC 62238, First edition, “Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems—VHF radiotelephone equipment incorporating Class ‘D' Digital Selective Calling (DSC)—Methods of testing and required test results,” March 2003.
(2) Beginning March 25, 2009, the Commission will not accept new applications (but will continue to process then-pending applications) for certification of non-portable DSC equipment that does not meet the requirements of ITU-R Recommendation M.493-11, “Digital Selective-calling System for Use in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 and 2, 2004, and, in the case of Class D DSC equipment only, IEC 62238, First edition, “Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems—VHF radiotelephone equipment incorporating Class ‘D' Digital Selective Calling (DSC)—Methods of testing and required test results,” March 2003.
(3) Beginning March 25, 2012, the Commission will not accept new applications (but will continue to process then-pending applications) for certification of handheld, portable DSC equipment that does not meet the requirements of ITU-R Recommendation M.493-11, “Digital Selective-calling System for Use in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 and 2, 2004, and, in the case of Class D DSC equipment only, IEC 62238, First edition, “Maritime navigation and radiocommunication equipment and systems—VHF radiotelephone equipment incorporating Class ‘D' Digital Selective Calling (DSC)—Methods of testing and required test results,” March 2003.
(4) The manufacture, importation, sale or installation of non-portable DSC equipment that does not comply with either of the standards referenced in paragraph (a)(2) of this section is prohibited beginning March 25, 2011.
(5) The manufacture, importation, or sale of handheld, portable DSC equipment that does not comply with either of the standards referenced in paragraph (a)(3) of this section is prohibited beginning March 25, 2015.
(6) Approved DSC equipment that has been manufactured, sold, and installed in conformity with the requirements of this section may be used indefinitely.
(c) * * *
(2) Equipment used to perform a selective calling function during narrow-band direct-printing (NB-DP) operations in accordance with ITU-R Recommendation M.476-5, “Direct-Printing Telegraph Equipment in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annex, 1995, or ITU-R Recommendation M.625-3, “Direct-Printing Telegraph Equipment Employing Automatic Identification in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annex, 1995, ITU-R Recommendation M.493-11, “Digital Selective-calling System for Use in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 and 2, 2004, and
(a) This subpart gives the general technical requirements for certification of equipment used on compulsory ships. Such equipment includes automatic-alarm-signal keying devices, survival craft radio equipment, watch receivers, radar equipment and Ship Security Alert System (SSAS) equipment.
(e) Portable radiotelephone transceivers which are certified to meet the requirements of this section must be identified by an appropriate note in the Commission's database.
(a) Radar installations on board ships that are required by the Safety Convention or the U.S. Coast Guard to be equipped with radar must comply with the documents referenced in the following paragraphs of this section. These documents contain specifications, standards and general requirements applicable to shipboard radar equipment and shipboard radar installations. For purposes of this part the specifications, standards and general requirements stated in these documents are mandatory irrespective of discretionary language. The standards listed in this section are incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of these standards can be inspected at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC (Reference Information Center) or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
(b) Radar installed on or after March 25, 2008 on ships of 300 tons gross tonnage and upwards, and radar installed on a ship after March 25, 2008, and certificated by the U.S. Coast Guard under the IMO Code for the Safety of High Speed Craft (Resolution MSC.36(63), May 20, 1994, with Supplement (2002) must comply with:
(1) IMO Resolution MSC.64(67), “Adoption of New and Amended Performance Standards,” Annex 4, “Recommendation on performance standards for radar equipment,” adopted on 4 December 1996;
(2) The emission limits contained in ITU Radio Regulations, Appendices Edition of 2004, Appendix 3 (Rev. WRC-03), “Tables of maximum permitted power levels for spurious or spurious domain emissions,” Section II—“Spurious domain emission limits for transmitters installed after 1 January 2003 and for all transmitters after 1 January 2012,” including Annex 1; and
(3) ITU-R M.1177-3, “Techniques for measurement of unwanted emissions of radar systems,” including Annexes 1 and 2 and all appendices, 2003.
(c) For any ship of 10,000 tons gross tonnage and upwards or that is otherwise required to be equipped with two radar systems, each of the two radar systems must be capable of operating independently and must comply with the specifications, standards and general requirements set forth on paragraph (b) of this section. One of the systems must provide a display with an effective diameter of not less than 340 millimeters (13.4 inches), (16-inch cathode ray tube). The other system must provide a display with an effective diameter of not less than 250 millimeters (9.8 inches), (12-inch cathode ray tube).
(d) Radar installed before March 25, 2008 must meet and be maintained to comply with the Commission's regulations in effect for the equipment on the date of its installation.
(a) Vessels equipped with a Ship Security Alert System pursuant to the Safety Convention or 33 CFR 101.310 may utilize:
(1) Equipment that complies with RTCM Paper 110-2004/SC110-STD, “RTCM Standard 11020.0—Ship Security Alert Systems (SSAS) using the Cospas-Sarsat System,” Version 1.0, June 4, 2004; or
(2) INMARSAT D+ equipment; or
(3) Equipment that complies with the technical specifications found in this subpart.
(b) RTCM Paper 110-2004/SC110-STD is incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of these standards can be inspected at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC (Reference Information Center) 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:
(a) * * *
(1) If it is not carrying MF-DSC radio equipment, keep a continuous and efficient watch on the radiotelephone distress frequency 2182 kHz from the principal radio operating position or the room from which the vessel is normally steered while being navigated in the open sea outside a harbor or port.
(2) Keep a continuous and efficient watch on the VHF distress frequency 156.800 MHz from the room from which the vessel is normally steered while in the open sea outside a harbor or port. The watch must be maintained by a designated member of the crew who may perform other duties, relating to the operation or navigation of the vessel, provided such other duties do not interfere with the effectiveness of the watch. Use of a properly adjusted squelch or brief interruptions due to other nearby VHF transmissions are not considered to adversely affect the continuity or efficiency of the required watch on the VHF distress frequency. This watch need not be maintained by vessels subject to the Bridge-to-Bridge Act and participating in a Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) system as required or recommended by the U.S. Coast Guard, when an efficient listening watch is maintained on both the bridge-to-bridge frequency and a separate assigned VTS frequency.
(b) * * *
(1) If it is not carrying MF-DSC radio equipment, keep a continuous watch on 2182 kHz in the room from which the vessel is normally steered while at sea, whenever such station is not being used for authorized traffic. Such watch must be maintained by at least one officer or crewmember who may perform other duties relating to the operation or navigation of the vessel, provided such other duties do not interfere with the watch. A radiotelephone watch receiver having a loudspeaker and a radiotelephone auto alarm must be used to keep the continuous watch on 2182 kHz. After a determination by the master that maintenance of the watch would interfere with the safe navigation of the ship, the watch may be maintained by use of the radiotelephone auto alarm facility alone.
(c) Each vessel of the United States transporting more than six passengers for hire, which is equipped with a radiotelephone station for compliance with 47 U.S.C. 381-386 but which is not carrying MF-DSC radio equipment, must, while being navigated in the open sea or any tidewater within the jurisdiction of the United States adjacent or contiguous to the open sea, keep a continuous watch on 2182 kHz while the vessel is beyond VHF communication range of the nearest VHF coast station, whenever the radiotelephone station is not being used for authorized traffic. A VHF watch must be kept on 156.800 MHz whenever such station is not being used for authorized traffic. The VHF watch must be maintained at the vessel's steering station actually in use by the qualified operator as defined by § 80.157 or by a
Voluntary vessels not equipped with DSC must maintain a watch on 2182 kHz and on 156.800 MHz (Channel 16) whenever the vessel is underway and the radio is not being used to communicate. Noncommercial vessels, such as recreational boats, may alternatively maintain a watch on 156.450 MHz (Channel 9) in lieu of VHF Channel 16 for call and reply purposes. Voluntary vessels equipped with VHF-DSC equipment must maintain a watch on 2182 kHz and on either 156.525 MHz (Channel 70) or VHF Channel 16 aurally whenever the vessel is underway and the radio is not being used to communicate. Voluntary vessels equipped with MF-HF DSC equipment must have the radio turned on and set to an appropriate DSC distress calling channel or one of the radiotelephone distress channels whenever the vessel is underway and the radio is not being used to communicate. Voluntary vessels equipped with Inmarsat A, B, C, M or Fleet F77 systems must have the unit turned on and set to receive calls whenever the vessel is underway and the radio is not being used to communicate.
(c) The radiotelephone distress call consists of:
(1) The distress signal MAYDAY spoken three times;
(2) The words THIS IS;
(3) The call sign (or name, if no call sign assigned) of the mobile station in distress, spoken three times;
(4) Particulars of the station's position;
(5) The nature of the distress;
(6) The kind of assistance desired; and
(7) Any other information which might facilitate rescue, for example, the length, color, and type of vessel, or number of persons on board.
(d) The procedures for canceling false distress alerts are contained in § 80.335.
(e) The urgency signal and call, and the message following it, must be sent on one of the international distress frequencies. Stations which cannot transmit on a distress frequency may use any other available frequency on which attention might be attracted.
(f) Mobile stations which hear the urgency signal must continue to listen for at least three minutes. At the end of this period, if no urgency message has been heard, they may resume their normal service. However, land and mobile stations which are in communication on frequencies other than those used for the transmission of the urgency signal and of the call which follows it may continue their normal work without interruption provided the urgency message is not addressed “to all stations”.
(g) When the urgency signal has been sent before transmitting a message “to all stations” which calls for action by the stations receiving the message, the station responsible for its transmission must cancel it as soon as it knows that action is no longer necessary. This message of cancellation must likewise be addressed “to all stations”.
(e) The safety signal and call must be followed by the safety message. Where practicable, the safety message should be sent on a working frequency, and a suitable announcement to this effect must be made at the end of the call.
(f) Messages about meteorological warnings, of cyclones, dangerous ice, dangerous wrecks, or any other imminent danger to marine navigation must be preceded by the safety signal.
(g) Stations hearing the safety signal must not make any transmission likely to interfere with the message.
(a) * * *
(2) Immediately cancel the distress alert orally over the telephony distress traffic channel associated with each DSC channel on which the distress alert was transmitted;
(b) * * *
(2) Immediately cancel the distress alert orally over the telephony distress traffic channel associated with each DSC channel on which the distress alert was transmitted; and
(c) * * *
(2) Immediately cancel the distress alert orally over the telephony distress traffic channel associated with each DSC channel on which the distress alert was transmitted;
(b)
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(c)
(a) * * *
(1) Private coast stations must use J3E emission.
(c) * * *
Business and Operational Frequencies in the 2000-27500 kHz Band; Carrier Frequencies (kHz)
(g)(1) On-board communications: This section describes the carrier frequency pairs assignable for on-board mobile radiotelephony communications. The center of the on-board repeater antenna must not be located more than 3 meters (10 feet) above the ship's working deck. These frequencies are available on a shared basis with stations in the Industrial/Business Radio Pool.
* * *
(2) Where needed, equipment designed for 12.5 kHz channel spacing using the additional frequencies 457.5375 MHz, 457.5625 MHz, 467.5375 MHz, and 467.5625 MHz may be introduced for on-board communications.
(a) * * *
(1) The log must be kept in an orderly manner. The log may be kept electronically or in writing. The required information for the particular class or category of station must be readily available. Key letters or abbreviations may be used if their proper meaning or explanation is contained elsewhere in the same log.
(2) Erasures, obliterations, or willful destruction of written logs, or deletions of data or willful destruction of computer files or computer hardware containing electronic logs, is prohibited during the retention period. Corrections may be made only by the person originating the entry by striking out the error, initialing the correction and indicating the date of correction. With respect to electronic logs, striking out the error is to be accomplished using a strike-through formatting effect or a similar software function, and the correction is to be acknowledged through a dated electronic signature at the location of the strike-through.
(d) * * *
(2) “ON WATCH” must be entered by the operator beginning a watch, followed by the operator's signature for stations maintaining written logs. “OFF WATCH” must be entered by the operator being relieved or terminating a watch, followed by the operator's signature for stations maintaining written logs. All log entries must be completed by the end of each watch.
(e) * * *
(1) A summary of all distress and urgency communications affecting the station's own ship, all distress alerts relayed by the station's own ship, and all distress call acknowledgements and other communications received from search and rescue authorities.
(6) An entry at least once every thirty days that the batteries or other reserve power sources have been checked and are functioning properly.
(d) * * *
Ships subject to this subpart must maintain a watch on the frequency 2182 kHz pursuant to § 80.305.
(a) * * *
(1) Vessels operated solely within 20 nautical miles of land must be equipped with a VHF-DSC radiotelephone installation meeting the requirements of § 80.1101(c)(2), except that a VHF radiotelephone installation without DSC capability is permitted until one year after the Coast Guard notifies the Commission that shore-based sea area A1 coverage is established. Vessels in this category must not operate more than 20 nautical miles from land.
(2) Vessels operated beyond the 20 nautical mile limitation specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, but not more than 100 nautical miles from the nearest land, must be equipped with a MF-DSC frequency transmitter meeting the requirements of § 80.1101(c)(3) and capable of transmitting J3E emission and a receiver capable of reception of J3E emission within the band 1710 to 2850 kHz, in addition to the VHF-DSC radiotelephone installation required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, except that a MF radiotelephone installation without DSC capability is permitted until one year after the Coast Guard notifies the Commission that shore-based sea area A2 coverage is established. The MF or MF-DSC transmitter and receiver must be capable of operation on 2670 kHz.
(3) * * *
(i) Be equipped with a VHF-DSC radiotelephone installation meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, except that a VHF radiotelephone installation without DSC capability is permitted until one year after the Coast Guard notifies the Commission that shore-based sea area A1 coverage is established;
(iii) * * *
(A) A DSC-capable single sideband radiotelephone meeting the requirements of § 80.1101(c)(4) and capable of operating on all distress and safety frequencies in the medium frequency and high frequency bands listed in § 80.369(a) and (b), on all of the ship-to-shore calling frequencies in the high frequency bands listed in § 80.369(d), and on at least four of the automated mutual-assistance vessel rescue (AMVER) system HF duplex channels (this requirement may be met by the addition of such frequencies to the radiotelephone installation required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section); or
(B) If operated in an area within the coverage of an INMARSAT maritime mobile geostationary satellite in which continuous alerting is available, an INMARSAT B, C, M, or Fleet F77 ship earth station, or an INMARSAT A ship earth station if installed prior to February 12, 2004.
(4) * * *
(i) Be equipped with two VHF-DSC radiotelephone installations meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, except that VHF radiotelephone installations without DSC capability are permitted until one year after the Coast Guard notifies the Commission that shore-based sea area A1 coverage is established;
(iii) * * *
(A) A DSC-capable independent single sideband radiotelephone meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of this section and that is capable of operating on all distress and safety frequencies in the medium frequency and high frequency bands listed in § 80.369(a) and (b), on all of the ship-to-shore calling frequencies in the high frequency bands listed in § 80.369(d), and on at least four of the automated mutual-assistance vessel rescue (AMVER) system HF duplex channels; or
(B) If operated in an area within the coverage of an INMARSAT maritime mobile geostationary satellite in which continuous alerting is available, an INMARSAT B, C, M, or Fleet F77 ship earth station, or an INMARSAT A ship earth station if installed prior to February 12, 2004.
(vi) Be equipped with a Category I 406-406.1 MHz satellite emergency position-indicating radiobeacon (EPIRB) meeting the requirements of § 80.1061 or, if the ship is not operating in sea area A4, as defined in § 80.1069(a)(4), an automatic float-free INMARSAT-E EPIRB meeting the requirements of § 80.1063.
Service to INMARSAT-E EPIRB stations terminated on December 1, 2006, so distress signals from INMARSAT-E EPIRB stations will not be received by any Rescue Coordination Center; and
(a) If a medium frequency radiotelephone installation is provided, the receiver must be capable of effective reception of J3E emissions, be connected to the antenna system specified by § 80.923, and be preset to, and capable of accurate and convenient selection of, the frequencies 2182 kHz, 2638 kHz, and the receiving frequency(s) of public coast stations
(a) The requirements of this section apply
(1) To vessels of more than 100 gross tons; and
(2) Beginning March 25, 2009 to
(i) Vessels that carry more than 150 passengers or have overnight accommodations for more than 49 persons; and
(ii) Vessels that operate on the high seas or more than three miles from shore on Great Lakes voyages. Any such vessel the keel of which was laid after March 1, 1957, must have a reserve power supply located on the same deck as the main wheel house or at least one deck above the vessel's main deck, unless the main power supply is so situated.
This subpart describes the technical and performance requirements for EPIRB stations.
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions in paragraph (b) of this section, 406.0-406.1 MHz EPIRBs must meet all the technical and performance standards contained in the Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services document entitled RTCM Paper 77-02/SC110-STD, “RTCM Recommended Standards for 406 MHz Satellite Emergency Position-Indicating Radiobeacons (EPIRBs),” Version 2.1, dated June 20, 2002 (RTCM Recommended Standards). The RTCM Recommended Standards are incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the RTCM Recommended Standards can be inspected at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC (Reference Information Center) 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:
(c) Prior to submitting a certification application for 406.0-406.1 MHz radiobeacon, the radiobeacon must be certified by a test facility recognized by one of the COSPAS-SARSAT Partners that the equipment satisfies the design characteristics associated with the measurement methods described in COSPAS-SARSAT Standards C/S T.001, “Specification for COSPAS-SARSAT 406 MHz Distress Beacons,” Issue 3—Revision 4, October 2002, and C/S T.007, “COSPAS-SARSAT 406 MHz Distress Beacon Type Approval Standard,” Issue 3—Revision 9, October 2002. Additionally, the radiobeacon must be subjected to the environmental and operational tests associated with the test procedures described in Appendix A of RTCM Standard 11000.2 (RTCM Paper 77-2002/SC110-STD, Version 2.1) for 406 MHz Satellite Emergency Position-Indicating Radiobeacons (EPIRBs), June 20, 2002, by a test facility accepted by the U.S. Coast Guard for this purpose. Information regarding accepted test facilities may be obtained from Commandant (G-MSE), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2nd St., SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001,
(1) * * *
(ii) Copies of the certificate and test data obtained from the test facility recognized by a COSPAS/SARSAT Partner showing that the radiobeacon complies with the COSPAS/SARSAT design characteristics associated with the measurement methods described in the COSPAS-SARSAT Standards C/S T.001, “Specification for COSPAS-SARSAT 406 MHz Distress Beacons,” Issue 3—Revision 4, October 2002, and T.007, “COSPAS-SARSAT 406 MHz Distress Beacon Type Approval Standard,” Issue 3—Revision 9, October 2002, and RTCM Paper 77-2002/SC110-STD, “RTCM Standard 11000.2 for 406 MHz Satellite Emergency Position-Indicating Radiobeacons (EPIRBs),” Version 2.1, June 20, 2002. The COSPAS-SARSAT Standards C/S T.001 and T.007, and the RTCM Standard 11000.2 are incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the COSPAS-SARSAT Standards can be inspected at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC (Reference Information Center) or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. The COSPAS-SARSAT Standards may be obtained from COSPAS-SARSAT Secretariat, c/o Inmarsat, 99 City Road, London EC1Y 1AX, United Kingdom, Telephone: +44 20-7728 1391, Facsimile: +44 20-7728 1170;
(e) An identification code, issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States Program Manager for the 406.0-406.1 MHz COSPAS/SARSAT satellite system, must be programmed in each EPIRB unit to establish a unique identification for each EPIRB station. With each marketable EPIRB unit, the manufacturer or grantee must include a postage pre-paid registration card printed with the EPIRB identification code addressed to: NOAA/SARSAT Beacon Registration, E/SP3, Federal Building 4, Room 3320, 5200 Auth Road, Suitland, MD 20746-4304. The registration card must request the
(a) * * *
Service to INMARSAT-E EPIRB stations terminated on December 1, 2006, so distress signals from INMARSAT-E EPIRB stations will not be received by any Rescue Coordination Center.
(a) The regulations contained within this subpart apply to all passenger ships regardless of size and cargo ships of 300 tons gross tonnage and upwards.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) A VHF radiotelephone installation.
(ii) A MF or HF radiotelephone installation.
(a) Ships must carry at least two persons holding GMDSS Radio Operator's Licenses as specified in § 13.7 of this chapter for distress and safety radiocommunications purposes. The GMDSS Radio Operator's License qualifies personnel as a GMDSS radio operator for the purposes of operating a GMDSS radio installation, including basic equipment adjustments as denoted in the knowledge requirements specified in § 13.203 of this chapter.
The following table describes the frequencies used in the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System:
Alerting:
(d) Shipborne Integrated Radiocommunication System (IRCS) may be utilized to integrate all GMDSS equipment into a standard operator's console. Such installation must be certified in accordance with § 80.1103 and meet the requirements of IMO Assembly Resolution A.811(19), “Performance Standards for a Shipborne Integrated Radiocommunication System (IRCS) When Used in the GMDSS,” with Annex, adopted 23 November 1995. IMO Assembly Resolution A.811(19) with Annex is incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of this standard can be inspected at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC (Reference Information Center) 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:
(a) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) Capable of transmitting a distress alert through the polar orbiting satellite service operating in the 406.0-406.1 MHz band (406.0-406.1 MHz EPIRB) or, if the ship is not operating in sea area A4, as defined in § 80.1069(a)(4), the 1.6 GHz band (INMARSAT-E EPIRB)
Note to paragraph (a)(6)(1): Service to INMARSAT-E EPIRB stations terminated on December 1, 2006, so distress signals from INMARSAT-E EPIRB stations will not be received by any Rescue Coordination Center; and
(iii) Examined and tested annually in accordance with the IMO standard, Circular MSC/Circ.1040, Guidelines on annual testing of 406 MHz satellite EPIRBs (28 May 2002).
(a) * * *
(2) Through the polar orbiting satellite service on 406.0-406.1 MHz or the INMARSAT-E service in the 1.6 GHz band (this requirement may be fulfilled by the EPIRB required by § 80.1085(a)(6), either by installing the EPIRB close to, or by allowing remote activation from, the position from which the ship is normally navigated).
Note to paragraph (a)(2): Service to INMARSAT-E EPIRB stations terminated on December 1, 2006, so distress signals from INMARSAT-E EPIRB stations will not be received by any Rescue Coordination Center; or
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Through the polar orbiting satellite service on 406.0-406.1 MHz or the INMARSAT-E service in the 1.6 GHz band (this requirement may be fulfilled by the EPIRB required by § 80.1085(a)(6), either by installing the EPIRB close to, or by allowing remote activation from, the position from which the ship is normally navigated).
Note to paragraph (a)(3)(i): Service to INMARSAT-E EPIRB stations terminated on December 1, 2006, so distress signals from INMARSAT-E EPIRB stations will not be received by any Rescue Coordination Center; or
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Transmitting and receiving distress and safety data communications;
(4) * * *
(i) Through the polar orbiting satellite service on 406.0-406.1 MHz or the INMARSAT-E service in the 1.6 GHz band (this requirement may be fulfilled by the EPIRB required by § 80.1085(a)(6), either by installing the EPIRB close to, or by allowing remote activation from, the position from which the ship is normally navigated).
Note to paragraph (a)(4)(i): Service to INMARSAT-E EPIRB stations terminated on December 1, 2006, so distress signals from INMARSAT-E EPIRB stations will not be received by any Rescue Coordination Center; or
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Through the INMARSAT-E service in the 1.6 GHz band (this requirement may be fulfilled by the EPIRB required by § 80.1085(a)(6), either by installing the EPIRB close to, or by allowing remote activation from, the position from which the ship is normally navigated).
Note to paragraph (b)(3)(ii): Service to INMARSAT-E EPIRB stations terminated on December 1, 2006, so distress signals from INMARSAT-E EPIRB stations will not be received by any Rescue Coordination Center; or
(a) At least three two-way VHF radiotelephone apparatus must be provided on every passenger ship and on every cargo ship of 500 tons gross tonnage and upwards. At least two two-way VHF radiotelephone apparatus must be provided on every cargo ship of between 300-500 tons gross tonnage. Portable two-way VHF radiotelephones must be stowed in such locations that they can be rapidly placed in any survival craft other than life rafts required by Regulation III/26.1.4 of the SOLAS Convention. (The SOLAS Convention can be purchased from International Maritime Organization (IMO), Publications, International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom; telephone 011 44 71 735 7611,
(b) * * *
(4) IEC 60092-101, Edition 4.1, “Electrical installations in ships—part 101: Definitions and general requirements,” August 2002.
(5) IEC 60533, “Electrical and electronic installations in ships—Electromagnetic compatibility,” November 1999.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) ITU-R Recommendation M.493-11, “Digital Selective-calling System for Use in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 and 2, 2004.
(iii) ITU-R Recommendation M.541-9, “Operational Procedures for the Use of Digital Selective-Calling Equipment in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 through 5, 2004.
(3) * * *
(ii) ITU-R Recommendation M.493-11, “Digital Selective-calling System for Use in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 and 2, 2004.
(iii) ITU-R Recommendation M.541-9, “Operational Procedures for the Use of Digital Selective-Calling Equipment in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 through 5, 2004.
(4) * * *
(ii) ITU-R Recommendation M.493-11, “Digital Selective-calling System for Use in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 and 2, 2004.
(iii) ITU-R Recommendation M.541-9, “Operational Procedures for the Use of Digital Selective-Calling Equipment in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 through 5, 2004.
(5) * * *
(iii) ITU-R Recommendation M.633-3, “Transmission characteristics of a satellite emergency position-indicating radiobeacon (satellite EPIRB) system operating through a low polar-orbiting satellite system in the 406 MHz band,” 2000.
(11)
(i) IMO Resolution A.812(19), “Performance Standards for Float-Free Satellite EPIRBs Operating Through the Geostationary INMARSAT Satellite System on 1.6 GHz,” adopted 23 November 1995, and Annex, “Recommendation on Performance.”
(ii) IMO Resolution A.662(16), “Performance Standards for Float-Free Release and Activation Arrangements
(iii) Recommendation ITU-R M.632-3, “Transmission Characteristics of a Satellite Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacon (Satellite EPIRB) System Operating Through Geostationary Satellites in the 1.6 GHz Band,” 1997.
(iv) IEC 61097-5, First Edition “Global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS)—part 5: Inmarsat-E Emergency position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) operating through the Inmarsat system—operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results,” including Annexes A, B, and C, 1997.
(v) The INMARSAT E-EPIRBs must also comply with § 80.1063.
(13) * * *
(ii) IEC 61097-3 Ed 1.0, “Global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS)—part 3: Digital selective calling (DSC) equipment—Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required testing results,” with Annexes, June 1994.
(iii) IEC 61097-4 Ed 1.0, “Global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS)—part 4: INMARSAT-C Ship Earth Station and INMARSAT enhanced group call (EGC) equipment—Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results,” November 1994.
(iv) IEC 61097-6, “Global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS)—part 6: Narrowband direct-printing telegraph equipment for the reception of navigational and meteorological warnings and urgent information to ships (NAVTEX)—Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results,” February 1995.
(v) IEC 61097-7, “Global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS)—part 7: Shipborne VHF radiotelephone transmitter and receiver—Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results,” October 1996.
(ix) IEC 61097-12 Ed 1.0, “Global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS)—part 12: Survival craft portable two-way VHF radiotelephone apparatus—Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results,” December 1996.
(x) IEC 61097-13, First edition, “Global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS)—part 13: INMARSAT F77 ship earth station equipment—Operational and performance requirements, methods of testing and required test results,” May 2003.
(d) * * *
(3) IEC publications can be purchased from the International Electrotechnical Commission, 3 Rue de Varembe, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, or from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) through its NSSN operation (
(4) ISO Standards can be purchased from the International Organization for Standardization, 1 Rue de Varembe, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, or from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) through its NSSN operation (
(c) Applicants for verification must attest that the equipment complies with performance standards as specified in § 80.1101 and, where applicable, that measurements have been made that demonstrate the necessary compliance. Submission of representative data demonstrating compliance is not required unless requested by the Commission. An application must include the items listed in §§ 2.953 and 2.955 of this chapter and a copy of the type-approval certification indicating that equipment meets GMDSS standards and includes all peripheral equipment associated with the specific unit under review.
(b) The format of distress calls and distress messages must be in accordance with ITU-R Recommendation M.493-11, “Digital Selective-calling system for use in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 and 2, 2004, and ITU-R Recommendation M.541-9, “Operational Procedures for the Use of Digital Selective-Calling Equipment in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 through 5, 2004, as specified in § 80.1101. ITU-R Recommendation M.493-11, with Annexes 1 and 2, and ITU-R Recommendation M.541-9, with Annexes 1 through 5, 2004, are incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of these standards can be inspected at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC (Reference Information Center) 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:
(a) Normally, distress calls received using digital selective calling are only acknowledged using a DSC acknowledgement by a coast station. Ships should delay any acknowledgement in order to give sufficient time for a coast station to acknowledge the call. In cases where no acknowledgement has been heard and no distress traffic has been heard, the ship should transmit a distress alert relay to the coast station. Upon advice from the Rescue Coordination Center, the ship may transmit a DSC acknowledgement call to stop it from being repeated. Acknowledgement by digital selective calling of receipt of a distress alert in the terrestrial services must comply with ITU-R Recommendation M.541-9, “Operational Procedures for the Use of Digital Selective-Calling Equipment in the Maritime Mobile Service,” with Annexes 1 through 5, 2004. ITU-R Recommendation M.541-9 with Annexes is incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of this standard can be inspected at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC (Reference Information Center) 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:
(c) Every ship while at sea must maintain, when practicable, a continuous listening watch on VHF Channel 16. This watch must be kept at the position from which the ship is normally navigated or at a position which is continuously manned.
(j) * * *
(6) The name and call sign of the mobile station which was in distress; and
(a) Licensees of voluntary ships are not required to maintain radio station logs.
(b) When a ship radio station of a voluntary ship is being operated, the appropriate general purpose watches must be maintained in accordance with §§ 80.147 and 80.310.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; grant of petition for reconsideration.
The staff reinstates and grants a rulemaking petition filed by JBL Broadcasting, Inc., seeking the substitution of Channel 274C3 for Channel 274A at Cumberland, Kentucky, the reallotment of Channel 274C3 from Cumberland to Weber City, Virginia, and the associated modification of the license for Station WVEK-FM based upon changed circumstances that have occurred since the release of the Report and Order in this proceeding. Although JBL's rulemaking petition was denied due to short-spacings to two pending and cut-off applications, recent amendments to those applications removed the conflicts and now permit the rulemaking petition to be granted. With this action, the proceeding is terminated.
Effective February 18, 2008.
Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order, MB Docket No. 05-295, adopted January 2, 2008, and released January 4, 2008. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or
To accommodate the reallotment of Station WVEK-FM to Weber City, Virginia, the Memorandum Opinion and Order also substituted Channel 263A for Channel 274A at Glade Spring, Virginia, and modified the construction permit for Station WFYE(FM) accordingly. It also substituted Channel 273A for Channel 263A at Marion, Virginia, and modified the license for Station WOLD-FM, accordingly. The Report and Order in this proceeding previously denied JBL Broadcasting, Inc.'s rulemaking petition.
The reference coordinates for Channel 274C3 at Weber City, Virginia, are 36-31-36 NL and 82-35-13 WL, for Channel 263A at Glade Spring, Virginia, are 36-47-50 NL and 81-36-52 WL, and for Channel 273A at Marion, Virginia, are 36-54-10 NL and 81-32-27 WL.
JBL Broadcasting, Inc.'s proposal was formerly a rule change to Section 73.202(b), the FM Table of Allotments.
This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The Commission is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Report and Order to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Audio Division, at the request of RTG Radio, LLC, deletes vacant Channel *259A at Live Oak, Florida, from the FM Table of Allotments, and, in its place, allots Channel *261A at Live Oak as the community's first local FM service. Channel *261A can be allotted to Live Oak, Florida, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site
Effective February 21, 2008.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Deborah Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Audio Division grants a petition for rulemaking filed by Spanish Peaks Broadcasting, Inc. for a new allotment at Charlo, Montana. Channel 251C3 can be allotted at Charlo, Montana, in compliance with the Commission's technical engineering requirements, at 47-32-20 North Latitude and 114-08-52 West Longitude with a site restriction of 11.3 kilometers (7.0 miles) north of Charlo, Montana.
Effective February 18, 2008.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2187.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2008 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock for Statistical Area 610 in the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), January 22, 2008, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., March 10, 2008.
Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The A season allowance of the 2008 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 3,322 metric tons (mt) as established by the 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (72 FR 9676, March 5, 2007) and inseason adjustment (73 FR 1831, January 10, 2008).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the A season allowance of the 2008 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 3,307 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 15 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of January 17, 2008.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2008 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock for Statistical Area 630 in the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), January 22, 2008, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., March 10, 2008.
Jennifer Hogan, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The A season allowance of the 2008 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 630 in the GOA is 3,069 metric tons (mt) as established by the 2007 and 2008 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (72 FR 9676, March 5, 2007) and inseason adjustment (73 FR 1831, January 10, 2008).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the A season allowance of the 2008 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 630 in the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 2,769 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 300 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 in the GOA.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of pollock in Statistical Area 630 in the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of January 17, 2008.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closures and openings.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2008 A season total allowable catch (TAC) of Atka mackerel in these areas for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. NMFS is also announcing the opening and closing dates of the first and second directed fisheries within the harvest limit area (HLA) in Statistical Areas 542 and 543. These actions are necessary to conduct directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the HLA in areas 542 and 543.
The effective dates are provided in Table 1 under the
Jennifer Hogan, 908-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2008 A season TAC of Atka mackerel for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery in the Eastern Aleutian District (Statistical Area 541) and the Bering Sea subarea was established as 142 metric tons (mt) by the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (72 FR 9451, March 2, 2007) and revision (72 FR 71802, December 19, 2007). See § 679.20(a)(8)(ii) and (c)(3)(iii).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that 142 mt of the 2008 A season Atka mackerel TAC for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea will be necessary as incidental catch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 0 mt. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the Eastern Aleutian District and the Bering Sea subarea for vessels participating in the A season BSAI trawl limited access fishery.
In accordance with § 679.20(a)(8)(iii)(C), the Regional Administrator is opening the first directed fisheries for Atka mackerel within the HLA in areas 542 and 543, 48 hours after prohibiting directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the Eastern Aleutian Island District and the Bering Sea subarea. The Regional Administrator has established the opening date for the second HLA directed fisheries as 48 hours after the last closure of the first HLA fisheries in either are 542 or 543. Consequently, NMFS is opening and closing directed fishing for Atka mackerel in the HLA of areas 542 and 543 in accordance with the periods listed under Table 1 of this notice.
In accordance with § 679.20(a)(8)(iii)(A) and § 679.20(a)(iii)(B), vessels using trawl gear for directed fishing for Atka mackerel have previously registered with NMFS to fish in the HLA fisheries in areas 542 and 543. NMFS has randomly assigned each vessel to the directed fishery or fisheries for which they have registered. NMFS has notified each vessel owner as to which fishery each vessel has been assigned by NMFS (73 FR 3218, January 17, 2008).
In accordance with the 2007 and 2008 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (72 FR 9451, March 2, 2007) and revision (72 FR 71802, December 19, 2007), and § 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C)(
After the effective dates of the closures, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good cause to waive the
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. This proposed AD would require inserting changes into the airworthiness limitations of the FAA-approved maintenance program. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 25, 2008.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Based on the results of a full-scale fatigue test of the pitch trim actuator on Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) PC-12 series airplanes, the life-limit is being extended and the time between overhaul (TBO) is being reduced. In addition, based on the result of the fatigue test, a life-limit of the pitch trim actuator attachment has been established.
These new limitations have been incorporated into the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Pilatus PC-12 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) 12-A/AMP-04, chapter 4, revision 10, dated October 26, 2007. The life-limit of the pitch trim actuator has been increased based on the owner/operator complying with the new reduced TBO of 5,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 5 years, whichever occurs first.
The new limitations for the pitch trim actuator TBO have been moved from Chapter 5: Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, to Chapter 4: Structural, Component and Miscellaneous—Airworthiness Limitations. Since both chapter 4 and chapter 5 are mandatory within the European and Swiss airworthiness systems, it is not necessary for the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) to issue an AD to mandate these new limitations.
Proposing AD action is the only way the FAA can mandate change to the airworthiness limitations section of an FAA-approved maintenance program.
If these new limitations are not mandated, the pitch trim actuator and the pitch trim actuator components could fail. This failure could lead to an unsafe flying configuration.
Revisions to the Airworthiness Limitations section of AMM 12-A/AMP-04 incorporate the following:
• TBO for the pitch trim actuator is reduced from 6,000 hours TIS or 5 years, whichever occurs first, to 5,000 hours TIS or 5 years, whichever occurs first;
• The life-limit for the pitch trim actuator is increased from 10,000 hours TIS or 13,500 flights, whichever occurs first, to 20,000 hours TIS or 27,000 flights, whichever occurs first; and
• A life-limit of 10,000 hours TIS is introduced for the pitch trim actuator attachment parts.
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 above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information 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 proposed 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 proposed AD.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 500 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about .5 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $20,000, or $40 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions (the replacements required by the limitations changes) would take about 3.5 work-hours and require parts costing $11,960, for a cost of $12,240 per product.
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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:
(a) We must receive comments by February 25, 2008.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to Models PC-12, PC-12/45, and PC-12/47 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
(d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
(e) This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. We are issuing this AD to mandate new life-limits for the pitch trim actuator and pitch trim actuator attachment parts. If these new limitations are not mandated, the pitch trim actuator and the pitch trim actuator components could fail. This failure could lead to an unsafe flying configuration.
(f) Unless already done, do the following within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(1) Insert unclassified document 12-A/AMP-04, Structural, Component and Miscellaneous—Airworthiness Limitations, 12-A-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, dated October 26, 2007 (Pilatus PC-12 Airplane Maintenance Manual, Chapter 4), into the airworthiness limitations section of the FAA-approved maintenance program (e.g., maintenance manual). You may use any future amendment to this airworthiness limitations section provided it does not change the inspection intervals, requirements, or the life-limits for the pitch trim actuator and pitch trim actuator attachment parts of the document referenced above. 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 do this action. Make an entry in the aircraft records showing compliance with this portion of the AD following section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).
(2) In order to avoid confusion with the new pitch trim actuator limitations now contained in chapter 4 (previously contained in chapter 5) make pen and ink changes in chapter 5 and line through references to limitations for the pitch trim actuator.
This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences.
(g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Proposed rules.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) is proposing to amend the regulations regarding the registration of certain firms located outside the U.S. that are engaged in commodity interest activities with respect to trading on U.S. designated contract markets (“DCMs”) and U.S. derivative transaction execution facilities (“DTEFs”).
Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2008.
Comments may be submitted, identified by RIN 3038-AC26, by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• E-mail:
• Fax: 202/418-5521.
• Mail or Courier: Send to David Stawick, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC 20581.
All comments received will be posted without change to
Andrew V. Chapin, Special Counsel, at (202) 418-5465, Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. Electronic mail:
Part 3 of the Commission's regulations governs the registration of intermediaries engaged in the offer and sale of, and providing advice concerning, futures and commodity options traded on U.S. markets, including both DCMs and DTEFs. In particular, Regulation 3.10 sets forth the manner in which FCMs, introducing brokers (“IBs”), commodity trading advisors (“CTAs”), commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) and leverage transaction merchants must apply for registration with the Commission. Regulation 3.10(c) also provides an exemption from registration for certain persons. For example, Regulation 3.10(c)(1) provides an exemption from registration as an FCM for any person trading solely for proprietary accounts, as defined in Regulation 1.3(y).
The Commission recently adopted amendments to Regulation 3.10(c) to codify the Commission's longstanding policy towards certain foreign intermediaries, known as foreign brokers.
In 1987, the Commission adopted a new Part 30 of its regulations to govern the offer and sale to U.S. persons of futures and option contracts entered into on or subject to the rules of a foreign board of trade.
Part 30 sets forth regulations governing foreign futures and foreign option transactions executed on behalf of customers located in the U.S., referred to in the regulations as foreign futures or foreign options customers.
Under Part 30, certain persons located outside the U.S. may obtain an exemption from registration and certain other requirements. For example, under Regulation 30.10 and Appendix A thereto, the Commission may exempt a foreign firm that solicits or accepts orders (and accepts money, securities or property to margin the trades made thereto) from customers located in the U.S. from compliance with certain
The Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight (“Division”) has issued a series of no-action letters that permit, in limited circumstances, a foreign firm exempt from FCM registration pursuant to Regulation 30.10 (“Regulation 30.10 firm”), to intermediate transactions executed on U.S. exchanges on behalf of U.S. customers. Specifically, the Division confirmed that it would not recommend that the Commission commence any enforcement action against certain FCMs and affiliated Regulation 30.10 firms if such unregistered affiliates introduced certain sophisticated U.S. customers to a registered FCM for the purpose of trading on U.S. designated contract markets.
In granting the above no-action relief, the Division recognized that a U.S. institutional customer may achieve greater operational and economic efficiencies by eliminating the need to use multiple order entry systems to engage in transactions in both U.S. and non-U.S. markets. In addition, the Division acknowledged that, by consolidating orders into a single execution system, an intermediating FCM may mitigate more effectively the increased systemic and liquidity risks associated with such activities.
Given that the no-action relief provided by the Division applies only to the recipients of each no-action letter, the Commission believes that it may be appropriate to provide relief for all FCMs and their affiliates that provide brokerage services to U.S. institutional investors in like cirumstances. Like those FCMs addressed by the Division's no-action relief, these FCMs also have institutional U.S. customers that trade globally throughout the 24-hour trading day, and who currently must use multiple order entry systems to execute transactions both domestically and abroad. Accordingly, the Commission has determined to propose to amend Regulation 3.10(c) to address the issue without the need for separate no-action letters, and invites public comment on all aspects of the proposed rule.
The Commission proposes to codify the staff interpretations described in Section I.C above. Specifically, the Commission proposes to promulgate Regulation 3.10(c)(4) to exempt from registration as an IB a firm located outside the U.S. that introduces certain sophisticated U.S. customers to a registered FCM for the purpose of trading on a DCM or DTEF. The exemption would be limited to those foreign firms that are affiliated with an FCM and have obtained confirmation of relief pursuant to the terms and conditions of an order issued by the Commission pursuant to Regulation 30.10. Any account introduced pursuant to this exemption must be introduced on a fully-disclosed basis in accordance with Regulation 1.57 and the foreign firm would not be permitted to solicit any U.S. customers nor handle any U.S. customer funds for trading on U.S. markets. The Commission has proposed to limit the exemption in Regulation 3.10(c)(4) to Regulation 30.10 firms because Regulation 30.10 relief is predicated on the existence of a comparable regulatory program in the jurisdiction in which the affiliate is located, and the presence of certain safeguards to protect U.S. investors, including standards for fitness and an information-sharing arrangement between the Commission and the authorities in the affiliate's home country.
The Commission notes that the Division's existing no-action letters provide exemptive relief to foreign firms acting on behalf of certain “institutional” and “commercial” entities. In search of a workable universal standard, the Commission has proposed to structure the exemption so as to limit the offer and sale of U.S. contracts to institutional customers, as defined in Regulation 1.3(g). The Commission also proposes Regulation 3.10(c)(6) that, for the purposes of this regulation, the term “affiliate” means any person that: (i) Owns 50 percent or more of the FCM; (ii) is owned 50 percent or more by the FCM; or (iii) is owned 50 percent or more by a third person that also owns 50 percent or more of the FCM.
Consistent with the terms and conditions of relief established by the Division in the no-action process, the Commission also proposes to predicate the availability of the exemption upon the relevant FCM's acknowledgment, to be filed with NFA pursuant to proposed Regulation 3.10(c)(4)(iii), that it would be jointly and severally liable for any violations of the Act or the Commission's regulations committed by the foreign affiliate in connection with those activities, even if the FCM ultimately did not submit the trade for clearing. As such, the Commission has proposed to limit the exemption to firms affiliated with an FCM so that the FCM may maintain the appropriate level of oversight to ensure that the foreign affiliate complies with the conditions for relief as set forth in the proposed regulation.
Proposed regulation 3.10(c)(4), in keeping with the no-action letters issued to date, prohibits the firm wishing to take advantage of the IB registration exemption from soliciting customer orders for trading on U.S. exchanges. This registration exemption only is intended to be a convenience for institutional customers so that they need not use multiple order entry processes to transact related business. For example, an institutional customer seeking to establish a position on the London Metal Exchange (LME) may desire to hedge that position with contracts listed on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). Absent relief, a Regulation 30.10 firm executing and/or submitting for clearing the LME transaction may not participate in the
The exemption from registration also is not intended to be used by firms as a promotional vehicle. The proposed regulation would not permit a Regulation 30.10 firm to solicit new customers based on its ability to access U.S. markets. As stated above, the Commission is proposing to create a limited-purpose exemption from IB registration so that existing institutional customers may reduce transactional costs associated with the use of multiple order entry processes.
The Commission also notes that the proposed amendments to Regulation 3.10(c) are intended to provide a limited-purpose registration exemption available only to those foreign firms engaging in
The Commission further notes that proposed Regulation 3.10(c)(4) would replace prior staff letters as the sole source of authorization for those unregistered foreign firms that introduce to an FCM U.S. customers for the purpose of trading on U.S. markets.
In each of the existing no-action letters on this subject cited in the footnote, the Division considered the size of the FCM and its relationship with its particular non-U.S. affiliate prior to determining that relief would not be contrary to the public interest. More specifically, the Division determined that the financial strength and organizational structure of each FCM provided a reasonable basis upon which to rely that it could honor the acknowledgement of joint and several liability. Accordingly, the Commission solicits comments as to whether it would be appropriate to establish minimum capital or other standards for the affiliated FCM as a condition for exemptive relief.
The Commission also solicits comment as to whether the proposed limited-purpose registration exemption should be extended to otherwise qualified foreign persons that advise institutional customers for the purposes of trading on U.S. markets. This relief would be available, for example, to the foreign affiliate of an FCM that provides trading advice tailored to the particular circumstances of U.S. customers that meet the institutional customer standards regarding the trading of both domestic and foreign futures as part of an overall global strategy.
The Commission also is proposing to revoke Regulation 30.8. Regulation 30.8 requires each FCM to provide NFA with a quarterly report containing data for the total volume of foreign futures and options contracts effected on foreign boards of trade. From its experience, the Commission recognizes that FCMs are engaging in both domestic and foreign futures and options transactions on behalf of customers located in the U.S., and therefore are subject to other extensive reporting and recordkeeping requirements set forth in Part 1 of its regulations. As such, the Commission believes that the reporting requirement set forth in Regulation 30.8 is overly burdensome and no longer necessary. The Commission solicits comments as to whether remaining reporting requirements are sufficient for FCMs engaged in foreign futures and options transactions on behalf of customers located in the U.S.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601-611, requires that agencies, in proposing regulations, consider the impact of those regulations on small businesses. The Commission has previously established certain definitions of “small entities” to be used by the Commission in evaluating the impact of its regulations on such entities in accordance with the RFA.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
While the proposed rule discussed herein has no burden, the group of rules (3038-0023, Rules, Regulations and Forms for Domestic and Foreign Futures and Options Related to Registration with the Commission) of which it is a part has the following burden:
The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) approved the collection of information associated with this group of rules on August 17, 2004. Copies of the OMB-approved information collection submission are available from
Section 15(a) of the Act requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before issuing new regulations under the Act. By its terms, Section 15(a) does not require the Commission to quantify the costs and benefits of new regulations or to determine whether the benefits of the proposed regulations outweigh their costs. Rather, Section 15(a) requires the Commission to “consider the cost and benefits” of the subject regulations.
Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits of the proposed regulations shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (1) Protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) other public interest considerations. The Commission may, in its discretion, give greater weight to any one of the five enumerated areas of concern and may, in its discretion, determine that, notwithstanding its costs, a particular regulation is necessary or appropriate to protect the public interest or to effectuate any of the provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed regulations should foster the protection of market participants and the public by providing greater legal certainty to the commodity interest activities of persons located outside the U.S. As the activity set forth in the proposed regulations presently is permitted under staff interpretation and no-action, the proposed regulations should have no material impact from the standpoint of imposing costs or creating benefits, on efficiency, competitiveness and financial integrity of financial markets, price discovery, sound risk management practices, or any other public interest considerations.
Definitions, Foreign futures, Consumer protection, Foreign options, Registration requirements.
Definitions, Foreign futures, Consumer protection, Foreign options, Registration requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, and pursuant to the authority contained in the Commodity Exchange Act and, in particular, sections 2(a)(1), 4(b), 4c and 8a thereof, 7 U.S.C. 2, 6(b), 6c and 12a (1982), and pursuant to the authority contained in 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552b (1982), the Commission hereby proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 522, 522b; 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 4, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 8, 9, 9a, 12, 12a, 13b, 13c, 16a, 18, 19, 21, 23, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 3.10 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows:
(c)
(4) A person located outside the United States, its territories or possessions that is exempt from registration as a futures commission merchant in accordance with § 30.10 of this chapter is not required to register as an introducing broker in accordance with section 4d of the Act if:
(i) Such a person is affiliated with a futures commission merchant registered in accordance with section 4d of the Act;
(ii) Such a person introduces, on a fully-disclosed basis in accordance with § 1.57 of this chapter, any institutional customer, as defined in § 1.3(g) of this chapter, to a registered futures commission merchant for the purpose of trading on a designated contract market or derivatives execution facility;
(iii) Prior to a person located outside the United States, its territories or possessions, that is exempt from registration as a futures commission merchant pursuant to § 30.10 of this chapter, engaging in the introducing activities described in this paragraph, the affiliated futures commission merchant has filed with the National Futures Association (ATTN: Vice President, Compliance) an acknowledgement that it will be jointly and severally liable for any violations of the Act or the Commission's regulations committed by such person in connection with those introducing activities, whether or not the affiliated futures commission merchant submits for clearing any trades resulting from those introducing activities; and
(iv) Such person does not solicit any person located in the United States, its territories or possessions for trading on a designated contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility, nor does such person handle the customer funds of any person located in the United States, its territories or possessions for the purpose of trading on any designated contract market or derivatives transaction execution facility.
(v) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person shall be affiliated with a futures commission merchant if such a person:
(A) Owns 50 percent or more of the futures commission merchant;
(B) Is owned 50 percent or more by the futures commission merchant; or
(C) Is owned 50 percent or more by a third person that also owns 50 percent or more of the futures commission merchant.
3. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 4, 6, 6c, and 12a, unless otherwise noted.
4. Section 30.8 is removed and reserved:
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA proposes to approve into the Ohio operating permits program revisions submitted by the State of Ohio for the purpose of amending the Acid Rain Permits and Compliance portion of the program. The changes made to OAC 3745-103, which comprises the revisions, include rules for phase II acid rain permits and new information on items incorporated by reference.
Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2008.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1198, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Richard Angelbeck, Environmental Scientist, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-9698,
In the Final Rules section of this
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule clarifies, expands, and adds to the existing enrollment requirements that Durable Medical Equipment and Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) suppliers must meet to establish and maintain billing privileges in the Medicare program.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on March 25, 2008.
In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-6036-P. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
August Nemec, (410) 786-0612.
Comments received timely will be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
Medicare services are furnished by two types of entities, providers and suppliers. At § 400.202, “provider” is defined as a hospital, a critical access hospital (CAH), a skilled nursing facility, a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility, a home health agency (HHA), or a hospice that has in effect an agreement to participate in Medicare, or a clinic, a rehabilitation agency, or a public health agency that has in effect a similar agreement but only to furnish outpatient physical therapy or speech pathology services, or a community mental health center that has in effect a similar agreement but only to furnish partial hospitalization services. The term “provider” is also defined in sections 1861(u) and 1866(e) of the Social Security Act (the Act).
For purposes of the DMEPOS supplier standards, the term “supplier” is defined in § 424.57(a) as an entity or individual, including a physician or Part A provider, that sells or rents Part B covered DMEPOS items to Medicare beneficiaries that meet the DMEPOS supplier standards. This proposed rule applies to all DMEPOS suppliers and amends the DMEPOS supplier standards set forth at § 424.57(c). Those individuals or entities that do not furnish DMEPOS items but furnish other types of health care services only (for example, physician services or nurse practitioner services) would not be subject to this requirement. A supplier that furnishes durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and suppliers (DMEPOS) is one category of supplier. Other supplier categories may include, for example, physicians, nurse practitioners, and physical therapists. If a supplier, such as a physician or physical therapist, also provides DMEPOS to a patient, then the supplier is also considered to be a DMEPOS supplier. The term “DMEPOS” encompasses the types of items included in the definition of medical equipment and supplies found at section 1834(j)(5) of the Act.
In FY 2007, the Medicare program spent more than $10 billion for DMEPOS supplies, and in April 2007, there were 116,471 individual DMEPOS suppliers. However, due to the affiliation of some DMEPOS suppliers with chains, there were 65,984 unique billing numbers. The largest concentration of DMEPOS suppliers were located in five States: California (approximately 9 percent), Texas (approximately 7 percent), Florida (approximately 7 percent), New York (approximately 6 percent) and Pennsylvania (approximately 5 percent). We believe that approximately 30 percent of the DMEPOS suppliers are located in rural areas throughout the United States and that the vast majority of DMEPOS suppliers are small entities (based on Medicare reimbursement alone).
The term DMEPOS is defined at section 1861(n) of the Act. This definition, in part, excludes from coverage as DMEPOS, items furnished in skilled nursing facilities and hospitals. Also, the term DMEPOS is included in the definition of “medical and other health services” found at section 1861(s)(6) of the Act. Furthermore, the term is defined in § 414.202 as equipment furnished by a supplier or a HHA that—
• Can withstand repeated use;
• Is primarily and customarily used to serve a medical purpose;
• Generally is not useful to an individual in the absence of an illness or injury; and
• Is for use in the home.
Prosthetic devices are included in the definition of “medical and other health services” under section 1861(s)(8) of the Act. Prosthetic devices are defined in this section of the Act as “devices (other than dental) which replace all or part of an internal body organ (including colostomy bags and supplies directly related to colostomy care), including replacement of such devices, and including one pair of conventional eyeglasses or contact lenses furnished subsequent to each cataract surgery with insertion of an intraocular lens.” Other examples of prosthetic devices include cardiac pacemakers, cochlear implants, electrical continence aids, electrical nerve stimulators, and tracheostomy speaking valves.
Section 1861(s)(9) of the Act provides for the coverage of “leg, arm, back, and neck braces, and artificial legs, arms, and eyes, including replacement of required because of a change in the patient's physical condition.” As indicated by section 1834(h)(4)(C) of the Act, these items are often referred to as “orthotics and prosthetics.” Under section 1834(h)(4)(B), prosthetic devices do not include parenteral and enteral nutrition nutrients and implantable items payable under section 1833(t) of the Act.”
Section 1861(s)(5) of the Act includes “surgical dressings, splints, casts, and other devices used for reduction of fractures and dislocation” as one of the “medical and other health services” that is covered by Medicare. Other items that may be furnished by suppliers would include (among others):
• Prescription drugs used in immunosuppressive therapy furnished to an individual who receives an organ transplant for which payment is made under this title, and that are furnished within a certain time period after the date of the transplant procedure as noted at section 1861(s)(2)(j) of the Act.
• Extra-depth shoes with inserts or custom molded shoes with inserts for an individual with diabetes as listed at section 1861(s)(12) of the Act.
• Home dialysis supplies and equipment, self-care home dialysis support services, and institutional dialysis services and supplies included at section 1861(s)(2)(F) of the Act.
• Oral drugs prescribed for use as an anticancer therapeutic agent as specified in section 1861(s)(2)(Q) of the Act.
• Self-administered erythropoietin as described in section 1861(s)(2)(O) of the Act.
The National Supplier Clearinghouse (NSC) is the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) designated national enrollment contractor for DMEPOS suppliers. The primary functions of the NSC are to: (1) Ensure that only qualified suppliers of DMEPOS are enrolled or remain enrolled in the Medicare program, and (2) take the necessary actions to revoke enrolled suppliers who no longer meet supplier standards.
Various sections of the Act and the regulations require providers and suppliers to furnish information concerning the amounts due and the identification of individuals or entities that furnish medical services to beneficiaries before payment can be
• Sections 1102 and 1871 of the Act provide general authority for the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to prescribe regulations for the efficient administration of the Medicare program. Under this authority, this proposed rule will require the collection of information from providers and suppliers for the purpose of enrolling in the Medicare program and granting privileges to bill the program for health care services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries.
• Sections 1814(a), 1815(a), and 1833(e) of the Act require the submission of information necessary to determine the amounts due a provider or other person.
• Section 1834(j)(1)(A) of the Act states that no payment may be made for items furnished by a supplier of medical equipment and supplies unless such supplier obtains (and renews at such intervals as the Secretary may require) a supplier number. In order to obtain a supplier billing number, a supplier must comply with certain supplier standards as identified by the Secretary.
• Section 1842(r) of the Act requires CMS to establish a system for furnishing a unique identifier for each physician who furnishes services for which payment may be made. To complete this, we need to collect information unique to that physician.
• Section 1862(e)(1) of the Act states that no payment may be made when an item or service was at the medical direction of an individual or entity that is excluded in accordance with sections 1128, 1128A, 1156, or 1842(j)(2) of the Act.
• Section 4313 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Pub. L. 105-33) amended sections 1124(a)(1) and 1124A of the Act to require disclosure of both the Employer Identification Number (EIN) and Social Security Number (SSN) of each provider or supplier, each person with ownership or control interest in the provider or supplier, any subcontractor in which the provider or supplier directly or indirectly has a 5 percent or more ownership interest, and any managing employees including Directors and Board Members of corporations and non-profit organizations and charities. The “Report to Congress on Steps Taken to Assure Confidentiality of Social Security Account Numbers as Required by the Balanced Budget Act” was signed by the Secretary and sent to the Congress on January 26, 1999. This report outlines the provisions of a mandatory collection of SSNs and EINs effective on or after April 26, 1999.
• Section 31001(i)(1) of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) (Pub. L. 104-134) amended section 7701 of 31 U.S.C. by adding paragraph (c) to require that any person or entity doing business with the Federal Government must provide their Tax Identification Number (TIN).
• Section 936(j)(1)(A) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) amended the Act to require the Secretary to establish a process for the enrollment of providers of services and suppliers.
We are authorized to collect information on the Medicare enrollment application (that is, the CMS-855, (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval number 0938-0685)) to ensure that correct payments are made to providers and suppliers under the Medicare program as established by Title XVIII of the Act.
For many years, concern about easy entry into the Medicare program by unqualified or even fraudulent providers or suppliers has led us to increase our efforts to establish more stringent controls on provider and supplier entry into the Medicare program. The following is a summary of the regulations that we have published to ensure that only qualified providers and suppliers are participating in the Medicare program.
In the October 11, 2000
In the April 21, 2006
In the April 10, 2007
To ensure that DMEPOS suppliers understand how CMS interprets the DMEPOS supplier standards, we are revising certain supplier standards specified in § 424.57(c). We are also proposing several new DMEPOS supplier standards. We believe that these revisions and additions would help to ensure that legitimate DMEPOS suppliers are furnishing items of DMEPOS to Medicare beneficiaries.
The supplier standard at § 424.57(c)(1) states, “Operates its business and furnishes Medicare-covered items in compliance with all applicable Federal and State licensure and regulatory requirements.”
The purpose of this standard is to ensure that DMEPOS suppliers obtain and maintain the necessary State licenses required to furnish the services provided to Medicare beneficiaries. In addition, we believe that each DMEPOS supplier is responsible for determining what licenses are required to operate a DMEPOS supplier's business. While the NSC maintains information regarding State licensure laws, we do not believe that the NSC is responsible for notifying any supplier of what licenses are
In general, to ensure compliance, the NSC verifies that DMEPOS suppliers meet the supplier standards in § 424.57, comply with State business and product licensing requirements, and meet applicable local zoning requirements.
The supplier standard at § 424.57(c)(7) specifies that the DMEPOS supplier maintains a physical facility on an appropriate site and that the physical facility must contain space for storing business records including the supplier's delivery, maintenance, and beneficiary communication records. We are proposing to revise this standard to require that DMEPOS suppliers maintain business records for 7 years after the claim has been paid and to clarify the term, “appropriate site.” An appropriate site includes, but is not limited to, the following features:
• The supplier location must be accessible during posted business hours to beneficiaries and to CMS, and must maintain a visible sign and posted hours of operation. We believe that all DMEPOS suppliers must have a permanent, durable sign that is visible at the main entrance of the facility and positioned so that it is visible to the public, including customers using wheelchairs.
• The supplier location must be accessible during posted hours of operation to beneficiaries and to CMS, and must maintain a permanent visible sign in plain view and posted hours of operation. We believe that DMEPOS suppliers must have its hours of operation posted and in plain view and that suppliers submit changes to their posted hours of operation in advance of any change by notifying the NSC via the Medicare enrollment application. If the supplier's place of business is located within a building complex, the sign must be visible at the main entrance of the building where the place of business is located.
• The supplier's place of business must be staffed during the supplier's posted hours of operation. The supplier's place of business must be accessible to the public, CMS, the NSC and any of its agents during the supplier's posted hours of operation regardless of whether beneficiaries routinely visit the facility.
• The supplier's place of business may be a “closed door” business, such as pharmacies or suppliers providing services only to beneficiaries residing in a nursing home, that complies with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
A supplier is not in compliance with this standard if no one is available during the posted hours of operation.
In addition, we believe that an “appropriate site” applies to “closed door” businesses, (such as pharmacies/suppliers providing services only to beneficiaries residing in a nursing home) and are responsible for being in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. We believe that “closed door” businesses must comply with all the requirements of § 424.57(c)(7), and all DMEPOS supplier standards. Additionally, the facility has to be accessible to beneficiaries, CMS or its agents regardless of whether beneficiaries routinely visit the facility.
We are soliciting comments on whether we should establish a minimum square footage requirement to the definition of an appropriate site and what, if any, appropriate exceptions would apply to a minimum square footage requirement.
The supplier standard at § 424.57(c)(8) states, “Permits CMS, or its agents to conduct on-site inspections to ascertain supplier compliance with the requirements of this section. The supplier location must be accessible during posted business hours to beneficiaries and to CMS, and must maintain a visible sign and posted hours of operation.” We are proposing to revise (c)(8) to limit the provision to on-site inspection. The proposed revision would read as follows: “Permits CMS, the NSC, or agents of CMS or the NSC to conduct on-site inspections to ascertain supplier compliance with the requirements of this section.” If the NSC or its agents are unable to perform a site visit during a supplier's posted business hours, the NSC would deny billing privileges for prospective applicants or would revoke the billing privileges of DMEPOS suppliers enrolled in the Medicare program.
The supplier standard at § 424.57(c)(9) states, “Maintains a primary business telephone listed under the name of the business locally or toll-free for beneficiaries. The exclusive use of a beeper number, answering service, pager, facsimile machine, car phone, or an answering machine can not be used as the primary business telephone for purposes of this regulation.” We are proposing to revise this supplier standard to exclude the use of cell phones and beepers/pagers as a method of receiving calls or using “call forwarding” to forward a call to a cell phone or beeper/pager from the public or beneficiaries during the supplier's posted hours of operation. Therefore, we are proposing to revise this standard to read, “Maintains a primary business telephone that is operating at the appropriate site listed under the name of the business locally or toll-free for beneficiaries. The use of cellular phones, beeper numbers, and pagers is prohibited. Additionally, DMEPOS suppliers are prohibited from forwarding calls from the primary business telephone listed under the name of the business to a cellular phone, or a beeper/pager. The exclusive use of answering machines, answering services or facsimile machine (or combination of these options) cannot be used as the primary business telephone during posted operating hours.” We maintain that DMEPOS suppliers who are utilizing cell phones, call forwarding, beeper numbers, pagers, answering services or other methods to receive telephone calls in a location other than the place of business for business calls during their posted hours of operations are not in compliance with this standard and that DMEPOS suppliers who exclusively use answering machines or answering services during their posted hours of operations are not in compliance with this standard.
The supplier standard at § 424.57(c)(10) states, “has a comprehensive liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $300,000 that covers both the supplier's
DMEPOS suppliers are responsible for providing the contact information of an individual employed with the underwriter, who can verify coverage. To ensure that coverage is actually issued and the policy is in effect, we believe that the NSC should be able to verify policy coverage with an insurance agent, or when necessary, the underwriter, since this is the company affording coverage. This proposed revision would not preclude the use of self-insurance to demonstrate compliance with the comprehensive liability insurance policy as long as CMS or its designated contractor can verify the policy and its coverage provisions with an independent underwriter.
Moreover, we propose that a DMEPOS supplier obtain the appropriate liability coverage prior to submitting its Medicare enrollment application and supporting documentation to the NSC. (When a policy is issued, up to 90 days may pass before the underwriter receives notification that the policy has been issued by the insurance agent or broker.) In addition, we believe if the NSC is unable to verify the issuance and validity of liability insurance with an insurance agent, or when necessary, an underwriter at the time of filing, then the NSC should deny Medicare billing privileges without further action, including an onsite review. Accordingly, the NSC must be able to verify the issuance and validity of a DMEPOS liability insurance policy on the day a prospective DMEPOS supplier submits a Medicare enrollment application to the NSC for review. If the NSC is unable to verify the issuance and validity of a liability insurance policy with an insurance agent, or when necessary, the underwriter for a DMEPOS supplier enrolled in the Medicare program, then the NSC may revoke the billing privileges of that supplier.
In addition, we believe that it is the responsibility of the DMEPOS supplier to list the NSC as a certificate holder on the policy. By listing the NSC as a certificate holder on the policy, the NSC would be able to verify coverage with the underwriter. A DMEPOS supplier who fails to list the NSC as a certificate holder on the policy may have their enrollment application denied or billing privileges revoked because the NSC may not be able to verify the issuance and validity of the policy. Finally, we believe that it is the DMEPOS supplier's responsibility to: (1) Ensure that insurance policy must remain in force at all times and provide coverage of at least $300,000 per incident; and (2) notify the NSC in writing within 30 days of any policy changes or cancellations.
The supplier standard at § 424.57(c)(11) states, “Must agree not to contact a beneficiary by telephone when supplying a Medicare-covered item unless one of the following applies: (i) The individual has given written permission to the supplier to contact them by telephone concerning the furnishing of a Medicare-covered item that is to be rented or purchased; (ii) the supplier has furnished a Medicare-covered item to the individual and the supplier is contacting the individual to coordinate the delivery of the item; and (iii) if the contact concerns the furnishing of a Medicare-covered item other than a covered item already furnished to the individual, the supplier has furnished at least one covered item to the individual during the 15-month period preceding the date on which the supplier makes such contact.” We are proposing to revise this supplier standard to clarify that suppliers can not directly solicit patients, which includes, but is not limited to, a prohibition on telephone, computer e-mail or instant messaging, coercive response internet advertising on sites unrelated to DMEPOS products, or in-person contacts. The DMEPOS supplier may only contact the Medicare beneficiary under the current provisions at § 424.57(c)(11)(i) through (iii). We believe that if CMS or the NSC through on-site inspection obtains or develops evidence that a DMEPOS supplier has made prohibited contacts with Medicare beneficiaries in violation of the provisions found in this section that CMS or the NSC may revoke that supplier's billing privileges, and may determine if such billing may be for fraudulent or unnecessary supplies.
The supplier standard at § 424.57(c)(12) currently states that the supplier must be responsible for the delivery of Medicare-covered items to beneficiaries and maintain proof of delivery. The supplier must document that it or another qualified party has, at an appropriate time, provided beneficiaries with necessary information and instructions on how to use Medicare-covered items safely and effectively. We are proposing to revise paragraph (c)(12) provision to clarify its intent. A DMEPOS supplier—
• Is responsible for maintaining proof of the delivery in the beneficiary's file;
• The supplier must furnish information to beneficiaries at the time of delivery of items as to how the beneficiary can contact the supplier by telephone;
• Must provide the beneficiary with instructions on how to safely and effectively use the equipment or contract this service to a qualified individual;
• Is responsible for providing instruction on the safe and effective use of the equipment that should be completed at the time of delivery; and
• Must document that this instruction has taken place.
We believe that a DMEPOS supplier is solely responsible for delivery of Medicare-covered items and for instruction on the use of those items. While we believe that a DMEPOS supplier may choose to contract out the delivery of Medicare-covered items to another individual or entity, the DMEPOS supplier has ultimate responsibility for ensuring delivery in accordance with this standard and for maintaining all necessary documentation to demonstrate that the beneficiary received the Medicare-covered item and appropriate instructions for its use. We believe that our revised interpretation of this section will help to ensure that instructions for the safe and appropriate use of products will be given to beneficiaries.
At § 424.57(c)(27), we are proposing a new standard that specifies that the DMEPOS supplier must obtain oxygen from a State-licensed oxygen supplier. To ensure that DMEPOS suppliers meet and maintain this standard, we believe that DMEPOS suppliers who are supplying oxygen must contract with a supplier licensed by the State to provide them with oxygen. Obviously, this standard does not apply when the State does not license oxygen suppliers. We understand that in certain areas, DMEPOS suppliers may obtain oxygen from oxygen suppliers in other States. However, when a DMEPOS supplier is located in a State where licensure is required, then they must obtain their oxygen from a state-licensed oxygen supplier, regardless of which State the oxygen supplier obtained their licensure. For example in State A, a license is required when supplying oxygen. If a DMEPOS supplier located in State A is supplying oxygen, they must get their oxygen from a state-licensed oxygen supplier. To extend this example, in State B, where no license is required for an oxygen supplier, a DMEPOS supplier may obtain their oxygen from a non-licensed supplier within State B, or a licensed supplier (in a State where you must have a State license to supply oxygen), or from a non-State-licensed supplier outside of State B (where there is no State license required for supplying oxygen). We believe that this standard would help to protect Medicare beneficiaries and promote quality in the furnishing of oxygen.
At § 424.57(c)(28), we are proposing a new supplier standard that states that the supplier is required to maintain ordering and referring documentation, including the National Provider Identifier, received from a physician, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical social worker, or certified nurse midwife, for 7 years after the claim has been paid. Since all DMEPOS supplies are ordered and referred by physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical social workers, or certified nurse midwives, we believe that it is essential that DMEPOS suppliers maintain documentation regarding the specific individual who ordered or referred a Medicare beneficiary for DMEPOS. In addition, we are codifying the requirement to maintain ordering and referring documentation for 7 years as required in Publication 100-08, Chapter 5, Section 8.
We maintain that a DMEPOS supplier should retain the necessary ordering and referring documentation received from physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical social workers, or certified nurse midwives to assure themselves that coverage criterion for an item has been met. If the information in the patient's medical record does not adequately support the medical necessity for the item, the supplier is liable for the dollar amount involved unless a properly executed Advance Beneficiary Notice of possible denial has been obtained.
At § 424.57(c)(29), we are proposing a new standard that specifies that the supplier is prohibited from sharing a practice location with another Medicare supplier. DMEPOS suppliers may not share a practice location with any other Medicare supplier, including a physician/physician group or another DMEPOS supplier. We believe that allowing DMEPOS suppliers to commingle practice locations, operations, staff, inventory and other aspects of supplier's operations constitutes a significant risk to the Medicare program. Moreover, to allow a DMEPOS supplier to commingle its practice location with another DMEPOS supplier effectively limits the ability of CMS and the NSC to ensure that each DMEPOS supplier meets all of the supplier standards specified at § 424.57. Finally, we do not believe that legitimate DMEPOS suppliers routinely share practice locations with another Medicare supplier.
Since we are aware that physicians and other licensed nonphysician practitioners may obtain their own DMEPOS supplier number and furnish DMEPOS from their office, we are soliciting comments on whether we should establish an exception to this space sharing proposal for physicians and nonphysician practitioners and the circumstances which warrant an exception.
At § 424.57(c)(30), we are proposing a new supplier standard that specifies, “Is open to the public a minimum of 30 hours per week, except for those DMEPOS suppliers who are working with custom-made or fitted orthotics and prosthetics.” We are proposing this new standard because the NSC has found that a number of existing DMEPOS suppliers have posted restrictive or limited business hours, and in some cases, have posted business hours that are so restrictive that it makes it nearly impossible for a NSC to conduct on onsite visit or for a beneficiary or the public to obtain DMEPOS services. Since we question the legitimacy of any DMEPOS supplier with posted operating hours of less than 4 hours a day, we are proposing to establish a minimum number of operational hours for DMEPOS suppliers. Moreover, we believe that most legitimate DMEPOS suppliers are open to the public at least 30 hours per week. We believe that most legitimate DMEPOS suppliers are open to the public for more than 40 hours per week and that all legitimate DMEPOS would need to be open a minimum of at least 30 hours per week (either 6 hours a day, 5 days a week or 5 hours a day, 6 days a week) in order to attract, retain and serve Medicare beneficiaries. We believe that a minimum number of operating hours will help to ensure that DMEPOS suppliers are open to the public and are able to serve the needs of Medicare beneficiaries. Given that Medicare beneficiaries may not be able to find transportation during limited operating hours, the DMEPOS supplier must be open and available for periods long enough for beneficiaries to readily access their facility. To ensure that DMEPOS suppliers are able to report any change in their posted business hours, we are proposing to revise the CMS-855S Medicare enrollment application to accommodate this proposed change.
At § 424.57(c)(31), we propose adding a new supplier standard that specifies, “Does not have an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or a State taxing authority tax delinquency.” Currently, we do not consider whether a DMEPOS supplier that is seeking enrollment or one that is currently enrolled in the Medicare program has an IRS or a State taxing authority tax delinquency. To ensure that Medicare payments are only being made to organizations and individuals who have satisfied existing tax debts, we will have a basis to revoke the billing privileges of a DMEPOS supplier, including physicians and nonphysician
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that over 21,000 of the physicians, health professionals, and suppliers paid under Medicare Part B during the first 9 months of calendar year 2005 had tax debts totaling over $1 billion. The GAO report titled, “Medicare, Thousands of Medicare Part B Providers Abuse the Federal Tax System (GAO-07-587T)” found abusive and potentially criminal activity, including failure to remit to IRS individual income taxes or payroll taxes or both withheld from their employees.
Moreover, we are proposing to revise the Medicare enrollment application (that is, CMS-855S) to require that DMEPOS suppliers: (1) Certify that the supplier does not have an IRS or a State taxing authority tax delinquency; and (2) consent to having CMS or its designated contractor verify that the information submitted by a DMEPOS supplier regarding a tax delinquency is correct and accurate as determined by the IRS or State taxing authority. We believe that this change will allow CMS and its designated contractors to verify that the information submitted by a DMEPOS supplier is accurate.
We would propose to define a “tax delinquency” as meaning an amount of money owed to the United States or a State: A conviction or civil judgment for tax evasion, a criminal or civil charge of tax evasion, or the filing of a tax lien.
In § 424.57(d), we would redesignate the current text as paragraph (d)(1). We would add a new paragraph (d)(2) specifying that “CMS, the NSC, or CMS designated contractor establishes a Medicare overpayment from the date of an adverse legal action or felony conviction (including felony convictions within the 10 years preceding enrollment or revalidation of enrollment) that precludes payment.” In addition, we are proposing that any overpayment assessed by CMS or its designated contractor due to a lack of reporting would follow the existing rules governing Medicare overpayments set forth at § 405.350 et seq.
We believe that proposed § 424.57(d)(2) is necessary because some DMEPOS suppliers fail to report adverse legal actions and felony convictions to the NSC within the 30 days of the reportable event. Since it is essential that DMEPOS suppliers notify the NSC of all adverse legal actions and felony convictions within 30 days of the reportable event, we believe that it is essential to establish this new provision. This new provision would allow the CMS, the NSC, or a designated Medicare contractor the authority to assess and collect an overpayment from the time of the reportable event. In addition, the CMS, the NSC, or a designated CMS contractor would revoke the DMEPOS supplier's Medicare billing privileges, in accordance with § 424.57(d)(1), if the adverse legal action or felony conviction precludes participation in or payment from the Medicare program.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), agencies are required to provide a 60-day notice in the
• Whether the information collection is necessary and useful to carry out the proper functions of the agency;
• The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the information collection burden;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Recommendations to minimize the information collection burden on the affected public, including automated collection techniques.
We are soliciting public comment on each of the following issues pertaining to the information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule.
Section II.A. of this proposed rule provides proposed clarifications and revisions of the existing DMEPOS supplier standards. The following is a discussion of the information collection requirements contained in the § 424.57(c) that are clarified and revised by this proposed rule.
Section II.A. of this proposed rule provides proposed clarifications of the information collection requirements contained in § 424.57(c)(1). The standard at § 424.57(c)(1) states that a supplier must operate its own business and furnish Medicare-covered items in compliance with all applicable Federal and State licensure and regulatory requirements. As stated in section II.A. of this proposed rule, the purpose of this standard is to ensure that DMEPOS suppliers obtain and maintain the necessary State licenses required to furnish services provided to Medicare beneficiaries. While there is burden associated with complying with this standard, we believe it is exempt from the PRA as stated in 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(3). A collection of information conducted or sponsored by a Federal agency that is also conducted or sponsored by a unit of State, local, or tribal government is presumed to impose a Federal burden except to the extent that the agency shows that such State, local, or tribal requirement would be imposed even in the absence of a Federal requirement.
In addition, we believe the burden associated with the maintenance of the required documentation is exempt from the PRA as stated in 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2), to the extent that the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the normal course of their activities. Maintaining State license documentation is part of usual and customary business practices.
In § 424.57(c)(12)(ii) we propose to specify that a supplier must furnish information to beneficiaries at the time of delivery of items on how the beneficiary can contact the supplier by telephone. The burden associated with complying with the standard is the time and effort required for the supplier to provide its contact information to beneficiary at the time of delivery of the Medicare-covered item(s). While the burden is subject to the PRA, we believe it is exempt under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2) to the extent that the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the normal course of their activities.
In § 424.57(c)(32), we are proposing that each supplier must report changes in hours of operation to the NSC 15 calendar days prior to the proposed change. The burden associated with this requirement is the time and effort associated with notifying the NSC of the change in hours of operation. We estimate that 1,000 suppliers will be subject to this requirement. The estimated time required to report the information to the NSC is 10 minutes. The estimated total annual burden associated with this requirement is 167 hours.
Section 424.57(c)(10)(iii) states that with respect to liability insurance, it is the responsibility of the DMEPOS supplier to, “promptly notify the NSC in writing of any policy changes or cancellations.” The burden associated with this requirement is the time and effort associated with drafting and submitting notification to the NSC of any policy changes or cancellations. While this burden is subject to the PRA, we believe it is exempt under 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(6). Facts or opinions collected from a single person or entity are not
Section 424.57(c)(12) states that a supplier, “Must be responsible for the delivery of Medicare-covered items to beneficiaries and maintain proof of delivery.” In addition, the supplier must, “Document that it or another qualified party has at an appropriate time, provided beneficiaries with information and instructions on how to use the Medicare-covered items safely and effectively.” This standard imposes reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The burden associated with this section is the time and effort required to: Document the delivery of the Medicare-covered item; document the provision of information or instructions to the beneficiary by the supplier itself or another qualified party; maintain the documentation of delivery of the Medicare-covered items and the necessary information and instructions. The burden associated with these requirements is subject to the PRA. However, we believe it is exempt under 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2) to the extent that the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the normal course of their activities.
If you comment on any of these information collection and recordkeeping requirements, please mail copies directly to the following:
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism, and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts; and equity). A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). This rule does not reach the economic threshold and thus is not considered a major rule.
To ensure that Medicare is making correct payments to only legitimate DMEPOS suppliers, we implemented a comprehensive payment and enrollment strategy. This strategy includes developing and implementing the statutorily mandated competitive bidding program, making revisions to the National Supplier Clearinghouse contract, implementing a DMEPOS demonstration project, and publishing a proposed rule that would require DMEPOS suppliers to obtain a surety bond.
We began implementation of the statutorily mandated competitive bidding program (72 FR 17992) for DMEPOS suppliers on April 10, 2007. Competitive bidding changes the way that Medicare pays for certain DMEPOS categories under Part B of the Medicare program by using bids submitted by DMEPOS suppliers to establish payment amounts. Beginning in 2007, we initiated and began implementation of the program which initially involves ten product categories in the first Metropolitan Statistical Areas. We have received bids and anticipate contract awards in 2008. In addition, DMEPOS suppliers will be required to submit bids for all items within a product category for which they are bidding. The product categories and bid items may vary by competitive bidding area (CBAs). For 2007, using 2005 data and the item selection criteria in the competitive bidding regulation, we selected the following items for competitive bidding: (1) Oxygen supplies and equipment; (2) standard power wheelchairs, scooters, and related accessories; (3) complex rehabilitative power wheelchairs and related accessories; (4) mail-order diabetic supplies; (5) enteral nutrients, equipment, and supplies; (6) continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices, respiratory assist devices (RADs), and related accessories; (7) hospital beds and related accessories; (8) negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) pumps and related accessories; (9) walkers and related accessories; and (10) support surfaces (group 2 and 3 mattresses and overlays).
The statute requires that competition under the program begin in 10 of the largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and then expand to 70 additional MSAs during the second phase of implementation. Additional competitive bidding areas will then be phased in over time. The final rule requires a formula-driven methodology for selecting the 80 MSAs for the first two phases of implementation and it will be sometime after 2008 before DMEPOS suppliers will participate in the competitive bidding initiative in these 80 MSAs and only for the product categories that are included in the first two phases of implementation.
It is important to note while competitive bidding will reduce the number of DMEPOS suppliers eligible for payment of selected product categories, competitive bidding will not totally prevent unscrupulous DMEPOS suppliers from gaining entry into the program and fraudulently billing for any of those products. Accordingly, it is essential that we further develop and implement administrative and regulatory changes which prevent unscrupulous DMEPOS suppliers from enrolling or maintaining their enrollment in the Medicare program. To this end, we have implemented the following administrative changes and are seeking comments on mandated DMEPOS surety bonding requirements.
As part of our administrative change, we revised the contract with the National Supplier Clearinghouse (NSC) in FY 2008 and are currently recompeting this contract through full and open competition. The revised contract requires that the NSC conduct and increase the number of site visits to ensure that DMEPOS suppliers are in compliance with the provisions found at § 424.57. We are also expanding the funding for NSC operations to support the increased number of sites visits. These expanded measures will help to ensure that only legitimate DMEPOS suppliers are enrolled or maintain
On August 1, 2007, we published a proposed rule (72 FR 42001) which would implement Section 4312(a) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) by requiring all Medicare DMEPOS suppliers to furnish CMS with a surety bond. The public comment period for this proposed rule closed on October 1, 2007, and CMS is currently reviewing these comments.
Accordingly, while the activities described above will promote compliance with the existing supplier standards and reduce payments for suppliers selected under competitive bidding, these activities do not supply CMS and the NSC with the needed authority to deny or revoke billing privileges to those DMEPOS suppliers that pose a significant risk to the program. Therefore, we believe that the provisions of this proposed rule are essential in expanding upon and strengthening the supplier standards in order to ensure that only legitimate suppliers are enrolled or maintain enrollment in the Medicare program.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief for small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $6.5 to $31.5 million in any one year. Individuals and States are not included in the definition of a small entity.
We are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because we because we are certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have determined that the RFA is reasonable given that the provisions contained in this proposed rule are primarily procedural and do not require DMEPOS suppliers to incur additional operating costs. We also believe that the regulatory impact of this proposed rule is negligible and not calculable. We maintain that this proposed rule would not have an adverse impact on a significant number of small entities because we believe that these suppliers are operating on standard business practices and therefore are already in compliance with these proposed standards. Since we believe that a significant number of small entities currently meet each of the revised or new proposed standard, we do not have information available to calculate the economic impact of any individual or combination of proposals would have on small entities. This proposed rule would merely clarify, expand, and update our current policy found in the DMEPOS supplier standards currently covered under § 424.57. Therefore, we anticipate a minimal economic impact, if any, on small entities. We are soliciting public comment regarding any specific impacts that these proposed provisions will have on suppliers. To encourage such comments we are providing the public with the relevant data that we possess on DMEPOS suppliers.
The following table examines the allowed charges to the unique billing numbers (a DMEPOS supplier may have multiple locations, for example, a chain organization, but use only one unique billing number), the vast majority of DMEPOS suppliers are small entities (based on Medicare reimbursement alone).
In reviewing the table above, the term, durable medical equipment (DME) is defined at section 1861(n) of the Act. This definition, in part, excludes from coverage as DME, items furnished in skilled nursing facilities and hospitals (equipment furnished in those facilities is paid for as part of their routine or ancillary costs). Also, the term DME is included in the definition of “medical and other health services” at section 1861(s)(6) of the Act. Furthermore, the term is defined in § 414.202 as equipment furnished by a supplier or a HHA that—
• Can withstand repeated use;
• Is primarily and customarily used to serve a medical purpose;
• Generally is not useful to an individual in the absence of an illness or injury; and
• Is appropriate for use in the home.
Conversely, suppliers of non-DME only refers to items or services furnished by prosthetics, orthotist, and supplies found in section 1861(s)(5) of the Act.
As of April 2007, there were 116,471 individual DMEPOS suppliers. However, due to the affiliation of some DMEPOS suppliers with chains, there were only approximately 65,984 unique billing numbers (31,904 + 34,080). We believe that approximately 30 percent of the 116,000 DMEPOS suppliers are located in rural areas.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. We understand that a large number of DMEPOS suppliers fall into this category, however these proposed provisions are procedural in nature and we expect that legitimate DMEPOS suppliers are already meeting these provisions.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure in any 1 year by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $120 million. That threshold is currently approximately $127 million. This rule does not mandate expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $127 million and therefore no analysis is required.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. Since this regulation does not impose any costs on State or local governments, the requirements of E.O. 13132 are not applicable.
We anticipate that this rule would codify certain procedural policies contained in the Program Integrity Manual (PIM) that DMEPOS suppliers already are supposed to adhere to, and that legitimate DMEPOS suppliers should already be meeting. By establishing the standards in this rule, we are establishing our authority to deny or revoke the Medicare billing privileges of DMEPOS suppliers that have failed to comply with one or more of these supplier standards.
We have considered alternatives to all of the proposed provisions, however only one of the provisions considered lends itself to other options. Initially, we considered establishing a 40-hour requirement for a DMEPOS supplier's hours of operation since most businesses are open to the public for a minimum of 40 hours each week.
To reduce the burden associated with this provision, but also establish a minimum requirement for the hours of operation, we relaxed the initial 40-hour requirement to 30 hours per week because we believe that this is the minimum amount of time that a DMEPOS supplier is required to be open and legitimately operate as a business. We did not consider the alternative of not proceeding with the proposed provisions because we believe that they are necessary to ensure that only legitimate DMEPOS suppliers are enrolling and maintaining enrollment in the Medicare program.
As a result of not having quantifiable data, we cannot effectively derive an estimate for the monetary impacts of these provisions. Accordingly, we are seeking public comment so that the public may provide any data available that provides a calculable impact or any alternative to the proposed provisions.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this regulation was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Emergency medical services, Health facilities, Health professionals, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would amend 42 CFR chapter IV as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 424 continues to read as follows:
Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
2. Section 424.57 is amended by—
A. Adding in paragraph (a) the definition of “tax delinquency” in alphabetical order.
B. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text and (c)(1).
C. Revising paragraphs (c)(7) through (c)(12) and (c)(15).
D. Adding new paragraphs (c)(26) through (c)(31).
E. Revising paragraph (d).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(c)
(1) Operates its business and furnishes Medicare-covered items in compliance with the following applicable laws:
(i) Federal regulatory requirements that specify requirements for the provision of DMEPOS and ensure accessibility for the disabled.
(ii) State licensure and regulatory requirements. If a State requires licensure to furnish certain items or services, a DMEPOS supplier must be licensed to provide the item or service and cannot contract with an individual or other entity to provide the licensed services.
(iii) Local zoning requirements.
(7) Maintains a physical facility on an appropriate site that contains space for storing business records (including the supplier's delivery, maintenance, and beneficiary communication records) and retain the necessary ordering and referring documentation received from physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical social workers, or certified nurse midwives to assure themselves that coverage criterion for an item has been met, to facilitate an on site inspection by CMS or the NSC of the supplier's business records or ordering and referring documentation. An appropriate site
(i) Is in a location that is accessible to the public, Medicare beneficiaries, CMS, NSC, and its agents. (The location must not be in a gated community or other area where access is restricted.)
(ii) Is accessible and staffed during posted hours of operation.
(iii) Maintains a permanent visible sign in plain view and posts hours of operation. If the supplier's place of business is located within a building complex, the sign must be visible at the main entrance of the building.
(iv) May be a “closed door” business, such as pharmacies or suppliers providing services only to beneficiaries residing in a nursing home, that complies with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. “Closed door” businesses must comply with all the requirements in § 424.57(c)(7).
(8) Permits CMS, the NSC, or agents of CMS or the NSC to conduct on-site inspections to ascertain supplier compliance with the requirements of this section.
(9) Maintains a primary business telephone that is operating at the appropriate site listed under the name of the business locally or toll-free for beneficiaries. The use of cellular phones, beeper numbers, and pagers is prohibited. Additionally, DMEPOS suppliers are prohibited from forwarding calls from the primary business telephone listed under the name of the business to a cellular phone, or a beeper/pager. The exclusive use of answering machines, answering services or facsimile machine (or combination of these options) cannot be used as the primary business telephone during posted operating hours.
(10) Has a comprehensive liability insurance policy and meets the following insurance-related requirements:
(i) The comprehensive liability insurance is at least $300,000 per incident that covers both the supplier's place of business and all customers and employees of the supplier. If the supplier manufactures its own items, the insurance must also cover product liability and completed operations. Self insurance may be used to demonstrate compliance with the comprehensive liability insurance as long as CMS or the NSC can verify the policy and its coverage provisions with an independent underwriter. Failure to maintain required insurance at all times beginning with the date of filing will result in denial or revocation of the supplier's billing privileges retroactive to the date the insurance lapsed. DMEPOS suppliers are responsible for providing the contact information of an individual employed with the underwriter.
(ii) List the NSC as a certificate holder on the policy.
(iii) Notify the NSC in writing within 30 days of any policy changes or cancellations.
(11) Agree not to directly solicit patients, which includes, but is not limited to, a prohibition on telephone, computer e-mail or instant messaging, coercive response internet advertising on sites unrelated to DMEPOS products, or in-person contacts. The DMEPOS supplier may only contact the Medicare beneficiary when supplying a Medicare-covered item and only when one or more of the following applies:
(i) The individual has given written permission to the supplier to contact them concerning the furnishing of a Medicare-covered item that is to be rented or purchased.
(ii) The supplier has furnished a Medicare-covered item to the individual and the supplier is contacting the individual to coordinate the delivery of the item.
(iii) If the contact concerns the furnishing of a Medicare-covered item other than a covered item already furnished to the individual, the supplier has furnished at least one covered item to the individual during the 15-month period preceding the date on which the supplier makes such contact.
(12) Has met the following delivering and beneficiary instruction requirements:
(i) Maintains proof of the delivery in the beneficiary's file.
(ii) Furnishes information to the beneficiary at the time of delivery of items on how the beneficiary can contact the supplier by telephone.
(iii) Provides the beneficiary with instructions on how to safely and effectively use the equipment or contract this service to a qualified individual.
(iv) Completes and documents beneficiary instruction on the safe and effective use of the equipment at the time of delivery or other appropriate time.
(26) [Reserved]
(27) Must obtain oxygen from a State-licensed oxygen supplier (applicable only to those suppliers in States that require oxygen licensure.)
(28) Is required to maintain ordering and referring documentation, including the National Provider Identifier, received from a physician, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical social worker, or certified nurse midwife, for 7 years after the claim has been paid.
(29) Is prohibited from sharing a practice location with any other Medicare supplier.
(30) Is open to the public a minimum of 30 hours per week, except for those DMEPOS suppliers who are working with custom made or fitted orthotics and prosthetics.
(31) Does not have an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or a State taxing authority tax delinquency.
(d)
(2)
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program).
This document was received by the Office of the Federal Register on January 22, 2008.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
Appaloosa Broadcasting Company, Inc. (“Petitioner”), the licensee of Station KIMX(FM), Channel 244C2, Laramie, Wyoming, has filed a
Comments must be filed on or before February 28, 2008, and reply comments on or before March 14, 2008.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for Petitioner as follows: Barry A. Friedman, Esq., Thompson Hine LLP, 1920 N Street, NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036.
R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a summary of the Commission's
Channel 247A at Wheatland was allotted in MB Docket No. 05-98.
This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Wyoming, is amended by adding Wheatland, Channel 286A.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule, request for comments, reopening of comment period.
NMFS reopens the comment period for proposed regulations to require the operators of certain domestic fishing vessels to provide a U.S. Coast Guard-approved pilot ladder as a safer and more enforceable means for authorized personnel to board.
Comments must be received at the following address by February 25, 2008.
You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0648-AV78,” by any one of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal
• Fax: 301-713-1175, Attn: William D. Chappell.
• Mail: Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Boarding Ladder Rule.”
Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to
NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
William D. Chappell, 301-713-2337.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act established U.S. management authority over the fishery resources in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). NMFS is responsible for implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) prepared by eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and for the FMP governing Atlantic Highly Migratory Species. While each Council prepares FMPs for those fishery resources within the Council's area of authority that require conservation, NMFS implements certain requirements common to all fisheries, such as facilitation of enforcement. Associated regulations are
On December 11, 2007, NMFS published this proposed rule with a comment period ending January 10, 2008. Because the comment period extended through the December holiday period, many affected members of the fishing industry were unaware of the proposed rule until late in the comment period. As a result, NMFS received several requests to extend the comment period. Although the comment period ended before NMFS could publish an extension to this comment period, NMFS now reopens the comment period for an additional 30 days to allow the public adequate time to understand the rule, its effects on their circumstances, and provide their comments.
Comments received to date identified some misunderstandings and questions that need clarification. The most important misunderstanding is that the proposed rule would require fishing vessels to provide boarding ladders for the first time. Fishing vessel operators have been required to provide authorized officers “a safe ladder” since before 1988, when all facilitation of enforcement regulations were consolidated in one part. The intent of this proposed rule was to specify the type of ladder to meet the requirement, not to change the requirement to provide a ladder. Experience in many boardings has shown that ladders offered by many fishing vessel operators are, in reality, not safe. This negatively affects the ability of an authorized officer to safely board the fishing vessel at sea, resulting in an unacceptable safety hazard. In some instances, authorized officers entered the water as a direct result of ladder failures or inadequacies. Under current regulations, the safety of the ladder can only be determined unsafe after the fact, a situation that is unacceptable from both a safety and enforcement aspect. NMFS proposes to amend the existing regulation to require that a standard and safe ladder be made available. These commonly used ladders are available from many maritime suppliers, and can be constructed to meet the size of the vessel and can be rolled up to use minimal storage space.
Another important misconception is that the proposed rule would require all fishing vessels to carry a Coast Guard approved ladder. The current regulations do not require vessels with a freeboard of 4 feet (1.25 m) or less to carry a ladder. The proposed rule will not alter this distinction. Instead, the proposed rule would define the term freeboard for the purposes of the rule as the working distance between the top rail of the gunwale of a vessel to the water's surface. This is somewhat different from the typical usage of the term freeboard, which usually means the difference between the lowest exposed or weather deck and the water.
Several commenters asked whether the proposed rule would apply to recreational fishing vessels. The answer is yes, this proposed rule would apply to both recreational and commercial fishing vessels fishing under Federal fishing regulations.
NMFS also received comments regarding alternative freeboard heights, purpose built ladders, and exemptions from the provision of a safe ladder based on vessel length, as well as other comments. All comments will be addressed in any final rule published for this rulemaking.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of public meeting.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) will hold a public meeting on February 5-6, 2008, to review and discuss: (1) The planned public health-based slaughter inspection system for young chickens and (2) how a similar approach could be used for inspection in processing and other slaughter establishments. Both issues will be presented to the full Committee. The Committee will then divide into two subcommittees to discuss both issues. Each subcommittee will provide a report of their comments and recommendations to the full committee before the meeting concludes on February 6, 2008.
The Committee will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, February 5, and Thursday, February 6, 2008, from 8:15 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. The subcommittees will hold open meetings during their deliberations and report preparation.
The meetings will take place at the Key Bridge Marriott, 1401 Lee Highway, Arlington, VA 22209; telephone, (703) 524-6400. The meeting agenda is available on the Internet at the NACMPI Web site,
The NACMPI meeting agenda, together with information and resource materials on public health-based inspection, is also available on the Internet at,
FSIS welcomes comments on the topics discussed at the NACMPI public meeting. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Electronic mail:
Mail, including floppy disks or CD-ROMs: Send to National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection, United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 14th & Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1180—South Building, Washington, DC 20250.
Hand- or courier-delivered items: Deliver to Faye Smith at 14th & Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1180-S, Washington, DC. To deliver these items, the building security guard must first call (202) 720-9113.
Facsimile: Send to Faye Smith, (202) 720-5704. All submissions received must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2008-0003.
Contact Robert Tynan for technical information at (202) 720-3884, or e-mail
The NACMPI provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture pertaining to the Federal and State meat and poultry inspection programs, pursuant to sections 7(c), 24, 205, 301(a)(3), 301(a)(4), and 301(c) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 607(c), 624, 645, 661(a)(3), 661(a)(4), and 661(c)) and sections 5(a)(3), 5(a)(4), 5(c), 8(b), and 11(e) of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 454(a)(3), 454(a)(4), 454(c), 457(b), and 460(e)).
The Administrator of FSIS is the chairperson of the Committee. Membership of the Committee is drawn from representatives of consumer groups; producers, processors, and marketers from the meat, poultry and egg product industries; State and local government officials; and academia. The current members of the NACMPI are: Ms. Kibbe M. Conti, Northern Plains Nutrition Consulting, Rapid City, SD; Mr. Brian R. Covington, Keystone Foods LLC, West Conshohocken, PA; Dr. Catherine N. Cutter, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA; Dr. James S. Dickson, Iowa State University, Ames, IA; Mr. Kevin M. Elfering, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, MN; Mr. Mike W. Finnegan, Montana Meat & Poultry Inspection Bureau, Helena, MT; Ms. Carol Tucker Foreman, Consumer Federation of America, Chevy Chase, MD; Dr. Andrea L. Grondahl, North Dakota Department of Agriculture, Bismarck, ND; Dr. Joseph J. Harris, Southwest Meat Association, Bryan, TX; Dr. Craig W. Henry, Food Products Association, Washington, DC; Ms. Cheryl D. Jones, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA; Mr. Michael E. Kowalcyk, DunnhumbyUSA LLC, Cincinnati, OH; Dr. Shelton E. Murinda, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA; Dr. Edna Negron-Bravo, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, PR; Dr. Michael L. Rybolt, National Turkey Federation, Washington, DC; Mr. Mark P. Schad, Schad Meats, Inc., Cincinnati, OH; and Dr. Stanley A. Stromberg, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry, Oklahoma City, OK.
The Committee will review a draft report outlining a public health-based slaughter inspection system for young chickens. The components of the planned system are science-based. The focus of the inspection activities in this system are the points within the poultry slaughter process that have the greatest risk for causing microbial or other contamination on young chicken carcasses or otherwise rendering the carcasses adulterated. These focused activities will be performed within the regulatory framework of current FSIS inspection activities regarding verification of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point systems, Sanitation SOPs, sanitation performance standards, and other regulatory requirements. In addition, FSIS will utilize its inspection resources, including performing Food Safety Assessments on poultry slaughter establishments, as a means of assessing the design of an establishment's inspection system and whether it is under control and functions effectively.
FSIS' traditional method of inspection for young chicken slaughter establishments was designed before microbial contamination was recognized as a leading cause of foodborne human illness. FSIS would like to update the inspection system for young chicken slaughter establishments so that it will function effectively with the significant advances that have been made in the processing methods employed by many of these establishments. FSIS believes that the inspection system that it is considering will be better able to protect public health because it will be better adapted to the methods being used in slaughter plants. FSIS activities will likely focus on establishments and points within the poultry slaughter process at which microbial contamination of young chicken carcasses is likely to occur. Similarly, FSIS believes that the performance standards it is considering will decrease the amount of microbial contamination occurring at the end of the poultry slaughter process.
An approach to inspection that focuses on points within an establishment that present the greatest likelihood of causing microbial and other contamination, and on those establishments with evidence of a loss of process control, could also be applied to processing establishments and to other slaughter establishments in addition to those that slaughter young chickens. The Committee will also review a draft report outlining how a public-health based inspection system could be applied to those establishments and the scientific basis for such a system.
All interested parties are welcome to attend the meetings and to submit written comments and suggestions concerning issues the Committee will review and discuss. The comments and the official transcript of the meeting, when they become available, will be kept in the FSIS Docket Room, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 2534, South Building, Washington, DC 20250, and posted on the Agency's NACMPI Web site,
Members of the public will be required to register before entering the meeting.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the public and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities, are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at
In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics.
The Committee meeting will be held from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday, February 25, 2008, and from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Tuesday, February 26, 2008. There will be an opportunity for public questions and comments at 1:50 p.m. on February 26, 2008.
The Committee meeting will take place at the Marriott—Louisville Downtown, 280 West Jefferson Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. Written comments may be filed before or within a reasonable time after the meeting with the contact person identified herein at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 5041A, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-2000.
Joe Reilly, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics, Telephone: 202-720-4333, Fax: 202-720-9013, or e-mail:
The Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics, which consists of 25 members appointed from 7 categories covering a broad range of agricultural disciplines and interests, has scheduled a meeting on February 25-27, 2008. During this time the Advisory Committee will discuss topics including the USDA Information Technology Consolidation, update on the Data Enclave, Annual NASS Program Priorities, County Estimates Program, Dairy Prices, Environmental and Chemical Use Program, Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey and Energy Survey, and Agricultural Resource Management Survey.
The Committee meeting is open to the public. The public may file written comments to the USDA Advisory Committee contact person before or within a reasonable time after the meeting. All statements will become a part of the official records of the USDA Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics and will be kept on file for public review in the office of the Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action deletes from the Procurement List products and services previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or e-mail
On October 26, November 16 and November 30, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 60797; 64576; 67698) of proposed deletions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action should not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products 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 deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and services are deleted from the Procurement List:
Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List products and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete products and a service previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Kimberly M. Zeich, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or e-mail
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following products and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action should not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service 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 service proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.
Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following products and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
On December 5, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Juan Sevilla (“Sevilla”) was found guilty on one count of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706 (2000)) (“IEEPA”). Specifically, the Court found that Sevilla knowingly and willfully attempted to engage in the unauthorized sale and export to Iran of a United Computer Inclusive Hydraulic Floor Model Testing Machine. The testing machine is classified as EAR99. These systems test metals or plastic materials for tensile strength and the export of these systems to Iran requires an individual validated license from the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). Failing to obtain the proper OFAC license for this item is also a violation of the Export Administration Regulations (“Regulations”).
Section 11(h) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (currently codified at 50 U.S.C. Section 2401-2420 (2000)) (the “Act”)
I have received notice of Sevilla's conviction for violating the IEEPA, and have provided notice and an opportunity for Sevilla to make a written submission to the Bureau of Industry and Security as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. I have received a written submission from Sevilla and, following consultations with the Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, have decided to deny Sevilla's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five years from the date of Sevilla's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Sevilla had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Pursuant to Sections 766.25(h) and 766.23 of the Regulations, the Director of BIS's Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, may take action to name persons related to a Respondent by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business in order to prevent evasion of a denial order. I gave notice to Cientec, S.A. de C.V. (“Cientec”) and JS Engineering that their export privileges under the Regulations could be denied for up to 10 years due to their relationship with Sevilla and because BIS believes that naming them as persons related to Sevilla would be necessary to prevent evasion of a denial order imposed against Sevilla. Sevilla is the founder, owner and president of Cientec, S.A. Sevilla is also the owner of JS Engineering, an affiliate of Cientec based out of Sevilla's home in Gardenia, CA. JS Engineering and Cientec are related to Sevilla by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business. BIS believes that naming Cientec and JS Engineering as persons related to Sevilla is necessary to avoid evasion of the denial order against Sevilla because of the likelihood that Sevilla would continue to engage in trade through these companies.
After receiving and considering submissions from JS Engineering and Cientec, I have decided, following consultations with the Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, to name JS Engineering and Cientec as Related Persons to the Sevilla Denial Order, thereby denying their export privileges for five years from the date of Sevilla's conviction.
I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which the Related Persons had an interest at the time of Sevilla's conviction. The five-year denial period will end on December 5, 2011.
Accordingly, it is hereby
I. Until December 5, 2011, Juan Sevilla, 16123 Ardath Avenue, Gardena, California 90249, when acting for or on behalf of Sevilla, his representatives, assigns, agents or employees, (“the Denied Person”) and the following persons related to the Denied Person as defined by Section 766.23 of the Regulations: JS Engineering, 16123 Ardath Avenue, Gardena, California 90249 and Cientec, S.A. de. C.V., Acatempan No. 2112, Chapultepec Country, 44620, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, and when acting for or on their behalf, their employees, agents or representatives, (“the Related Persons”) (together, the Denied Person and the Related Persons are “Persons Subject To This Order”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
II. No person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Persons Subject To This Order any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Persons Subject To This Order of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Persons Subject To This Order acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Persons Subject To This Order of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Persons Subject To This Order in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Persons Subject To This Order, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Persons Subject To This Order if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
III. In addition to the Related Persons named above, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or
IV. This Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the Regulations where the only items involved that are subject to the Regulations are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology.
V. This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until December 5, 2011.
VI. In accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Sevilla may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.
VII. In accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, the Related Persons may also file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.
VIII. A copy of this Order shall be delivered to Sevilla and the Related Persons. This Order shall be published in the
The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on February 6, 2007, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Working Group Reports.
3. Comments from the public.
4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 section 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via e-mail.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 17, 2008, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 section (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of an agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 section 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announces that the following programs are soliciting applications for financial assistance for FY 2008: (1) The Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program; (2) the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory Grants Program; (3) the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grants Program; (4) the Physics Laboratory Grants Program; (5) the Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory Grants Program; (6) the Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program; (7) the Fire Research Grants Program; (8) the Information Technology Laboratory Grants Program; (9) the NIST Center for Neutron Research Grants Program; (10) Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology Grants Program; and (11) the NCNR Sample Environment Equipment Financial Assistance Program. Each program will only consider applications that are within the scientific scope of the program as described in this notice and in the detailed program descriptions found in the Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) announcement for these programs. Prior to preparation of a proposal, it is strongly suggested that potential applicants contact the Program Manager for the appropriate field of research, as specified in the FFO announcement found at
See below.
See below.
All applications, paper and electronic, must be received no later than 5 p.m. Daylight Savings Time on June 15, 2008.
For complete information about this program and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) Notice at
In fiscal year 2007, the
For the
Second, proposals will be distributed for technical review by the EEEL Grants Coordinator, or other technical professionals familiar with the programs of the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory, to the appropriate Division or Office based on technical area. At least three independent, objective individuals knowledgeable about the particular scientific area addressed by the proposal will conduct a technical review based on the evaluation criteria. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus.
Reviews will be conducted on a monthly basis, and all proposals received on or before the 15th day of the month will be ranked based on the reviewers' scores.
Third, the Division Chief or Office Director will make application selections. In making application selections, the Division Chief or Office Director will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, the availability of funding, and relevance to the objectives or research areas of the
Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.
For the
The MEL Director or appropriate MEL Division Chief will make application selections from the grants proposals submitted. In making the application selections, the Laboratory Director or Division Chief will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, the availability of funds, and relevance to the objectives or research areas of the
The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decision of the Grants Officer is final.
Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.
1. Rationality. Reviewers will consider the coherence of the applicant's approach and the extent to
2. Technical Merit of Contribution. Reviewers will consider the potential technical effectiveness of the proposal and the value it would contribute to the field of manufacturing engineering and metrology research. Proposals must be relevant to current MEL research and have a relation to the objectives of ongoing MEL programs and activities.
3. Qualifications of Technical Personnel. Reviewers will consider the professional accomplishments, skills, and training of the proposed personnel to perform the work in the project.
4. Resources Availability. Reviewers will consider the extent to which the proposer has access to the necessary facilities and overall support to accomplish project objectives.
Each of these factors will be given equal weight in the evaluation process.
The Programs are structured to support CSTL's three objectives:
1. Provide the national traceability and international comparability structure for measurements in chemistry, chemical engineering, and biochemical sciences.
2. Assure that U.S. industry has access to accurate and reliable data and predictive models to determine the chemical and physical properties of materials and processes;
3. Anticipate and address next-generation measurement needs of the Nation.
No funds have been set aside specifically for the
In fiscal year 2007, the
For the
Second, at least three independent, objective individuals knowledgeable about the particular measurement science area addressed by the proposal will conduct a technical review based on the evaluation criteria. Reviews will be conducted on a quarterly basis, subject to the availability of funds, and all responsive, complete proposals received and reviewed since the last quarter will be ranked based on the reviewers' scores. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other,
Third, the Division Chief and the CSTL Deputy Director, in collaboration, will make application selections, taking into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, the availability of funds, and the relevance to the objectives or research areas described in the Program Description section above.
The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decisions of the Grants Officer are final.
Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record-keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.
1. Rationality. Reviewers will consider the coherence of the applicant's approach and the extent to which the proposal effectively addresses scientific and technical issues.
2. Qualifications of Technical Personnel. Reviewers will consider the professional accomplishments, skills, and training of the proposed personnel to perform the work in the project.
3. Resources Availability. Reviewers will consider the extent to which the proposer has access to the necessary facilities and overall support to accomplish project objectives.
4. Technical Merit of Contribution. Reviewers will consider the potential technical effectiveness of the proposal and the value it would contribute to the field of measurement science, especially as it pertains to reference methods, reference materials and reference data in Chemical Science and Technology.
Each of these factors will be given equal weight in the evaluation process.
In fiscal year 2007, the PL Grants Program funded 13 new awards, totaling $1,718,401.00. In fiscal year 2008, the PL Grants Program anticipates funding of approximately $2,000,000, including new awards and continuing projects. Funding availability will be apportioned by quarter. Individual awards are expected to range from approximately $5,000 to $500,000 per year.
For the
Next, the Division Chief will make final application selections, taking into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, including rank;
Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award.
The decisions of the Grants Officer are final.
Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record-keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.
1. Rationality. Reviewers will consider the coherence of the applicant's approach and the extent to which the proposal effectively addresses scientific and technical issues that are relevant to Physics Laboratory programs.
2. Qualifications of Technical Personnel. Reviewers will consider the professional accomplishments, skills, and training of the proposed personnel to perform the work in the project.
3. Resources Availability. Reviewers will consider the extent to which the proposer has access to the necessary facilities and overall support to accomplish project objectives.
4. Technical Merit of Contribution. Reviewers will consider the potential technical effectiveness of the proposal and the value it would contribute to the field of physics.
Each of these factors will be given equal weight in the evaluation process.
In fiscal year 2007, the
For the
Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record-keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.
1. Rationality. Reviewers will consider the coherence of the applicant's approach and the extent to which the proposal effectively addresses scientific and technical issues.
2. Qualifications of Technical Personnel. Reviewers will consider the professional accomplishments, skills, and training of the proposed personnel to perform the work in the project.
3. Resources Availability. Reviewers will consider the extent to which the proposer has access to the necessary facilities and overall support to accomplish project objectives.
4. Technical Merit of Contribution. Reviewers will consider the potential technical effectiveness of the proposal and the value it would contribute to the field of materials science and engineering. Proposals must be relevant to current MSEL research and have a relation to the objectives of ongoing MSEL programs and activities.
Each of these factors will be given equal weight in the evaluation process.
The Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program supports the formal mission of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, which is to meet the measurement and standards needs of the Building and Fire communities. All proposals submitted must be in accordance with the program objectives found in the corresponding Federal Funding Opportunity for this announcement.
In fiscal year 2007, the
For the
Responsive proposals will be forwarded to the appropriate Division Chief, who will assign them to appropriate reviewers. At least three
Next, the Division Chief, Laboratory Deputy Director, or Laboratory Director will make application selections. In making application selections, the Division Chief, Laboratory Deputy Director, or Laboratory Director will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations including score, the availability of funds, and relevance to the objectives or research areas of the
The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The award decision of the Grants Officer is final. Applicants should allow up to 90 days processing time.
Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.
1. Technical quality of the research. Reviewers will assess the rationality, innovation and imagination of the proposal and the fit to NIST's in-house building research programs. (0-35 points)
2. Potential impact of the results. Reviewers will assess the potential impact and the technical application of the results to NIST's in-house programs and the building industry. (0-25 points)
3. Staff and institution capability to do the work. Reviewers will evaluate the quality of the facilities and experience of the staff to assess the likelihood of achieving the objective of the proposal. (0-20 points)
4. Match of budget to proposed work. Reviewers will assess the budget against the proposed work to ascertain the reasonableness of the request. (0-20 points)
For the
In making application selections, the Division Chief will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, including the scores of the reviewers, the group leader's recommendation, the availability of funds, and relevance to the objectives or research areas of the
Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.
1. Technical quality of the research. Reviewers will assess the rationality, innovation and imagination of the proposal. (0-35 points)
2. Potential impact of the results. Reviewers will assess the potential impact and the technical application of the results to the fire safety community. (0-25 points )
3. Staff and institution capability to do the work. Reviewers will evaluate the quality of the facilities and experience of the staff to assess the likelihood of achieving the objective of the proposal. (0-20 points)
4. Match of budget to proposed work. Reviewers will assess the budget against the proposed work to ascertain the reasonableness of the request. (0-20 points)
For the
Second, at least three independent, objective individuals knowledgeable about the particular measurement science area described in the section above that the proposal addresses will conduct a technical review of each proposal, based on the evaluation criteria. Reviews will be conducted on a quarterly basis, and all responsive, complete proposals received and reviewed since the last quarter will be ranked based on the reviewers' scores. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus.
Third, the Division Chief, in accord with the Director of ITL, will make application selections, taking into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, the availability of funds, and the relevance to the objectives or research areas described in the Program Description section above.
The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decisions of the Grants Officer are final.
Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.
For the
1. Rationality. Reviewers will consider the coherence of the applicant's approach and the extent to which the proposal effectively addresses scientific and technical issues.
2. Technical Merit of Contribution. Reviewers will consider the potential technical effectiveness of the proposal and the value it would contribute to the field of information technology research.
3. Qualifications of Technical Personnel. Reviewers will consider the professional accomplishments, skills, and training of the proposed personnel to perform the work in the project.
4. Resources Availability. Reviewers will consider the extent to which the proposer has access to the necessary facilities and overall support to accomplish project objectives.
Each of these factors will be given equal weight in the evaluation process.
All proposals submitted to the NCNR Grants Program must be in accordance with the program objectives. These are to create novel approaches to advance high resolution cold and thermal neutron scattering research; to develop new applications of neutron scattering to physics, chemistry, and macromolecular and materials research; and to support the development of innovative technologies relevant to neutron research, including, for example, high resolution two-dimensional neutron detectors, neutron monochromators, and neutron focusing and polarizing devices. Awards to universities to help to promote research by university students at the NIST/NSF Center for High Resolution Scattering are also funded under this program. Dr. Dan Neumann should be contacted for any inquiries about the objectives for this NCNR program. He can be reached at (301) 975-5252 or by e-mail at
The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decision of the Grants Officer is final.
Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.
1. Rationality. Reviewers will assess the innovation, rationality, and coherence of the applicant's approach and the extent to which the proposal effectively addresses important scientific and technical issues using neutron methods and/or the development of innovative devices for neutron research. (0 to 35 points)
2. Qualifications of Technical Personnel. Reviewers will consider the professional accomplishments, skills, and training of the proposed personnel to perform the work in the project. (0 to 20 points)
3. Resources. Reviewers will consider the extent to which the proposer has access to the necessary resources, facilities, and overall support to accomplish project objectives, and will assess the budget against the proposed work to ascertain the reasonableness of the request. (0 to 20 points)
4. Technical Merit of Contribution. Reviewers will consider the potential technical effectiveness of the proposal and the value it would contribute to neutron research. (0 to 25 points)
The primary program objectives of the financial assistance program in CNST are to develop new measurement methods, instrumentation and standards for nanotechnology and explore new areas of nanoscale science and technology in a variety of areas including nanofabrication, nanomagnetics, theory and modeling, post complementary metal oxide semiconductor electronics, nano electro mechanical systems, nanomotion and nanomanipulation, merging length scales, 2-D and 3-D structural and chemical imaging, electrical and magnetic dynamical response of nanostructures, electrical characterization of nanostructures, nanoscale properties of soft matter; to assist and train CNST collaborators and nanofabrication facility users in their research; and to conduct other outreach and educational activities that advance the development of nanotechnology by U.S. university and industrial scientists. This will entail collaborative research among the selected financial assistance recipients and CNST.
In fiscal year 2007, the
The CNST Director will make application selections from the grants and cooperative agreement proposals submitted. In making the application selections, the Laboratory Director will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, the availability of funds, and relevance to the objectives or research areas of the
The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decision of the Grants Officer is final.
Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.
1. Rationality. Reviewers will consider the coherence of the applicant's approach and the extent to which the proposal effectively addresses scientific and technical issues.
2. Qualifications of Technical Personnel. Reviewers will consider the professional accomplishments, skills, and training of the proposed personnel to perform the work in this project.
3. Resources Availability. Reviewers will consider the extent to which the proposer has access to the necessary facilities and overall support to accomplish project objectives.
4. Technical Merit of Contribution. Reviewers will consider the potential technical effectiveness of the proposal and the value it would contribute to the field of physics.
Each of these factors will be given equal weight in the evaluation process.
Cost Share Requirements: The
Program Description: The purpose of this notice is to inform potential applicants that the
The primary objectives of this financial assistance program are to develop, design, and construct new, state-of-the-art equipment for dedicated use by the general scientific community on NCNR neutron beam stations that provide specific and well-controlled environments of scientific interest for in-situ studies of the microscopic properties of a broad range of sample materials such as molecular solids, thin films, biomolecules and biological membranes, solid state materials, polymers, and complex fluids, using neutron scattering and imaging techniques. Examples of sample
Awards are anticipated to contain a start date of September 1, 2008.
Responsive proposals will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria by an independent, objective panel composed of at least four individuals who are knowledgeable about neutron research, neutron spectroscopy, and neutron instrumentation. The reviewers will reach a consensus score resulting in a rank order of applicants. However, if non-Federal reviewers are used, each reviewer will evaluate and provide a score for each proposal without reaching a consensus.
The NCNR Director, serving as the Selecting Official, will make the award selection. In making the award selection, the NCNR Director will take into consideration the panels' technical evaluation. The NCNR Director, as the Selecting Official, may choose a proposal out of rank order based upon one or more of the following factors: (1) Availability of funds, (2) Redundancy, (3) Balance/distribution of funds by program objectives or research areas described in the Funding Opportunity Description section of this Notice, and (4) relevance to Program objectives described above in the Funding Opportunity Description section of this Notice, and (5) Logistical concerns that would be detrimental to the success or timely completion of the proposal objectives. Therefore, the highest scoring proposals may not necessarily be selected for an award. If an award is made to an applicant that deviates from the scores of the reviewers, the NCNR Director shall justify the selection in writing based on selection factors described above. The NCNR Director may select all, none, or some of the applications for funding.
The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The award decision of the Grants Officer is final. Applicants should allow up to 90 days processing time.
Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.
1. Qualifications and experience of the Principal Investigator in neutron scattering research, as demonstrated by extensive publications and invited lectures in condensed matter physics, chemistry, material science, polymer science, biology, macromolecular science, and/or related fields. (10%)
2. Qualifications and experience of the proposed university staff in neutron scattering research or in related scientific or engineering areas that are key to the activities contained in the proposal, as demonstrated by resumes of staff proposed for this program. (5%)
3. Feasibility and rationality of the design and construction plan of the proposed sample environment equipment and its potential impact on neutron-based research, particularly in the areas of biology, macromolecular
4. Quality of the plan in terms of providing assistance to U.S. researchers using the NCNR neutron facilities through sustained and dedicated access to unique and novel sample environment equipment. (20%)
5. Quality of the plan to integrate the sample environment equipment for dedicated use on one or more of the NCNR research facility neutron beam stations. (25%)
6. Cost effectiveness of the plan, including the completeness of the estimate to achieve the objectives stated in the proposal. (10%)
The following information applies to all programs announced in this notice:
If an applicant proposes collaboration with NIST, the statement of work should include a statement of this intention, a description of the collaboration, and prominently identify the NIST employee(s) involved, if known. Any collaboration by a NIST employee must be approved by appropriate NIST management and is at the sole discretion of NIST. Prior to beginning the merit review process, NIST will verify the approval of the proposed collaboration. Any unapproved collaboration will be stricken from the proposal prior to the merit review.
Any use of NIST-owned intellectual property by a proposer is at the sole discretion of NIST and will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis if a project is deemed meritorious. The applicant should indicate within the statement of work whether it already has a license to use such intellectual property or whether it intends to seek one.
If any inventions made in whole or in part by a NIST employee arise in the course of an award made pursuant to this notice, the United States government may retain its ownership rights in any such invention. Licensing or other disposition of NIST's rights in such inventions will be determined solely by NIST, and include the possibility of NIST putting the intellectual property into the public domain.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
NIST will accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) possessing a current registration filed with DHHS and to be performed by institutions possessing a current, valid Federal-wide Assurance (FWA) from DHHS. NIST will not issue a single project assurance (SPA) for any IRB reviewing any human subjects protocol proposed to NIST.
On August 9, 2001, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement (1) the derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated and (2) the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being. NIST will follow guidance issued by the National Institutes of Health at
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announces that the following programs are soliciting applications for financial assistance for FY 2008: (1) The Gaithersburg Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship Program, and (2) the Boulder Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship Program. Each program will only consider applications that are within the scientific scope of the program as described in this notice and in the detailed program descriptions found in the Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) announcement for these programs.
See below.
See below.
Measurement and Engineering Research and Standards-11.609.
The
Applications for the Gaithersburg and Boulder programs are separate. Application to one program does not constitute application to the other, and applications will not be exchanged between the Gaithersburg and Boulder programs. If applicants wish to be considered at both sites, two separate applications must be submitted.
Both SURF programs will provide an opportunity for the NIST laboratories and the National Science Foundation (NSF) to join in a partnership to encourage outstanding undergraduate students to pursue careers in science and engineering. The programs will provide research opportunities for students to work with internationally known NIST scientists, to expose them to cutting-edge research and promote the pursuit of graduate degrees in science and engineering.
The NIST
The objective of the SURF programs is to build a mutually beneficial relationship between the student, the institution, and NIST. NIST is one of the nation's premiere research institutions for the physical and engineering sciences and, as the lead Federal agency for technology transfer, it provides a strong interface between government, industry and academia. NIST embodies a special science culture, developed from a large and well-equipped research staff that enthusiastically blends programs that address the immediate needs of industry with longer-term research that anticipates future needs. This occurs in few other places and enables the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Lab (EEEL), Manufacturing Engineering Lab (MEL), Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST), Chemical Science and Technology Lab (CSTL), Physics Lab (PL), Materials Science and Engineering Lab (MSEL)/NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR), Building and Fire Research Lab (BFRL), and Information Technology Lab (ITL) to offer unique research and training opportunities for undergraduates, providing them a research-rich environment and exposure to state of the art equipment.
All
For all
For complete information about this program and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity Notice (FFO) at
Funds budgeted for payment to students under these programs are stipends, not salary. The stipend is an amount that is expected to be provided to the participating student to help defray the cost of living, for the duration of the program, in the Washington National Capital Region. The
The actual number of awards made under this announcement will depend on the proposed budgets and the availability of funding. For all
The
Funding for the program(s) listed in this notice is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations under The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Pub. L. 110-161). In no event will NIST or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program(s) fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NIST or the Department of Commerce to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds.
Institution proposals will be separated into student/institution packets. Each student/institution packet will be comprised of the required application forms, including a complete copy of the
The selection process occurs in three rounds. Each
The SURF Program Director (e.g., the Selecting Official) for each laboratory, who is a NIST program official who did not participate in the technical evaluations, will then apply the following Selection Factors, which may result in revisions to the rank order: relevance of the student's course of study to the program objectives of the NIST laboratory in which that
Based on these results, the Program Director (e.g., Selecting Official) for each laboratory will divide the rank ordered student/application packets into three categories: Priority Funding; Fund if Possible; and Do Not Fund. Student/institution packets placed in the Priority Funding category will be selected for funding in that
Student/institution packets placed in the Fund if Possible Category may be considered for funding at a later time by the category-designating SURF Program; in the interim period these students will be released for consideration for funding by the
Students not selected for funding by their first or second choice
The final approval of selected applications and award of cooperative agreements will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice and other applicable legal and regulatory requirements. NIST also reserves the right to reject an application where information is uncovered that adversely affects an applicant's business integrity, resulting in a determination by the Grants Officer that an applicant is not presently responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decision of the Grants Officer is final.
The
(A) Evaluation of Student's Interest in Participating in the Program, Academic Ability, Laboratory Experience and Advanced Degree Openness: Evaluation of career goals and completed course work, honors and awards, grade point average in courses relevant to the
(B) Institution's Commitment to Program Goals: Evaluation of the institution's academic department(s) relevant to the discipline(s) of the student(s).
Each of these factors is given equal weight in the evaluation process.
All
Paper applications for the
For complete information about this program and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity Notice (FFO) at
Funds budgeted for payment to students under this program are stipends, not salaries. The
The table below summarizes the anticipated funding from NSF and NIST to operate the
The actual number of awards made under this announcement will depend on the proposed budgets and the availability of funding. For the
The
Funding for the program(s) listed in this notice is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations under The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Pub. L. 110-161). In no event will NIST or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program(s) fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NIST or the Department of Commerce to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds.
15 U.S.C. 278g-1.
Institution proposals will be separated into student/institution packets. Each student/institution packet will be comprised of the required application forms, including a complete copy of the student information and a complete copy of the institution information. The student/institution packets will be directed to a review committee of NIST staff appointed by the SURF NIST Boulder Directors.
First, all applications received in response to this announcement will be reviewed to determine whether or not they are complete and responsive to the scope of the stated program objectives. Incomplete or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed for technical merit.
Second, each SURF student/university packet will be reviewed by at least three independent, objective NIST employees, who are knowledgeable in the scientific areas of the program and are able to conduct a technical review of each student/university packet based on the Evaluation Criteria described in this notice. The normalized scores based on this merit review will be averaged for each student/university applicant packet, creating a rank order. The Selecting Official, the Director of NIST Boulder Laboratories, shall award in the rank order unless a proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon one or more of the following factors: Availability of funding, balance or distribution of funds by research or technical disciplines.
The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory
Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes.
(A) Evaluation of Student's Academic Ability and Commitment to Program Goals (80%): Includes evaluation of completed course work; expressed research interest; compatibility of the expressed research interest with SURF NIST Boulder research areas; research skills; grade point average in courses relevant to the
(B) Evaluation of Applicant Institution's Commitment to Program Goals (20%): Includes evaluation of the institution's academic department(s) relevant to the discipline(s) of the student(s).
The following information applies to all programs announced in this notice:
If an applicant proposes collaboration with NIST, the statement of work should include a statement of this intention, a description of the collaboration, and prominently identify the NIST employee(s) involved, if known. Any collaboration by a NIST employee must be approved by appropriate NIST management and is at the sole discretion of NIST. Prior to beginning the merit review process, NIST will verify the approval of the proposed collaboration. Any unapproved collaboration will be stricken from the proposal prior to the merit review.
Any use of NIST-owned intellectual property by a proposer is at the sole discretion of NIST and will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis if a project is deemed meritorious. The applicant should indicate within the statement of work whether it already has a license to use such intellectual property or whether it intends to seek one.
If any inventions made in whole or in part by a NIST employee arise in the course of an award made pursuant to this notice, the United States government may retain its ownership rights in any such invention. Licensing or other disposition of NIST's rights in such inventions will be determined solely by NIST, and include the possibility of NIST putting the intellectual property into the public domain.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
NIST will accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) registered with DHHS and performed by entities possessing a current, valid Federal-wide Assurance (FWA) from DHHS. NIST will not issue a single project assurance (SPA) for any IRB reviewing any human subjects protocol proposed to NIST.
On August 9, 2001, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement (1) the derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated and (2) the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being. NIST will follow guidance issued by the National Institutes of Health at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Tonya Wiley, Mote Marine Laboratory, Center for Shark Research,1600 Ken Thompson Parkway, Sarasota, Florida 34236, has applied in due form for a permit to take smalltooth sawfish (
Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before February 25, 2008.
The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521; and
Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309.
Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate.
Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period.
Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is
Patrick Opay or Jennifer Skidmore, (301)713-2289.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant proposes to collect data on the biology, distribution and abundance of the endangered smalltooth sawfish in order to facilitate the recovery of the species. All sawfish captured during field surveys would be handled, measured, tagged, sampled, and released alive. Capture methods would include longline, rod and reel, set lines (drum lines), gill nets, and beach seines. Tagging methods include rototags (fin tags), plastic headed dart tags, Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags, acoustic tags (transmitters), Pop-Up Archival Transmitting (PAT) tags, and Smart Position Only Transmitting (SPOT) tags. Sampling would include a small fin clip and a small blood sample. Sawfish acquired through dead strandings or from law enforcement confiscations would be measured and sampled for scientific purposes. Sampling would occur in Florida, with the goal of taking 45 smalltooth sawfish per year. The applicant requests a permit for five years. Incidental take of sea turtles, sturgeon, coral, dolphins, alligators, crocodiles and manatees are unlikely but possible.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Michael Etnier, Ph.D., Box 353100, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before February 25, 2008.
The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)427-2521;
Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206)526-6150; fax (206)526-6426; and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203 (1-800-358-2104).
Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate.
Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)427-2521, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period.
Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is
Kate Swails or Amy Sloan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301)713-2289.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
Dr. Etnier requests a 5-year permit to possess and import/export marine mammal and endangered and threatened species parts (hard and soft) from the orders of Cetacea, Pinnipedia, and Carnivora (sea otter,
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS announces a meeting, via teleconference, of the General Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) in February 2008. Meeting topics are provided under the
The meeting will be held on February 20, 2008, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. (or until business is concluded), Pacific time.
The meeting will be held via teleconference. Please notify Allison Routt prior to February 13, 2008, to receive dial in information and of your intent to participate in this teleconference.
Allison Routt at (562) 980-4019 or (562) 980-4030.
In accordance with the Tuna Conventions Act, as amended, the Department of State has appointed a General Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to the IATTC. The U.S. Section consists of the four U.S. Commissioners to the IATTC and the representative of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Fisheries. The Advisory Committee supports the work of the U.S. Section in a solely advisory capacity with respect to U.S. participation in the work of the IATTC, with particular reference to the development of policies and negotiating positions pursued at meetings of the IATTC. NMFS, Southwest Region, administers the Advisory Committee in cooperation with the Department of State.
The General Advisory Committee will meet to receive and discuss information on: (1) 2007 and 2008 IATTC activities, (2) activities of the Commerce and State Departments and the Pacific Fishery Management Council and Western Pacific Fishery Management Council as they relate to the IATTC, including scientific developments, (3) upcoming meetings of the IATTC, including issues such as: conservation and management measures for yellowfin and bigeye tuna for 2008 and beyond, measures to be taken in the absence of conservation and management measures, management of fishing capacity, and other issues, (4) IATTC cooperation with other regional fishery management organizations, and (5) administrative matters pertaining to the General Advisory Committee.
The meeting is via teleconference. Requests for special accommodations, issues, and needs should be directed to Allison Routt at (562) 980-4019 or (562) 980-4030 by February 13, 2008.
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Request for Public Comments concerning a request for modification of the NAFTA rules of origin for warp pile fabric made from solution dyed, wet spun acrylic fiber.
On January 14, 2008, the Chairman of CITA received a request from Glen Raven Custom Fabrics LLC, alleging that certain solution dyed, wet spun acrylic fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, classified under subheading 5503.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that CITA consider whether the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) rule of origin for warp pile fabrics, classified under HTSUS subheading 5801.35, should be modified to allow the use of non-North American solution dyed, wet spun acrylic fiber. The President may proclaim a modification to the NAFTA rules of origin only after reaching an agreement with the other NAFTA countries on the modification. CITA hereby solicits public comments on this request, in particular with regard to whether solution dyed, wet spun acrylic fiber of HTSUS subheading 5503.30 can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be submitted by February 25, 2008 to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3001, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230.
Maria Dybczak, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-3651.
On January 14, 2008, the Chairman of CITA received a request from Glen Raven Custom Fabrics, LLC, alleging that certain acrylic fibers, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning, classified under subheading 5503.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that CITA consider whether the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) rule of origin for warp pile fabrics, classified under HTSUS subheading 5801.35, should be modified to allow the use of non-North American acrylic fiber.
CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether the solution dyed, wet spun acrylic fiber described above can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Comments must be received no later than February 25, 2008. Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
If a comment alleges that these acrylic staple fibers can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer stating that it produces fiber that is the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production.
CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked business confidential from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3001 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“the Committee”).
Notice.
The Committee is submitting written notice to the Government of Honduras with respect to its intent to apply a textile safeguard measure on imports of Honduran origin cotton socks (Category 332).
Sergio Botero, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-3400.
On January 18, 2007, as provided for under Article 3.23 of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement, the United States submitted written notice to the Government of Honduras with respect to its intent to apply a textile safeguard measure on imports of Honduran origin cotton socks (Category 332).
On August 21, 2007, the Committee initiated a safeguard proceeding to determine whether imports of Honduran cotton, wool, and man-made fiber socks (merged Category 332/432 and 632 part) are causing serious damage, or actual threat thereof, to the U.S. industry producing socks, (72 FR 46611, August 21, 2007). The initiation of the safeguard proceeding launched a 30-day period during which interested parties and stakeholders submitted comments. In accordance with section 4 of the Committee's Procedures for considering action under the CAFTA-DR textile and apparel safeguard, (71 FR 25157, April 28, 2006), the Committee has determined that it intends to apply a textile safeguard measure with respect to imports of Honduran origin cotton socks (Category 332). This determination is based on the comments received and information available to the Committee that demonstrates that safeguard measures are warranted with respect to Honduran origin cotton socks falling within Category 332, which represent approximately 99% of the imports subject to this safeguard inquiry. The Committee notes that it is not at this time making a determination to apply a safeguard measure with respect to wool and man-made fiber socks (Categories 432 and 632 Part, respectively), that were part of this original safeguards inquiry.
Article 3.23(4) of the Agreement provides that, following receipt of written notice by an importing Party of intent to apply a safeguard measure, the exporting Party may request consultations. Article 3.23(4) further provides that, upon receipt of a request for consultations, the United States and the Government of Honduras shall begin consultations without delay and shall be completed within 60 days of the date of the request for consultations. The United States shall make a decision on whether to apply a safeguard measure within 30 days of completion of the consultations.
If the United States decides in the affirmative, the United States would increase the duty on all Honduran origin cotton socks within Category 332 (including those knit in the United States) to a level that does not exceed the lesser of: (a) The prevailing U.S. normal trade relations (NTR)/most-favored-nation (MFN) duty rate for the article at the time the measure is applied; or (b) the U.S. NTR/MFN applied duty rate in effect on the date of entry into force of the CAFTA-DR, currently 13.5% for most socks imported from Honduras. The Committee is further considering the appropriate safeguard tariff rate that would be applied to imported cotton socks from Honduras.
Article 3.23 of the Agreement provides that, no Party may maintain a textile safeguard measure for a period exceeding three years. In this case, the Committee has further determined that, if at the conclusion of the consultation period, the United States decides in the affirmative, the United States would apply a safeguard measure on imports of Honduran origin cotton socks (Category 332) until December 31, 2008, to coincide with the expiring limits on cotton sock imports from China.
In the event that safeguard measures are applied by the United States, the United States would have to provide mutually agreed and substantially equivalent compensation in textile and apparel products to Honduras. If the United States and Honduras are unable to agree on compensation within 30 days of the application of a textile safeguard measure, Honduras may take tariff action of a substantially equivalent trade effect.
10:30 a.m., Thursday, January 24, 2008.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Enforcement Matters.
Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.
Department of Defense.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces the forthcoming public meeting of the Code Committee established by Article 146(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 946(a), to be held at the Courthouse of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 450 E. Street, NW., Washington, DC 20441-0001, at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, March 4, 2008. The agenda for this meeting will include consideration of proposed changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, and other matters relating to the operation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice throughout the Armed Forces.
William A. DeCicco, Clerk of Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 450 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20442-0001, telephone (202) 761-1448.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.
Notice.
In accordance with 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), announcement is made of a prospective partially exclusive license for specific applications of small ammunition destruction, soil remediation from contaminants, and Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) recycling (converting waste products into reusable materials) in worldwide markets.
Written objections must be filed not later than 15 days following publication of this announcement.
United States Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, Office of Technology Transfer and Outreach, ATTN: CEERD-OT (Ms. Bea Shahin), 2902 Newmark Drive, Champaign, IL 61822-1076.
Ms. Bea Shahin, (217) 373-7234, Fax (217) 373-7210; Internet
Emissions from military deactivation furnaces contain toxic metal vapors and particulates at high temperatures reaching 1200 °F. Based on the speciation studies conducted by U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (ERDC-CERL) on emissions from deactivation furnaces, lead, cadmium, antimony and other metals released are in two phases as solid particulates and vapor phase. It is also observed that nearly 97% of the metals are in particulate form. Thus if we can capture the solid particulates, the metals emissions would be significantly reduced. However, it is necessary to capture the vapor phase metal compounds also to reduce the total emissions well below the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) standards. Thus ERDC-CERL has developed an emissions control system, Integrated Metal Emissions Control System (IMECS
The Secretary gives priority to applications from Alaska Native regional nonprofit organizations or consortia that include at least one Alaska Native regional nonprofit organization. In order to receive a competitive preference under this priority, an application must provide documentation supporting its claim that it meets this priority.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, the Secretary may make additional awards in FY 2009 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
(b) Educational entities with experience in developing or operating Alaska Native programs or programs of instruction conducted in Alaska Native languages;
(c) Cultural and community-based organizations with experience in developing or operating programs to benefit Alaska Natives; and
(d) Consortia of organizations and entities described in this paragraph to carry out activities that meet the purposes of this program.
A State educational agency or local educational agency may apply for an award under this program only as part of a consortium involving an Alaska Native organization. The consortium may include other eligible applicants.
2.
1.
To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following addresses:
To obtain a copy from the program office, contact: (1) Alexis Fisher, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3W217, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 401-0281 or by e-mail:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting either of the program contact persons listed in this section.
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the application narrative (Part III) to the equivalent of no more than 25 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 recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; the abstract; the resumes; or the appendices.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the
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.
We reference additional regulations outlining funding restrictions in the
6.
Applications for grants under the Alaska Native Education Program, CFDA Number 84.356A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide
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 the Alaska Native Education Program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• 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
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• To submit your application via
• 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 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
• 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
If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
• 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: (1) Alexis Fisher, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3W217, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 401-0821. FAX: (202) 260-8969, or (2) Erica Shephard, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3W205, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 205-3871. Fax: (202) 260-8969.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address:
or
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.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.356A), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 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.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.
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.
In addition to reporting on project-defined objectives, each grantee must report on the three performance measures described in the next section in the grantee's annual and final reports.
4.
(1) Alexis Fisher, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3W217, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 401-0281 or by e-mail:
If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
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
A permissible activity under this competition includes the construction, renovation, or modernization of an elementary school or secondary school, or of a structure related to an elementary school or secondary school, run by the Department of Education of the State of Hawaii that serves a predominately Native Hawaiian student body.
The Secretary will give a competitive preference to applicants proposing:
(1) Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following:
(a) Beginning reading and literacy among students in kindergarten through third grade.
(b) The needs of at-risk children and youth.
(c) The needs in fields or disciplines in which Native Hawaiians are underemployed.
(d) The use of the Hawaiian language in instruction.
(2) Projects that support activities and interventions aimed at improving the academic achievement of secondary school students who are at greatest risk of not meeting challenging State academic standards and not completing high school.
In order to receive additional points under a competitive preference priority, an
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2009 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2. a.
b.
1.
To obtain a copy from the program office, contact: Joanne Osborne, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3W215, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 401-1265 or by e-mail:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the program persons listed in this section.
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the application narrative (Part III) to no more than 25 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, except titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, captions, and all text in charts, tables, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; the abstract; the resumes; or the appendices. However, you must include all of the application narrative in Part III.
3.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the
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 one of the persons listed under
4.
5.
6.
a.
Applications for grants under the Native Hawaiian Education program, CFDA Number 84.362A must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide
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 the Native Hawaiian Education program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• 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
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• To submit your application via
• 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
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
If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the persons listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
• 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: Joanne Osborne, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3W215, Washington, DC 20202-6200. FAX: (202) 205-4921 or Beth Fine, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3W242, 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.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address:
Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(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.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.362A), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application.
(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.
V. Application Review Information
a.
b.
c.
d.
(1) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator.
(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.
(3) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
e.
f.
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
g.
(1) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization.
(2) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project.
(3) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
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.
(1) The percentage of teachers who, through the program, participate in professional development activities that address the unique educational needs of program participants.
(2) The percentage of Native Hawaiian children who participate in early education through the program and improve on measures of school readiness and literacy.
(3) The percentage of students participating in the program who meet or exceed proficiency standards in mathematics, science, or reading.
All grantees will be expected to submit an annual performance report addressing these performance measures, to the extent that they apply to the grantee's project.
Joanne Osborne, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3W215, Washington, DC 20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 401-1265 or by e-mail:
If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
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
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 25, 2008.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-1116, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
William Schoenborn, Office of Solid Waste, (mail code 5303P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-8483; fax number: 703-308-8617; e-mail address:
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2007-1116, which is available for online viewing at
Use
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) 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,
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before March 25, 2008.
Submit your comments, data and information for the Coalbed Methane Extraction Sector Questionnaire, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771, by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Mr. Carey A. Johnston at (202) 566-1014 or
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) Select appropriate entities to receive the questionnaire in terms of what units (e.g., well, operator) should be surveyed; how many should be surveyed; and the criteria used to select them;
(iv) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(v) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
CBM extraction requires removal of large amounts of water from underground coal seams before CBM can be released. CBM wells have a distinctive production cycle characterized by an early stage when large amounts of water are produced to reduce reservoir pressure which in turn encourages release of gas; a stable stage when quantities of produced gas increase as the quantities of produced water decrease; and a late stage when the amount of gas produced declines and water production remains low. Pollutants often found in these wastewaters include chloride, sodium, sulfate, bicarbonate, fluoride, iron, barium, magnesium, ammonia, and arsenic.
EPA identified the CBM sector as a candidate for a detailed study in the final 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (71 FR 76656; December 21, 2006) and also identified that it would develop an industry questionnaire to support this detailed study and would seek OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). EPA is conducting this review to determine if it would be appropriate to conduct a rulemaking to revise the effluent guidelines for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR 435) to control pollutants discharged in CBM produced water. EPA also noticed it will conduct an ICR in the preliminary 2008 Plan (72 FR 61343; October 30, 2007). For each industrial sector, EPA's planning process considers four factors: Pollutants discharged, current and potential pollution prevention and control technology options, growth and economic affordability, and implementation and efficiency considerations of revising existing effluent guidelines or publishing new effluent guidelines. EPA will use this ICR to collect technical and economic information from a wide range of CBM operations to address these factors in greater detail than previously (e.g., geographical and geologic differences in the characteristics of CBM produced waters, environmental data, current regulatory controls, availability and affordability of treatment technology options). See final 2006 Plan (71 FR 76666). Response to the questionnaire is mandatory for recipients and EPA will administer the questionnaire using its authority under section 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1318.
In 2007, EPA worked with a range of stakeholders (e.g., industry representatives; Federal, State, and Tribal representatives; public interest groups and landowners; and water treatment experts) to obtain the best available information on the industry and its CBM produced water management practices. EPA developed its outreach sequentially starting with teleconferences and continued afterwards with a series of meetings and site visits in the major CBM basins. In total EPA contacted over 700 people in eight states during the 63 outreach and data collection activities in 2007 and early 2008 (e.g., meetings, teleconferences, site visits). See DCN 05354. This outreach helped facilitate the development of the draft ICR as EPA incorporated data, comments, and suggestions from industry and other stakeholders into the questionnaire design prior to this
The EPA burden estimate is based on the number of entities receiving the questionnaire. To reduce the questionnaire burden, EPA intends to select a statistical random sample of entities within the CBM industry. The resulting sample will minimize both the burden to respondents in completing the questionnaire and to the Agency in managing and effectively utilizing the data and information supplied by respondents.
EPA is soliciting comments on its assumptions for the burden estimate and its approach to selecting entities for the questionnaire. EPA is primarily interested in collecting information from “projects” but has used state data on CBM wells for developing the burden estimates. For purposes of the data collection, EPA is defining a CBM project to be comprised of a well, group of wells, lease, group of leases, or recognized unit operated as an economic unit when making production decisions. (EPA recognizes that industry has multiple definitions for the term “project.”) One reason that EPA is most interested in economic and technical data at the project-level, in addition to well specific data, is because EPA has observed that most projects handle the produced water in a single water management system. EPA also is interested in information about the operator of each project. The operator is the firm or division (if a profit center) that is responsible for management and the day-to-day operation of a project. This operator is generally a working-interest owner or a company under contract to the working interest
Although EPA's primary interest is about projects and operators, this notice assumes that wells are the “entities” because complete lists of wells are readily available. Complete lists are essential in statistically selecting random samples of populations. EPA considers its current list of wells to be relatively complete. It has used licensed database information on historic well production from HPDI, Inc. HPDI, Inc. compiles information from nearly all of the oil and gas producing states and provides detailed data in a consistent format to clients accessed through a Web-based query system. This information includes well identification information (such as API number, lease name and number, well name and number, operator name, location, basin designation, field, and reservoir/producing formation), historic production information (including summary information on first production, last production, cumulative production, and last 12 months production as well as detailed information on year-by-year production), status information (active/inactive), and operator contact information (where available). EPA has supplemented this information with information publicly available from States. From these sources, EPA estimates that approximately 400 operators maintain over 43,000 wells that were active CBM producers in the U.S. as of mid-2007.
In estimating the burden, EPA has assumed that each operator would answer certain questions only once, regardless of the number of its wells in the sample. For purposes of estimating the burden, EPA also assumed that each well is equivalent to a single project; however, operators will only be required to respond to the project-level questions once per project, regardless of the number of wells selected from the project. EPA's burden estimate assumes that the statistical selection of the wells will result in approximately 400 operators to be selected. EPA further estimates that the operators will be required to provide information for approximately 2,000 projects.
EPA solicits comments and supporting information that would allow it to evaluate alternative methods of selecting the random sample that will reduce the overall burden. First, EPA solicits information about publicly available data sources that would permit EPA to assign wells to individual projects so that it could select fewer entities.
Second, EPA solicits comments on approaches to obtaining project information from non-public sources. For example, one approach might be for EPA to conduct a two-phase questionnaire that would require all operators to complete a short questionnaire (“screener”) that identifies all of the projects and links the wells to each project ID. After receiving the results, EPA would statistically select a random sample of projects to receive a detailed questionnaire. In order to use this approach, EPA would require operators to return the completed screeners within a short period of time (e.g., 30 days), thereby lengthening the study schedule by a minimum of three months (assuming it takes EPA a month to process the completed screener results and another month to draw a representative sample and distribute the detailed questionnaire). EPA solicits comments on the two-phase approach and whether the assignment of all wells to projects is relatively easy for operators. EPA also solicits comment on other approaches that would provide information to assign wells to projects.
Third, EPA solicits comments on ways to reduce the burden to operators with many wells and still collect information in a manner that will allow for appropriate statistical inferences to be drawn from responses. Under the current assumptions, large operators may be required to respond for many wells, thus resulting in a relatively large burden for them. EPA also is concerned that it would be collecting more information than necessary to characterize practices by the operator. To reduce burden, one approach might be for operators to select the wells using criteria specified by EPA. EPA is interested in comments about the appropriate number of wells and selection criteria.
Fourth, EPA solicits comments on stratification variables to use in selecting the random sample. Existing information about the industry can be used to improve the questionnaire design and the precision estimates. One common technique is to use publicly available information to group similar entities together into mutually exclusive strata. Then, by selecting entities from each stratum to participate in the questionnaire, it ensures that the sample will include entities that have the various characteristics that are represented by the different strata. However, increasing the number of stratification variables also increases the number of entities selected and the overall burden. EPA is considering stratifying by basin, state, and operator size (e.g., small, large). Incorporating each additional variable in a statistical design will provide more information about the industry; however, more entities must be selected to provide statistically representative results. EPA solicits comments on whether all variables (e.g., basin, state, operator size as defined by total CBM production) are necessary and whether it also should consider other variables (e.g., type of coal seams and geology, maturity of CBM projects as defined by start date).
Fifth, EPA solicits comments on the extent to which the sample design should consider location of the CBM projects within a basin. EPA recognizes that location of the CBM project may result in wells being operated differently within each basin due to different produced water characteristics, geology, and available management options. EPA also recognizes that state requirements can impact the well operations and finances. EPA current statistical design selects wells at random within each basin, and can be easily modified to select wells within states. Because stratification is intended to distinguish between large groups, and thus, may not be the best statistical choice to distinguish between geographic locations, EPA also is researching an area-based design that uses location clusters of wells formed within the known basins, as well as within states. EPA then would randomly select clusters of wells. For each selected location cluster, EPA would require that the operators of the wells to provide information about all of their projects that fall within the cluster. Cluster sampling generally results in a higher burden because more entities must be selected (initial estimates range from 1.4 to ten times more), however, it will allow for more geographic and geologic representation. EPA solicits comments on the extent that basins and states should be considered within the statistical design. EPA further solicits comments on the extent to which statistical design should consider other geographic and geology features.
Sixth, since the industry is constantly adding new wells, EPA's questionnaire needs to incorporate industry changes between the time the data were collected and end of the study. This may require additional entities to be selected for the questionnaire. EPA solicits comments on the extent to which industry growth should be considered in selecting the entities for the questionnaire.
Finally, EPA will also use the questionnaire to collect data to evaluate potential impacts to small businesses that might occur due to alternative produced water management options. To minimize burden, the only information requested at the ultimate parent company level, if different from the level at which detailed financial information is provided, is employment and revenue data. EPA solicits comment on alternative survey questions to collect data for EPA's small business analyses.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Settlements.
Under section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency has entered into two settlements for reimbursement of past response costs concerning the Dixie Barrel Drum Superfund Site located in Knoxville, Knox County, Tennessee for publication.
The Agency will consider public comments on the settlements until February 25, 2008. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlements if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlements are inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Copies of the settlements are available from Ms. Paula V. Batchelor. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-RO4-SFUND-2008-0001 or Site name Dixie Barrel Drum Superfund Site by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor within 30 calendar days of the date of this publication.
Paula V. Batchelor at 404/562-8887.
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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) announces a public teleconference meeting to discuss its draft HSRB report from the October 24-26, 2007 HSRB meeting.
The teleconference will be held on February 11, 2008, from 2 to approximately 5 p.m. (Eastern Time).
Submit your written comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0942, by any of the following methods:
Members of the public who wish to obtain the call-in number and access code to participate in the telephone conference, request a current draft copy of the Board's report or who wish further information may contact Lu-Ann Kleibacker, EPA, Office of the Science Advisor, (8105R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 564-7189 or via e-mail at
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of particular interest to persons who conduct or assess human studies, especially studies on substances regulated by EPA and to persons who may sponsor or conduct research with human subjects with the intention to submit it to EPA for consideration under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) or section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 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 applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
You may access this
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
5. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this section. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0942 in the subject line on the first page of your request.
1.
2.
The EPA Human Studies Review Board will be reviewing its draft report from the October 24-26, 2007 HSRB meeting. The Board may also discuss planning for future HSRB meetings. Background on the October 24-26, 2007 HSRB meeting can be found at
Final Notice of Standard Terms and Conditions for Research Grants.
Effective with publication of this Notice in the
This resulted from an initiative of the Research Business Models (RBM) Subcommittee of the Committee on Science (CoS), a committee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). One of the RBM Subcommittee's priority areas is to create greater consistency in the administration of Federal research awards. Given the increasing complexity of interdisciplinary and interagency research, it has become increasingly important for Federal agencies to manage awards in a similar fashion.
In 2000, the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP), a cooperative initiative among 10 Federal agencies and 98 institutional recipients of research funds, developed Standard Terms and Conditions as a model implementation of OMB Circular A-110. It was demonstrated that these terms were an effective set of requirements for many agency research awards. In 2005, following public and agency comment on the original FDP terms, final standard terms and conditions were developed by RBM.
With this final notice, research agencies and awarding offices that participate in the FDP, must use the core set of administrative requirements, to the maximum practicable extent, in research and research-related grant awards to organizations that are subject to 2 CFR part 215. Likewise, agencies that have not participated in the FDP may elect to use these terms on selective awards to their research recipients.
The Government-wide core set of administrative requirements are posted on the NSF Web site at:
For information on the Research Terms and Conditions, contact Jean Feldman, Head, Policy Office, Division of Institution & Support, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22230, e-mail:
This proposal is an initiative of the Research Business Models (RBM) Subcommittee of the Committee on Science (CoS), a committee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). One of RBM Subcommittee's priority areas is greater consistency in the administration of Federal research awards. Given the increasing complexity of interdisciplinary and interagency research, it has become increasingly important for Federal agencies to manage awards in a similar fashion.
Federal agencies' awarding offices currently include different award requirements, use different language to state the same requirements, and organize the award content differently. The variation in format and content of these terms and conditions of awards increases both administrative effort and costs for recipients. Because requirements arise from common government-wide statutes and regulations, as well as OMB circulars, their standardization is possible.
In 2000, the ten Federal agencies and awarding offices and 98 research
In 2003, the RBM Subcommittee asked for public comments on Federal policies and procedures related to business practices that could be changed to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of the nation's research enterprise. One issue raised was inconsistency in the terms and conditions for different agencies' research grants, as described above. Increased use of the previously developed core set of FDP terms and conditions was suggested as one way to address the issue. The RBM Subcommittee, with the approval of the CoS, therefore undertook an initiative to refine the administrative requirements developed by FDP for Government-wide use. The subcommittee proposed the administrative requirements for comment in the
Public comments were received from a wide variety of respondents, including twelve institutions of higher education; two non-profit organizations; two associations of academic and nonprofit institutions; components of six Federal agencies; and a group of universities that participate in FDP. All comments were considered in developing a final version of standardized administrative terms and conditions. Sixteen of the seventeen public comments strongly supported the overall proposal to create a government-wide standard core set of terms and conditions, citing the advantages of increased consistency in Federal agencies' award terms and reduced administrative burdens and costs. A number of specific issues were raised, and those comments and responses are summarized in Section II. In addition to the changes described, other editorial changes were made to correct typographical errors, to update references to sections of OMB Circulars A-21 and A-122, to conform with recent amendments to those circulars, and to increase readability.
Research agencies and awarding offices participating in the FDP should use this final core set of administrative requirements, to the maximum practicable extent, in research and research-related grant awards to organizations that are subject to 2 CFR part 215. Those agencies and awarding offices may supplement the core set with agency specific, program specific, or award specific administrative requirements, but should limit supplemental requirements to those that are: (1) Consistent with 2 CFR part 215 or required by a statute that supersedes that part; and (2) necessary for programmatic purposes or good stewardship of Federal funds. Other agencies and awarding offices that are not participating in the FDP are encouraged to replace administrative requirements in awards to organizations that are subject to 2 CFR part 215 with the core set of standard requirements that the RBM subcommittee developed and similarly limit their supplementation of those standard requirements. Research agencies also are encouraged to apply the administrative requirements to cooperative agreements.
In addition to the standard terms and conditions, two additional documents have been developed: Sub-award flow-down requirements and a matrix that contains national policy requirements. These documents are available electronically on the NSF Web site at:
The RBM proposal cannot realize all of the advantages of the longer-term Pre-Award Work Group initiative because it must operate within the current structure of OMB Circulars A-102 and A-110. Nonetheless, agency staff determined that broadening use of the FDP terms and conditions is worthwhile as an interim approach, pending completion of the Pre-Award Work Group's effort. That judgment was also supported by public comments received in response to the January 2005
The final version of the standard research terms and conditions which incorporate the changes discussed in the preceding Sections I and II of Supplementary Information, may be viewed at
To the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies:
Subject: Policy on Terms and Conditions for Research Grants
1.
2.
3.
4.
a. Use of Government-wide core set of administrative requirements. Research agencies and awarding offices participating in the FDP must use the core set of administrative requirements, to the maximum practicable extent, in research and research-related grant awards to organizations that are subject to 2 CFR part 215. Those agencies and awarding offices may supplement the core set with agency specific, program specific, or award specific administrative requirements, but should limit supplemental requirements to those that are: (1) Consistent with 2 CFR part 215 or required by a statute that supersedes that part; and (2) necessary for programmatic purposes or good stewardship of Federal funds. Other agencies and awarding offices that are not participating in the FDP are encouraged to replace administrative requirements in awards to organizations that are subject to 2 CFR part 215 with the core set of standard requirements that the RBM subcommittee developed and similarly limit their supplementation of those standard requirements.
b. Use of FDP national policy and subaward requirements. Each agency also is encouraged to use the documents that the FDP maintains for national policy requirements and requirements that flow down to subrecipients. An agency may revise the FDP documents as needed for currency, completeness, and applicability to the agency's programs. The documents are available at the FDP site maintained by the National Science Foundation (NSF):
c. Maintenance of the administrative requirements. As Federal requirements evolve, the RBM subcommittee will update the core set of administrative requirements as needed to maintain it as a standard implementation of 2 CFR Part 215. Significant changes will be coordinated with the Office of Management and Budget, approved by the Grants Policy Committee of the Chief Financial Officers Council, and adopted after opportunity for public comment.
d. Posting of the administrative requirements. NSF will post the Government-wide core set of administrative requirements on the NSF Web site:
e. Agency implementation plans. Each CoS member agency will post its plan for implementing the administrative requirements either at the RBM subcommittee site,
f. Effective dates. This policy is effective with publication of this notice in the
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 of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Sections 3501—3520. 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
Written comments should be submitted on or before March 25, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
You may submit all PRA comments by e-mail or U.S. mail. To submit your comments by e-mail, send them to
For additional information about the information collection(s), contact Leslie F. Smith via e-mail at
OMB Control Number: 3060-0056.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to (PRA) of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Subject to the PRA, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information 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 PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 25, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
You may submit all PRA comments by e-mail or U.S. post mail. To submit your comments by e-mail, send them to
For additional information about the information collection(s), contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918 or send an e-mail to
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, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act 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 February 25, 2008. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via Internet at
For additional information or copies of the information collection(s), contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
In this Report and Order, among other things, the Commission updates Section 73.682(d) of the Commission's rules to reflect revisions to the Advanced Television Systems Committee Inc's (ATSC) Program System Information Protocol (PSIP) Standards. The revised ATSC PSIP standard requires broadcasters to populate the Event Information Tables (“EITs”) with accurate information about each event and to update the EIT if more accurate information becomes available. In other words, it requires broadcasters to provide detailed programming
A Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). Oppositions to this petition must be filed by February 11, 2008. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired.
Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of these documents is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by February 11, 2008. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1). Replies to oppositions must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired.
Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of these documents is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by February 11, 2008. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1). Replies to oppositions must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of license: AD ASTRA PER ASPERA BROADCASTING, INC., Station KNZS, Facility ID 1137, BPH-20071221ADM, From KINGMAN, KS, To ARLINGTON, KS; AUBURN NETWORK, INC., Station WGZZ, Facility ID 15283, BPH-20071219ABU, From DADEVILLE, AL, To WAVERLY, AL; BENTON-WEATHERFORD BROADCASTING, INC., OF IN., Station WKZS, Facility ID 4807, BPH-20080108ABK, From COVINGTON, IN, To THOMASBORO, IL; CITADEL BROADCASTING COMPANY, Station WXOK, Facility ID 11606, BMP-20061116AEE, From BATON ROUGE, LA, To PORT ALLEN, LA; COPPER MOUNTAIN BROADCASTING COMPANY, Station KXCM, Facility ID 67029, BPH-20071130AMT, From TWENTYNINE PALMS, CA, To JOSHUA TREE, CA; COPPER MOUNTAIN BROADCASTING COMPANY, Station KQCM, Facility ID 16771, BPH-20071130AMV, From JOSHUA TREE, CA, To THERMAL, CA; EMMANUEL BAPTIST TEMPLE, Station WHGT, Facility ID 39494, BP-20071206ACV, From CHAMBERSBURG, PA, To MAUGANSVILLE, MD; LAKESHORE MEDIA, LLC, Station KWCX-FM, Facility ID 72659, BPH-20080102ABU, From WILLCOX, AZ, To TANQUE VERDE, AZ; PRINCIPLE BOSTON HOLDCO LLC, Station WESX, Facility ID 49301, BP-20070307AAX, From SALEM, MA, To NAHANT, MA; SKYWEST MEDIA LLC, Station KFMR, Facility ID 164261, BMPH-20080108AAB, From MARBLETON, WY, To BALLARD, UT; TIMOTHY C. CUTFORTH, Station KCEG, Facility ID 135885, BMP-20071227AAQ, From PUEBLO, CO, To FOUNTAIN, CO; WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Station WHMA-FM, Facility ID 52320, BPH-20071214AAR, From HOBSON CITY, AL, To ALEXANDRIA, AL.
Comments may be filed through March 25, 2008.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Tung Bui, 202-418-2700.
The full text of these applications is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or electronically via the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System,
Federal Communications Commission.
Announcement of effective date.
On November 16, 2007, in the
The information collection requirements became effective on January 17, 2008.
Thomas Buckley, Senior Deputy Chief or Jennifer Prime, Attorney, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400, TTY (202) 418-0484.
The
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, 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. Questions concerning this information collection, 3060-0804, should be directed to Leslie F. Smith, Federal Communications Commission, and (202) 418-0217 or via the Internet at
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 applications 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 February 19, 2008.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 18, 2008.
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 applications 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
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 February 21, 2008.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System January 22, 2008.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Change in agenda.
The February 27-28, 2008, meeting of the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors was announced in the
Public comments and any other correspondence should be submitted to Dr. Barbara Shane, Executive Secretary for the NTP Board (NTP Office of Liaison, Policy and Review Office, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, MD A3-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone: 919-541-4253, fax: 919-541-0295; or e-mail:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-5960 or send an e-mail to
Focus Group Testing and Survey on Radiological Event Messages for Public Health Workers—New—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In January 2003, CDC held a roundtable to specifically address communications needs likely to arise in the aftermath of a terrorist event involving mass casualties. Hospital administrators and clinicians, public health practitioners, and emergency planners emphasized the gaps in their training and in their knowledge of how to respond to nuclear or radiological events.
Concurrent with this, CDC began working with the Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) to assess knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to preparedness for a radiological or nuclear terrorist event in the United States. The strong and clear message delivered to the CDC was that both the professional (e.g., clinicians and public health workers) and the lay American public were unprepared to respond to such an event (Becker 2004). Specifically, clinicians who participated in the research acknowledged a lack of training and preparedness, a potential unwillingness to treat patients if they are perceived as radiologically contaminated, and concerns about public panic and consequent overwhelming of hospitals and other clinical systems. More importantly, findings from the meeting revealed a critical need to assess communication preparedness among public health workers in relation to radiological emergencies.
This proposal addresses the need for the development of clear communication messages in the event of a radiological incident. As part of a cooperative agreement, CDC has contracted with the National Public Health Information Coalition (NPHIC) to collect data from public health workers in 6 states—California, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, North Carolina and South Carolina—to evaluate a set of messages that have been developed by CDC for public health workers to use before, during and after a radiological event. The 5 communication messages focus on the main concerns expressed by representatives from these 6 states and other participants in audience research. The participating states volunteered for this project. Public health workers referenced in this proposal are nurses, physicians, clinical technicians, administrative, management and support staff and epidemiologists.
CDC's primary goal is to protect the health and safety of the public. Since public health workers are usually first responders in various capacities in the event of a radiological emergency, the need to develop time-sensitive and consistent communication messages is vital. Developing clear messages that can be used by public health workers as an integral part of their radiological emergency plan is consistent with this goal. These message concepts, which range from how to protect the worker and family to the role of the public health worker during a radiological emergency will serve as a reference tool and guidance for state health departments in the event of such situations.
This proposal seeks approval to obtain data using two methods, focus group testing and electronic surveys to achieve greater results. Focus group
CDC proposes to use this information to develop a final set of communication messages. The intent is for the messages to be disseminated using various methods and to provide a more consistent platform for states to respond to radiological emergencies. This research will help refine messages that have the ability to increase the percentage of workers who present to deliver services in a radiological emergency. Also, as a result of the study, CDC will have a set of tested public health messages that can allow public health workers to speak with one voice to the general public in a radiological emergency. In addition, the development of these messages will foster collaboration among the states and CDC.
Therefore, CDC requests approval to test one set of five messages among public health workers using focus group testing and electronic surveys. The surveys and focus groups will include questions about how believable the messages are, what would make them more believable, the need for additional information for a clearer understanding of the messages, how and if the messages help them to feel safe, and what would make them easier to understand.
There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 782 hours.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-5960 or send an e-mail to
A Survey of the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice of Medical and Allied Health Professionals Regarding Fetal Alcohol Exposure—Revision—National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Maternal prenatal alcohol use is one of the leading, preventable, causes of birth defects and developmental disabilities. Children exposed to alcohol during fetal development can suffer a wide array of disorders, from subtle changes in I.Q. and behaviors to profound mental retardation. These conditions are known as fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs). The most severe condition within the spectrum is fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), which involves disorders of the brain, growth retardation, and facial malformations.
Physicians and other health practitioners play a vital role in diagnosing FAS and in screening women of child-bearing age for alcohol consumption and drinking during pregnancy. In Diekman's, et al (2000) study of obstetricians and gynecologists, only one fifth of doctors surveyed reported abstinence to be the safest way to avoid the adverse outcomes associated with fetal alcohol exposure. Importantly, 13% of doctors surveyed were not sure of levels of alcohol consumption associated with adverse outcomes. One of CDC's multifaceted initiatives in combating alcohol-exposed pregnancies is the education and reeducation of medical and allied health students and practitioners.
In fiscal year 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received a congressional mandate to develop guidelines for the diagnosis of FAS and other conditions resulting from prenatal alcohol exposure; and to incorporate these guidelines into curricula for medical and allied health students and practitioners [Public Health Service Act Section 317K (247b-12) b and c].
In response to the second congressional mandate listed above, CDC proposed five national surveys of health providers. In August of 2005, OMB approved these five surveys under control number 0920-0692. The purposes of the surveys are to assess, among various health care provider groups, their knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding the prevention, identification, and treatment of FASDs. These health care provider groups are pediatricians, obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNs), psychiatrists, family physicians, and allied health professionals.
The results of the surveys will help to inform further development of model FASD curricula to disseminate among medical and allied health students and professionals nation wide using a variety of formats including computer interactive learning applications,
There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 375.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-5960 or send an e-mail to
Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Management Information System—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control, Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP) currently funds Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Programs (HDSPP) in 33 states and the District of Columbia. HDSP programs are population-based, State public health programs that design, implement, and evaluate public health prevention and control strategies to reduce disease, disability and death related to heart disease and stroke, and to reach those populations with disparities related to cardiovascular disease. Support for these programs is a cornerstone of DHDSP efforts to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease throughout the nation.
Recipients of HDSPP funding are required to submit semi-annual progress reports to CDC via an electronic management information system (OMB no. 0920-0679). Information collected through the MIS allows CDC to monitor, evaluate and manage programs and resources; identify the strengths and weaknesses of individual programs; and disseminate information related to successful public health interventions.
The DHDSP also provides funding for 15 WISEWOMAN projects in 14 states. The WISEWOMAN program offers screening tests for chronic diseases, and lifestyle interventions designed to change behavioral risk factors for chronic diseases. Recipients of WISEWOMAN funding include 13 State health departments and 2 Tribal organizations.
With this Revision, questions specific to the WISEWOMAN program will be incorporated into the Cardiovascular Health Branch MIS, and recipients of WISEWOMAN funding will be added as new respondents. In addition, the name of the MIS will be changed from the Cardiovascular Health Branch MIS to the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention MIS, to reflect organizational changes within CDC.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours are 588.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-5960 or send an e-mail to
National Survey of Residential Care Facilities (NSRCF) 2008-2010—New—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on the extent and nature of illness and disability of the population of the United States.
The National Survey of Residential Care Facilities (NSRCF) is a new collection. It is designed to complement data collected by other federal surveys and to fill a significant data gap about a major portion of the long-term care population. Data from the NSRCF will provide a database on residential care facilities that researchers and policymakers can use to address a wide array of research and policy questions. The survey will utilize a computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) system to collect information about facility and resident characteristics. This computerized system speeds the flow of data making it possible to release information on a more timely basis and makes it easier for respondents to participate in the survey.
A stratified random sample of residential care facilities across four strata (small, medium, large and extra large) will be selected to participate in the NSRCF. Within each facility a random sample of residents will be selected. To be eligible a facility must have four or more beds, be licensed, certified, or registered and provide or arrange for 24 hour supervision and personal care services for residents.
The facility questionnaire will collect data about facility characteristics (size, age, types of rooms), services offered, characteristics of the resident population, facility policies and services, costs of services, and background of the administrator. The Resident Questionnaire collects information on resident demographics, current living arrangements within the facility, involvement in activities, use of services, charges for care, health status, and cognitive and physical functioning.
In the pretest 25 facility administrators, and 25 facility staff serving as respondents will be interviewed on an annualized basis, for a total of 75 facilities. Residents themselves will not be interviewed. For the national survey, approximately 2,250 facilities will be surveyed for an annual average of 750. Information on an average of 5 residents each will be collected.
Anticipated users of NSRCF data include, but are not limited to the CDC; the Congressional Research Office; the Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration; the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE); the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging; the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization; American Health Care Association, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Bureau of the Census; and AARP. Other users of these data include universities, contract research organizations, many in the private sector, foundations, and a variety of users in the print media. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 2,778.
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 aforementioned meeting:
1 p.m.-5 p.m., February 11, 2008 (Closed).
1 p.m.-5 p.m., February 12, 2008 (Closed).
1 p.m.-5 p.m., February 13, 2008 (Closed).
1 p.m.-5 p.m., February 14, 2008 (Closed).
1 p.m.-5 p.m., February 15, 2008 (Closed).
1 p.m.-5 p.m., February 19, 2008 (Closed).
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services.
(1)
The NIOSH, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL), is currently reevaluating its limitations on and precaution for safe use of positive-pressure closed-circuit self-contained breathing apparatus. As stated in the
Available information does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of NIOSH that positive-pressure closed-circuit self-contained breathing apparatus which use a breathing gas of pure oxygen can be used during direct exposure to open flames and/or high radiant heat and assure the wearer's safety. Therefore, NIOSH has determined that until it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of NIOSH that those devices can be worn under such conditions, it is prudent to presently limit the use of positive-pressure closed-circuit self-contained breathing apparatus which use pure oxygen breathing gas to mines and mining atmospheres which do not involve exposure to open flames or high radiant heat.
Additional research was garnered through testing conducted at a second laboratory. NPPTL personnel witnessed a Flame Engulfment Test. In Germany, Department 8 of the Association for the Promotion of German Fire Safety (VFDB) has included in its Guideline 0802 the same requirements for Close-Circuit Breathing Apparatus that has been written into the draft European Standard EN137 for Open-circuit Compressed Air Breathing Apparatus for flame engulfment. In this Directive, if special thermal loads for protective equipment cannot be excluded during tactical operation, the device must pass the flame engulfment test which is described in Appendix D. Their flame engulfment test is similar to NFPA's. In addition, this directive requires that when using closed-circuit compressed air breathing apparatus, type positive pressure with mixed gas supply (N
• Simulate possible oxygen enrichment under a firefighter helmet according to EN 443 through a defined leakage in the respiratory protective mask (2.5 mm, 10 mm above the right temple strap). The test set-up simulates real conditions by equipping the test head with real hair, a flame protection hood and the respective neck curtains.
• Flame engulfment test is in accordance with Appendix D
○ Device is attached to a test dummy and preheated in an oven at 90 ± 5° C for 15 minutes
○ Complete unit is then exposed to direct flames for 10 seconds
○ Test dummy with the apparatus is then lifted to 150 ± 5/0 mm and dropped
○ During the entire test, the device is connected to a breathing machine. The pass/fail criteria are:
• Device must not continue to burn for more than 5 seconds
• No component that secures the device to the user's body or that secures the cylinder must come off or be displaced
• Breathing resistance as per EN 137 are met
• The test head must not continue to burn for more than 5 seconds.
The closed-circuit self-contained breathing apparatus used in the test witnessed by NIOSH/NPPTL personnel successfully passed all of the listed criteria.
Additionally, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Building and Fire Research Laboratory, Fire Research Division has provided a computational fluid dynamic (CFD) study of oxygen dissipation into the environment surrounding a respirator facepiece. For this study, 3-dimensional scans were taken of actual heads and masks for use in the CFD software. Leak geometries representing an imperfect seal were defined. Other variables included oxygen concentration fields and flow streamlines for multiple combinations of fuel and air in the surrounding environment, content of the leak, various breathing patterns, etc. Conclusions reached during the study were:
• Oxygen expelled through leak in respirator is propelled away from head region through advection and dissipates through diffusion.
• Risk of flammable mixture near head is observed in 10% propane environment.
• This is an extreme environment (fuel-rich, near flammable mixture.)
• In case of flammable environment, oxygen leak results in small, fuel-lean region near head.
• In fuel-lean environment, oxygen further decreases fuel concentration.
NIST Technical Note 1484 titled, “A Computational Model of Dissipation of Oxygen from an Outward Leak of a Closed-Circuit Breathing Device” available through the internet at this link,
Through this announcement, NIOSH/NPPTL is seeking input from stakeholders and manufacturers to determine the following:
1. Opinion on the current prohibition.
2. Provide supporting data to maintain, modify, or rescind the current prohibition.
3. If additional research is needed to support rescinding the prohibition, what would it entail?
4. Willingness to participate in a collaborative agreement with NIOSH/NPPTL to conduct research on this topic and support willing to provide.
5. Other comments on the subject.
Input can be submitted by:
•
•
•
•
•
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Mimi Phan at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Nicole Vesely at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Carlos Peña at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting nominations for voting consumer representatives to serve on the Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee and the Allergenic Products Advisory Committee in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Nominations will be accepted for vacancies that will occur through August 31, 2008.
Nominations will be accepted for those voting consumer representative vacancies that will occur on or before August 31, 2008. Nominations submitted on or before April 1, 2008, will be given first consideration for membership on the Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee and the Allergenic Products Advisory Committee. Nominations received after April 1, 2008, will be considered for nomination to the committee should nominees still be needed.
All nominations for membership should be sent electronically to
Regarding all nomination questions for membership, the primary contact is Gail Dapolito, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, 301-827-0314, FAX: 301-827-0294, e-mail:
FDA is requesting nomination for voting consumer representative members on the following CBER committees:
The committee reviews and evaluates available data relating to the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of human cells, human tissues, gene transfer therapies, and xenotransplantation products which are intended for a broad spectrum of human diseases and in the reconstruction, repair, or replacement of tissues for various conditions. The committee also considers the quality and relevance of FDA's research program which provides scientific support for the regulation of these products, and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner).
The committee reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety, effectiveness, and adequacy of labeling of marketed and investigational allergenic biological products or materials that are administered to humans for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of allergies and allergic disease. The committee also makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner on its findings regarding the affirmation or revocation of biological product licenses, the safety, effectiveness, and labeling of the products, clinical and laboratory studies of such products, amendments or revisions to regulations governing the manufacture, testing, and licensing of allergenic biological products, and on the quality and relevance of FDA's research programs which provide the scientific support for regulating these agents.
Persons who are nominated for membership as consumer representatives on the committees must meet the following criteria: (1) Demonstrate ties to consumer and community-based organizations, (2) be able to analyze technical data, (3) understand research design, (4) discuss benefits and risks, and (5) evaluate the safety and efficacy of products under review. The consumer representative must be able to represent the consumer perspective on issues and actions before the advisory committee; serve as a liaison between the committee and interested consumers, associations, coalitions, and consumer organizations; and facilitate dialogue with the advisory committee on scientific issues that affect consumers.
The selection of members representing consumer interests is conducted through procedures that include the use of organizations representing the public interest and consumer advocacy groups. The organizations have the responsibility of recommending candidates of the agency's selection.
All nominations must include a cover letter, a curriculum vitae or resume (that includes the nominee's office address, telephone number, and e-mail address), and a list of consumer or community-based organizations for which the candidate can demonstrate active participation. Any interested person or organization may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership to represent consumer interests on one or more of the advisory committees. Self-nominations are also accepted. FDA will ask the potential candidates to provide detailed information concerning such matters as financial holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of a conflict of interest. The nomination should specify the committee(s) of interest. The term of office is up to 4 years, depending on the appointment date.
FDA has a special interest in ensuring that women, minority groups, and individuals with disabilities are adequately represented on its advisory committees and, therefore, encourages nominations of qualified candidates from these groups.
This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) tablets, 150 milligrams (mg), were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for quetiapine fumarate tablets, 150 mg, if all other legal and regulatory requirements are met.
Quynh Nguyen, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-7), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug.
The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is generally known as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (§ 314.162 (21 CFR 314.162)).
Under § 314.161(a)(1) (21 CFR 314.161(a)(1)), the agency must determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness before an ANDA that refers to that listed drug may be approved. FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) tablets, 150 mg, along with the 25-mg, 50-mg, 100-mg, 200-mg, 300-mg, and 400-mg strengths, are the subject of approved NDA 20-639 held by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (AstraZeneca). SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) tablets are in a class of medications called atypical antipsychotics. Antipsychotic medicines are used to treat symptoms of schizophrenia. SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) tablets may be used alone or with lithium or divalproex to treat acute manic episodes in adults who have a condition called Bipolar I Disorder.
AstraZeneca obtained approval to market the 150-mg strength of SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) tablets on December 20, 1998. Lachman Consultant Services, Inc., submitted a citizen petition dated January 16, 2007, (Docket No. 2007P-0028/CP1), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the agency determine, as described in § 314.161, whether SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) tablets, 150 mg, were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. After considering the citizen petition (including the comment(s) submitted) and reviewing agency records, the agency has determined that AstraZeneca's SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) tablets, 150 mg, were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. AstraZeneca has never marketed SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) tablets, 150 mg, in the United States, although the 150-mg tablets are marketed in some countries outside the United States. In previous instances (see, e.g., 67 FR 79640, December 30, 2002 (addressing a relisting request for Diazepam Autoinjector)), the agency has determined that, for purposes of §§ 314.161 and 314.162, never marketing an approved drug product in the United States is equivalent to withdrawing the drug from sale.
The petitioner identified no data or other information suggesting that SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) tablets, 150 mg, were withdrawn from sale as a result of safety or effectiveness concerns. AstraZeneca has marketed other strengths of SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) tablets: 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, 300 mg, and 400 mg. The agency has reviewed its files for records concerning the withdrawal of SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) tablets, 150 mg. There is no indication that AstraZeneca decided not to market SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) tablets, 150 mg, in the United States for safety or effectiveness reasons. FDA has independently evaluated relevant literature and data for reports of adverse events and has found no information that would indicate that SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) tablets, 150 mg, were withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
FDA determines that for the reasons outlined in this document, AstraZeneca's SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) tablets, 150 mg, were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the agency will continue to list SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) tablets, 150 mg, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to SEROQUEL (quetiapine fumarate) tablets, 150 mg, may be approved by the agency as long as they meet all relevant legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for Seroquel (quetiapine fumarate) tablets, 150 mg, should be revised to meet current standards, the agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS.
Response to
The following represents a series of respondents' comments and the Health Resources and Services Administration's (HRSA) responses to the comments regarding the
Susan Lumsden, Division of Health Information Technology State and Community Assistance, Office of Health Information Technology, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 7C-26, Rockville, Maryland 20857,
In accordance with Public Health Service Act, Title III, section 330(e) (1) (C), and 330(c)(1)(B) and 330(c)(1)(C).
The general comments focused on the areas of HIT resources and funding eligibility, sustainability and stability, standardization, population health, and technical assistance.
Quality improvement comments focused on quality in general, public health and safety issues that could be addressed with the appropriate use of HIT in the safety net organizations, recommendations to assure improving quality is the ultimate goal of HRSA's HIT strategy, and finally, recommendations on specific performance measures that indicate progress/success of HRSA-funded HIT initiatives.
HRSA recognizes that effective implementation of HIT system improvements in care delivery settings requires organizational leadership commitment, clear definition of goals, and effective planning. HRSA grantees occupy a spectrum of organizational readiness to implement EHRs, and HRSA intends to assure its HIT strategy is flexible enough to support the appropriate range of individualized HIT needs and capabilities.
Many comments discussed the central role that Telehealth plays in assuring access to quality health care, especially for rural and transient populations, and its critical role in the overall HIT strategy, specifically to health centers. The ability to successfully integrate Telehealth and HIT at the health center level is necessary. Additionally, there must be capacity to build or change the technology as it continues to develop. With Telehealth enabled by EHRs, specialists can provide services from a remote location to patients in a safety net clinic. While many comments focused on Telehealth's effect on rural access, some comments addressed the benefits in urban settings, illustrating that it is a common myth that persons living in urban communities have access to all the medical services they need. These comments noted that providing access to specialty care consults in urban settings, as well as rural ones, would increase HIT adoption and quality of care to underserved populations.
If the HIT infrastructure is to be successful within a State, it was emphasized that Medicaid, public health and other HRSA grantees should have linked systems. On an FQHC level, it was cited that HRSA's support could be critical in: (a) Getting HIT acquisition and maintenance costs to be effectively included in determining Medicare/Medicaid FQHC reimbursement levels; and in (b) providing clear direction to state Medicaid agencies to incorporate HIT costs in determining state Prospective Payment System (PPS) rates. The comments indicated that HRSA should work in tandem with entities like the National Association of Community Health Centers, the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS), and others to advocate for a pay-for-performance demonstration at health centers with HIT adoption as a component of the part of the demonstration. The use of pay-for-performance incentives from state Medicaid agencies could serve to support clinic quality improvement efforts while offsetting HIT operating costs.
As systems are developed for care coordination, interoperability was strongly illustrated to be the key to an effective and coordinated information exchange. This is especially critical for statewide syndromic surveillance systems and information sharing related to public health alerts and disaster preparedness. Ensuring safety net representation in HIT advisory committees, such as the American Health Information Community (AHIC), was noted as critical to ensure that safety net providers' concerns are addressed in any interoperable health care communications system.
Overall, financial and organizational concerns were two of the main topics for consideration in restructuring the HCCN grant program. As one comment noted, safety net providers will be challenged to have the necessary hardware equipment, consistent power and connectivity to take advantage of EHRs. Comments described financial concerns such as start up costs to purchase application software, hardware and networking equipment, training and implementation services, and ongoing costs to maintain systems for support and maintenance and operational funds.
Comments also provided mixed viewpoints on how teamwork and collaboration should fit into a restructured HCCN program; however, many acknowledged the need for teamwork and for collaboration in and of itself. One comment explained that the shared collaborative approach provides great opportunities but that it needs significant ongoing support and funding to ensure the mobilization of stakeholders, the development of governance guidelines and the participation in the HCCN. The most significant challenge facing the restructuring of the HCCN grant program is to design a grant that rewards and enhances the teamwork skills that are required of FQHCs while supporting the needs of the HCCN to successfully develop a network environment. Another comment felt that an additional challenge is how to best attract and engage the appropriate additional members to the existing network environment.
Comments indicated that HRSA should collaborate with the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Agency (SAMHSA), IHS, the Federal Communications Commission, ONC, CMS and State Medicaid agencies to develop incentives for EHR adoption. For example, it was suggested that the CMS Medicaid Transformation grants could have encouraged State Medicaid agencies to work with Networks and with the community health centers that would have helped both the Medicaid and the uninsured populations. In addition, it was suggested that HRSA explore adapting the IHS's EHR.
The comments also recommended several avenues in HIT support and technical assistance such as centers for excellence and disease management modules in order to support each community health center's technological evolution in a manner that reflects the clinic's comfort, its user sophistication, budgetary restrictions, operational strengths and challenges.
General network-related comments focused on the benefits of funding Networks to provide HIT support to health centers and other safety net providers, types of incentives, if any, to encourage health centers, and other HRSA grantees to join Networks, and the capacity needed for a Network to promote HIT among a group of health centers and other HRSA grantees, such as number of health centers and/or number of patients.
Comments provided specific descriptions of the benefits of HIT in Networks and also recommendations of incentives to expand Networks. Description of benefits included: The ability to recruit and retain quality staff, reductions in operating costs, greater purchasing power, ability to compare data, ability to evaluate patient outcomes, and the creation of data for research and quality improvement. The comments cited additional benefits to funding HIT in Networks such as: economies of scale, interoperability systems, improved data access, increased rate of HIT adoption among safety net providers, minimized waste and duplication of efforts, standardized interfaces and data exchange agreements to ancillary providers, alignment with national directives to build HIT infrastructures and data exchange standards and functionalities, public health surveillance, improved medication management, ability to eliminate fragmentation, redundancy, and incomplete information for existing personal records, clinical decision tree capability and collaborations allowing for a greater level of shared resources and expertise among the network based HIT entities.
Specific recommendations for creating incentives to expand the Networks included increasing the grant award amount available to Networks with numerous health centers, and building financial incentives to compensate Networks for increasing the number of participating health centers. Comments indicated HRSA should offer financial incentives to centers to encourage their membership in the Networks for integrated functions. One comment explained that HRSA could provide concrete incentives such as preference points on grant applications for FQHCs that participate in an HCCN network and another stated that HRSA should fund assistance for HCCNs and health centers to participate in RHIOs and state HIEs. One comment indicated that applicants choosing to remain outside of a Network model for its HIT project should have to demonstrate the economic, competitive, and functional advantage of their decision.
Sustainability comments focused on expectations for Networks around sustainability, including long-term sources of funding. The key themes in the response to this topic include HCCN's assuring their own sustainability, HRSA investing long term in HIT infrastructure, and HRSA working with payers, who benefit from the cost saving of HIT implementation and improved quality of care.
Some comments stressed that application guidance should include a section requiring the applicant to address how they intend to develop a feasible and reasonable plan for sustainability. Comments noted that project-only funding for infrastructure development is a failed strategy because infrastructure itself (buildings, furniture, utilities) does not create benefit; people create benefit. Project-only funding for a well defined project with defined start and end times can be a successful strategy. Not every project requires ongoing support after completion. HCCNs should be expected to provide a sound business and governance plan that demonstrates the ability to take advantage of economies of scale. This is a key factor in assuring sustainability. Business plans should include agreements up front for reinvestment of some of the savings from economies of scale in maintenance of the network infrastructure needed to stay in business. It is critical that HCCNs develop business plans to prove their value to community stakeholders (including local businesses) in order to structure their requests to large corporations and to foundations. As a corollary to the business plan, a comprehensive marketing plan will be needed to attract new members. HRSA should also promote and assist HCCNs in obtaining and or facilitating HIT dedicated funds from other federal agencies and private sector partners.
Comments on this topic focused on types of HIT investments, other than EHRs, that HRSA should consider investing in, to improve quality of care and health outcomes, as well as Model practices in other parts of the safety net or private industry to build key HIT capacities in under-resourced environments.
The comments provided various HIT investments that HRSA should consider to improve the quality of care and health outcomes. Comments focused on HIT areas such as collaboration in advancing HIT adoption, health information exchange, quality improvement, Telehealth, and technical assistance. Some comments also indicated unique and specific HIT investments that may or may not require an operational EHR system such as practice management systems, clinical and fiscal reporting systems, templates (computer notes), e-mail, instant messaging and chat sessions in clinical settings, e-lab (ordering, tracking and reporting), e-radiology (tracking and reporting), e-pharmacy (formulary/interaction checks), telemedicine/teleradiology/video consultation to extend specialist access in shortage areas, electronic filing cabinets/scanning, clinical guideline software, chronic condition and disease management software, voice dictation, web portals, linkages/interfaces to community providers such as (SNO) and Regional Health Information Organizations (RHIO), e-prescribing, disease registries, clinical data capture technology, personal and community health record. These areas were primarily suggested to be potential HIT funding projects in addition to EHRs.
Health Information Exchange (HIE) systems were mentioned as potential HIT investments for HRSA. Comments indicated that HCCNs should have the capability to operate or interface as a federated HIE infrastructure with government funded program systems such as Medicaid Management Information Systems and SAMHSA reporting systems. It would also provide an excellent opportunity to invest in an approach that leads to improved quality of care and coordination of services. Funding opportunities in alignment with the critical components of the ONC strategic framework such as health information Networks and personal health records were also mentioned. Electronic Data Exchange, data backup for redundancy, as well as preparing for an emergency or disaster were noted as having a key role in the buildup of data warehousing.
Quality improvement initiatives were also a main theme. The comments requested that HRSA consider investing in the development of structured quality improvement programs within Networks where there is a commitment to openly share data among FQHCs within the Network and/or through community coalitions/collaborations.
Telehealth initiatives were also mentioned as potential investments in improving quality of care and health outcomes, particularly in frontier communities where access is an issue. It was also suggested as one of the key tools in ensuring cultural competency.
Investment in technical assistance and support is also one of the main themes of the comments. The comments requested technical assistance in the areas of planning and evaluation projects to assess utilization models, governance issues, development of infrastructures to support shared services collaborations, assistance to PCAs to conduct HIT strategic planning with members' organizations, HIT infrastructure development, funding, training and basic HIT start-up. These elements were generally indicated to be critical in establishing and maintaining a successful HIT initiative.
In general, the comments stated that adoption of an EHR does not automatically lead to health improvement. Factors that contribute to success include clinic stability, strong and effective management team and a focus on quality improvement. Comments recommended that HRSA solicit these items in the grantee's work plan and the focus on quality improvement should be strengthened at the clinic level.
Population Management was frequently cited to improve quality and reduce disparities. Comments recommended that HRSA promote the adoption of population management systems as a step towards building HIT capacity for quality improvement. The comments also pointed out that although EMR adoption is a critical component of HIT, advancing the EHR
Comments also raised the issue that HIT is far from reality for most of the safety net providers. Because of lack of resources, HIT is not a priority. Many safety net providers are struggling with outdated practice management systems that need constant repair and with scarce resources available to maintain them. It was suggested that HRSA provide access to resources or approaches that can support sustainability of some level for Safety-Net Provider Networks.
Should any of the HIT initiatives involve the collection of information applicable to requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the agency will request OMB review and approval.
The Indian Health Service (IHS) estimated budget request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 includes $11,581,766 for the Indian Health Service (IHS) Loan Repayment Program (LRP) for health professional educational loans (undergraduate and graduate) in return for full-time clinical service in Indian health programs.
This program announcement is subject to the appropriation of funds. This notice is being published early to coincide with the recruitment activity of the IHS, which competes with other Government and private health management organizations to employ qualified health professionals.
This program is authorized by Section 108 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) as amended, 25 U.S.C. 1601
The estimated funds available is approximately $11,581,766 to support approximately 258 competing awards averaging $44,740 per award for a two year contract. One year contract continuations will receive priority consideration in any award cycle. Applicants selected for participation in the FY 2008 program cycle will be expected to begin their service period no later than September 30, 2008.
Pursuant to Section 108(b), to be eligible to participate in the LRP, an individual must:
(1) (A) Be enrolled—
(i) In a course of study or program in an accredited institution, as determined by the Secretary, within any State and be scheduled to complete such course of study in the same year such individual applies to participate in such program; or
(ii) In an approved graduate training program in a health profession; or
(B) Have a degree in a health profession and a license to practice in a state; and
(2) (A) Be eligible for, or hold an appointment as a Commissioned Officer in the Regular or Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service (PHS); or
(B) Be eligible for selection for service in the Regular or Reserve Corps of the (PHS); or
(C) Meet the professional standards for civil service employment in the IHS; or
(D) Be employed in an Indian health program without service obligation; and
(E) Submit to the Secretary an application for a contract to the LRP. The Secretary must approve the contract before the disbursement of loan repayments can be made to the participant. Participants will be required to fulfill their contract service agreements through fulltime clinical practice at an Indian health program site determined by the Secretary. Loan repayment sites are characterized by physical, cultural, and professional isolation, and have histories of frequent staff turnover. All Indian health program sites are annually prioritized within the Agency by discipline, based on need or vacancy.
Section 108 of the IHCIA, as amended by Public Laws 100-713 and 102-573, authorizes the IHS LRP and provides in pertinent part as follows:
(a)(1) The Secretary, acting through the Service, shall establish a program to be known as the Indian Health Service Loan Repayment Program (hereinafter referred to as the “Loan Repayment Program”) in order to assure an adequate supply of trained health professionals necessary to maintain accreditation of, and provide health care services to Indians through, Indian health programs.
Section 4(n) of the IHCIA, as amended by the Indian Health Care Improvement Technical Corrections Act of 1996, Public Law 104-313, provides that:
“Health Profession” means
For the purposes of this program, the term “Indian health program” is defined in Section 108(a)(2)(A), as follows:
(A) The term “Indian health program” means any health program or facility funded, in whole or in part, by the Service for the benefit of Indians and administered—
(i) Directly by the Service;
(ii) By any Indian Tribe or Tribal or Indian organization pursuant to a contract under—
(I) The Indian Self-Determination Act, or
(II) Section 23 of the Act of April 30, 1908, (25 U.S.C. 47), popularly known as the Buy Indian Act; or
(iii) By an urban Indian organization to Title V of this act.'' Section 108 of the IHCIA, as amended by Public Laws 100-713 and 102-573, authorizes the IHS to determine specific health professions for which Indian Health LRP contracts will be awarded. The list of priority health professions that follows is based upon the needs of the IHS as well as upon the needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives.
(a) Medicine: Allopathic and Osteopathic.
(b) Nurse: Associate and B.S. Degree.
(c) Clinical Psychology: Ph.D. only.
(d) Social Work: Masters level only.
(e) Chemical Dependency Counseling: Baccalaureate and Masters level.
(f) Dentistry.
(g) Dental Hygiene.
(h) Pharmacy: B.S., Pharm.D.
(i) Optometry.
(j) Physician Assistant.
(k) Advanced Practice Nurses: Nurse Practitioner, Certified Nurse Midwife, Registered Nurse Anesthetist (Priority consideration will be given to Registered Nurse Anesthetists.).
(l) Podiatry: D.P.M.
(m) Physical Rehabilitation Services: Physician Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Speech-Language Pathology, and Audiology: M.S. and D.P.T.
(n) Diagnostic Radiology Technology: Certificate, Associate, and B.S.
(o) Medical Technology: B.S., and Associate.
(p) Public Health Nutritionist/Registered Dietitian.
(q) Engineering (Environmental): B.S. (Engineers must provide environmental engineering services to be eligible.).
(r) Environmental Health (Sanitarian): B.S.
(s) Health Records: R.H.I.T. and R.H.I.A.
(t) Respiratory Therapy.
(u) Ultrasonography.
Not applicable.
Interested individuals are reminded that the list of eligible health and allied health professions is effective for applicants for FY 2008. These priorities will remain in effect until superseded.
Application materials may be obtained by calling or writing to the address below. In addition, completed applications should be returned to: IHS Loan Repayment Program, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 120, Rockville, Maryland 20852, PH: 301/443-3396 [between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (EST) Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays].
Applications must be submitted on the form entitled “Application for the Indian Health Service Loan Repayment Program,” identified with the Office of Management and Budget approval number of OMB #0917-0014 (expires 12/31/08).
Completed applications may be submitted to the IHS Loan Repayment Program, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 120, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Applications for the FY 2008 LRP will be accepted and evaluated monthly beginning January 18, 2008, and will continue to be accepted each month thereafter until all funds are exhausted for FY 2008. Subsequent monthly deadline dates are scheduled for Friday of the second full week of each month.
Applications shall be considered as meeting the deadline if they are either:
(a) Received on or before the deadline date; or
(b) Sent on or before the deadline date. (Applicants should request a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier or U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks are not acceptable as proof of timely mailing.)
Applications received after the monthly closing date will be held for consideration in the next monthly funding cycle. Applicants who do not receive funding by September 30, 2008, will be notified in writing.
This program is not subject to review under Executive Order 12372.
Not applicable.
All applicants must sign and submit to the Secretary, a written contract agreeing to accept repayment of educational loans and to serve for the applicable period of obligated service in a priority site as determined by the Secretary, and submit a signed affidavit attesting to the fact that they have been informed of the relative merits of the U.S. PHS Commissioned Corps and the Civil Service as employment options.
The IHS has identified the positions in each Indian health program for which there is a need or vacancy and ranked those positions in order of priority by developing discipline-specific prioritized lists of sites. Ranking criteria for these sites include the following:
(a) Historically critical shortages caused by frequent staff turnover;
(b) Current unmatched vacancies in a health profession discipline;
(c) projected vacancies in a heath profession discipline;
(d) Ensuring that the staffing needs of Indian health programs administered by an Indian Tribe or Tribal or health organization receive consideration on an equal basis with programs that are administered directly by the Service;
(e) Giving priority to vacancies in Indian health programs that have a need for health professionals to provide health care services as a result of individuals having beached LRP contracts entered into under this section;
Consistent with this priority ranking, in determining applications to be approved and contracts to accept, the IHS will give priority to applications made by American Indians and Alaska Natives and to individuals recruited through the efforts of Indian Tribes or Tribal or Indian organizations;
Loan Repayment Awards will be made only to those individuals serving at facilities which have a site score of 70 or above during the first and second quarters and the first month of the third quarter of FY 2008, if funding is available.
One or all of the following factors may be applicable to an applicant, and the applicant who has the most of these factors, all other criteria being equal, will be selected.
(a) An applicant's length of current employment in the IHS, Tribal, or urban program.
(b) Availability for service earlier than other applicants (first come, first served).
(c) Date the individual's application was received.
Not applicable.
Notice of awards will be mailed on the last working day of each month. Once the applicant is approved for participation in the LRP, the applicant will receive confirmation of his/her loan repayment award and the duty site at which he/she will serve his/her loan repayment obligation.
Applicants may sign contractual agreements with the Secretary for 2 years. The IHS may repay all, or a portion of the applicant's health profession educational loans (undergraduate and graduate) for tuition expenses and reasonable educational and living expenses in amounts up to $20,000 per year for each year of contracted service. Payments will be made annually to the participant for the purpose of repaying his/her outstanding health profession educational loans. Payment of health profession education loans will be made to the participant
In addition to the loan payment, participants are provided tax assistance payments in an amount not less than 20 percent and not more than 39 percent of the participant's total amount of loan repayments made for the taxable year involved. The loan repayments and the tax assistance payments are taxable income and will be reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The tax assistance payment will be paid to the IRS directly on the participant's behalf. LRP award recipients should be aware that the IRS may place them in a higher tax bracket than they would otherwise have been prior to their award.
Any individual who enters this program and satisfactorily completes his or her obligated period of service may apply to extend his/her contract on a year-by-year basis, as determined by the IHS. Participants extending their contracts may receive up to the maximum amount of $20,000 per year plus an additional 20 percent for Federal withholding.
Any individual who owes an obligation for health professional service to the Federal Government, a State, or other entity is not eligible for the LRP unless the obligation will be completely satisfied before they begin service under this program.
Participants are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) number. The DUNS number is a nine digit identification number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access
Please address inquiries to Ms. Jacqueline K. Santiago, Chief, IHS Loan Repayment Program, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 120, Rockville, Maryland 20852, PH: 301/443-3396 [between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (EST) Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays].
IHS Area Offices and Service Units that are financially able are authorized to provide additional funding to make awards to applicants in the LRP, but not to exceed $35,000 a year plus tax assistance. All additional funding must be made in accordance with the priority system outlined below. Health professions given priority for selection above the $20,000 threshold are those identified as meeting the criteria in 25 U.S.C. 1616a(g)(2)(A) which provides that the Secretary shall consider the extent to which each such determination—
(i) Affects the ability of the Secretary to maximize the number of contracts that can be provided under the LRP from the amounts appropriated for such contracts;
(ii) Provides an incentive to serve in Indian health programs with the greatest shortages of health professionals; and
(iii) Provides an incentive with respect to the health professional involved remaining in an Indian health program with such a health professional shortage, and continuing to provide primary health services, after the completion of the period of obligated service under the LRP.
Contracts may be awarded to those who are available for service no later than September 30, 2008, and must be in compliance with any limits in the appropriation and Section 108 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act not to exceed the amount authorized in the IHS appropriation (up to $27,000,000 for FY 2008.) In order to ensure compliance with the statutes, Area Offices or Service Units providing additional funding under this section are responsible for notifying the LRP of such payments before funding is offered to the LRP participant.
Should an IHS Area Office contribute to the LRP, those funds will be used for only those sites located in that Area. Those sites will retain their relative ranking from the national site-ranking list. For example, the Albuquerque Area Office identifies supplemental monies for dentists. Only the dental positions within the Albuquerque Area will be funded with the supplemental monies consistent with the national ranking and site index within that Area.
Should an IHS Service Unit contribute to the LRP, those funds will be used for only those sites located in that Service Unit. Those sites will retain their relative ranking from the national site-ranking list. For example, Chinle Service Unit identifies supplemental monies for pharmacists. The Chinle Service Unit consists of two facilities, namely the Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility and the Tsaile PHS Indian Health Center. The national ranking will be used for the Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility (Score = 44) and the Tsaile PHS Indian Health Center (Score = 46). With a score of 46, the Tsaile PHS Indian Health Center would receive priority over the Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility.
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact Arthur Schatzkin, M.D., Dr.P.H, Chief, Nutritional Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS, Executive Plaza South, Room 3040, 6120 Executive Blvd., EPS-MSC 7242, Bethesda, MD 20892-7335 or call non-toll-free number 301-594-2931 or e-mail your request, including your address to:
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive license to practice the inventions embodied in:
1. U.S. Provisional Patent Application S/N 60/329,709 (E-130-2001/0-US-01). PCT/US02/33165 was filed on October 16, 2002 (E-130-2001/0-PCT-01) and converted into 02773789.9 (E-130-2001/0-EP-03) filed in Europe on May 12, 2004, 2002337885 (E-130-2001/0-AU-02) filed in Australia on March 29, 2004, 10/492,729 (E-130-2001/0-US-05) filed in the U.S. on April 15, 2004, divisional application 11/748,992 (E-130-2001/0-US-07) filed in the U.S. on May 15, 2007, and 2,463,931(E-130-2001/0-CA-04) filed in Canada on April 15, 2004; entitled “Broadly Cross-Reactive Neutralizing Antibodies Against Human Immunodeficiency Virus Selected By Env-CD4-Co-Receptor Complex.” Inventor(s): Dimiter S. Dimitrov (NCI), Maxime Moulard (EM), Xiadong Xiao (NCI), Yuuei Shu (NCI), Sanjay K. Phogat (IAVI), Mei-Yun Zhang (NCI), and Dennis Burton (Scripps Inst.)
2. U.S. Provisional Patent Application S/N 60/623,394 (E-251-2004/0-US-01). PCT/US2005/39175 (E-251-2004/0-PCT-02) filed on October 28, 2005 and converted into 2,585,574 (E-251-2004/0-CA-04) filed in Canada on October 28, 2005, 05819487.9 (E-251-2004/0-EP-05) filed in Europe on April 27, 2007, 2005302416 (E-251-2004/0-AU-06) filed in Australia on October 28, 2005, and 11/718,202 (E-251-2004/0-US-03) filed in the U.S. on August 10, 2007; entitled “Novel Broadly Cross-Reactive HIV Neutralizing Human Monoclonal Antibodies Selected From Phage Display Libraries Using Novel Strategy Based On Competitive Antigen Panning.” Inventor(s): Dimiter S. Dimitrov (NCI) and Mei-Yun Zhang (SAIC) to Profectus Biosciences, Inc. (hereafter Profectus) having a place of business in Baltimore, Maryland. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America.
Only written comments and/or application for a license, which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before March 25, 2008 will be considered.
Requests for a copy of the patent application, inquiries, comments and other materials relating to the contemplated license should be directed to: Sally Hu, Ph.D., M.B.A., Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; E-mail:
The first invention (E-130-2001/0) provides a
The second invention (E-251-2004/0) provides for pharmaceutical compositions of, and methods of using potent cross-reactive human monoclonal antibodies to HIV. Specifically, the invention describes a competitive antigen panning (CAP) method of isolating antibodies that bind to the gp41 subunit of the HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein. Additionally, the invention includes compositions of the aforementioned antibodies and the epitopes recognized by the antibodies. Methods of using the invention in the development of vaccine immunogens for the treatment and prevention of HIV, as well as the detection of HIV in a mammal are also described. The invention has significant implications in the development of HIV inhibitors, vaccines, and research tools for understanding mechanisms of HIV entry. Further development of the disclosed invention may yield novel therapies and methods in the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV, treatment of accidental exposure to HIV, and chronic infection in patients with resistance to current therapies.
The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within 60 days from the date of this published Notice, NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
The field of use may be limited to the development of human monoclonal antibodies for use as a therapeutic or preventative in HIV infection either alone or in combination with other compounds.
Properly filed competing applications for a license filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the contemplated license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection, and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: 301/496-7057; fax: 301/402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
The inventors have previously developed a WNV/Dengue4Delta30 antigenic chimeric virus as a live attenuated virus vaccine candidate that contains the WNV premembrane and envelope (prM and E) proteins on a dengue virus type 4 (DEN4) genetic background with a thirty nucleotide deletion (Delta30) in the DEN4 3'-UTR. Using a similar strategy, the inventors have generated an antigenic chimeric virus, SLE/DEN4Delta30. Preclinical testing results indicate that chimerization of SLE with DEN4Delta30 decreased neuroinvasiveness in mice, did not affect neurovirulence in mice, and appeared to overattenuate the virus for non-human primates. Modifications of the SLE/DEN4Delta30 vaccine candidate are underway to improve its immunogenicity.
This application claims live attenuated chimeric SLE/DEN4Delta30 vaccine compositions and bivalent WNV/SLE/DEN4Delta30 vaccine compositions. Also claimed are methods of treating or preventing SLEV infection in a mammalian host, methods of producing a subunit vaccine composition, isolated polynucleotides comprising a nucleotide sequence encoding a SLEV immunogen, methods for detecting SLEV infection in a biological sample and infectious chimeric SLEV.
This application principally claims live attenuated LACV vaccine compositions, but also includes subunit vaccine compositions including California encephalitis virus (CEV) serogroup immunogens, attenuated and inactivated CEV serogroup and chimeric
The previously identified Δ30 attenuating mutation, created in each dengue virus serotype by the removal of 30 homologous nucleotides from the 3′-UTR, is capable of attenuating wild-type strains of dengue virus type 1 (DEN1), type 4 (DEN4) and to a limited extent type 2 (DEN2). These DEN1Δ30 and DEN4Δ30 viruses have been shown to be both safe and immunogenic in humans. However, the Δ30 mutation failed to have an attenuating effect on dengue virus type 3 (DEN3). To generate DEN3 vaccine candidates with a clearly attenuated phenotype, viruses were produced containing 3′-UTR deletions consisting of extensions of the original Δ30 mutation or additional mutations which remove stem-loop structures similar to those removed by Δ30. In addition, the entire 3′-UTR of DEN3 was replaced with the 3′-UTR derived from DEN4 and containing the Δ30 mutation. Studies in monkeys demonstrated that these newly developed viruses are highly attenuated, yet sufficiently immunogenic to warrant their further development for use as live attenuated vaccine candidates. Such viruses are anticipated to become the DEN3 component of a tetravalent vaccine formulation designed to immunize against all four dengue virus serotypes.
A tetravalent dengue virus vaccine containing dengue virus types 1, 2, 3, and 4 each attenuated by the Δ30 mutation is being developed. The presence of the Δ30 attenuating mutation in each virus component precludes the reversion to a wild-type virus by intertypic recombination. In addition, because of the inherent genetic stability of deletion mutations, the Δ30 mutation represents an excellent alternative for use as a common mutation shared among each component of a tetravalent vaccine.
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: 301/496-7057; fax: 301/402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) has been proposed as an underlying pathogenic mechanism of DHF/DSS. ADE occurs because preexisting subneutralizing antibodies and the infecting DENV form complexes that bind to Fc receptor-bearing cells, leading to increased virus uptake and replication. ADE has been repeatedly demonstrated
We have identified chimpanzee-human chimeric IgG1 mAbs capable of neutralizing or binding to one or more DENV serotypes. Cross-reactive IgG 1A5 neutralizes DENV-1 and DENV-2 more efficiently than DENV-3 and DENV-4, and type-specific IgG 5H2 neutralizes DENV-4 at a high titer. Analysis of antigenic variants has localized the IgG 1A5 binding site to the conserved fusion peptide in E. Thus, IgG 1A5 shares many characteristics with the cross-reactive antibodies detected in flavivirus infections.
This application claims a variant of an antibody comprising a polypeptide in the Fc region, which binds an Fc gamma receptor (FcgammaR) with lower affinity than the parent antibody. The variant polypeptide comprises a deletion of nine amino acids at the N-terminus of the C
Four monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against PA, three mAbs against LF and four mAbs specific for EF of anthrax were isolated from a phage display library generated from immunized chimpanzees. Two mAbs recognizing PA (W1 and W2), two anti-LF mAbs efficiently neutralized the cytotoxicity of lethal toxin in a macrophage lysis assay. One anti-EF mAb efficiently neutralized edema toxin in cell culture. All five neutralizing mAbs protected animals from anthrax toxin challenge.
Degeneration of the intervertebral disc (IVD) is a common and significant source of morbidity in our society. Approximately 8 of 10 adults at some point in their life will experience an episode of significant low back pain, with the majority improving without any formal treatment. However, for the subject requiring surgical management current interventions focus on fusion of the involved IVD levels, which eliminates pain but does not attempt to restore disc function. Approximately 200,000 spinal fusions were performed in the United States in 2002 to treat pain associated with lumbar disc degeneration. Spinal fusion however is thought to significantly alter the
At the present time, several disc replacement implants are at different stages of preclinical and clinical testing. These disc replacement technologies are designed to address flexion, extension, and lateral bending motions; however, they do little to address compressive forces and their longevity is limited due to their inability to biointegrate. Therefore, a cell-based tissue engineering approach offers the most promising alternative to replace the degenerated IVD. Current treatment for injuries that penetrate subchondral bone include subchondral drilling, periosteal tissue grafting, osteochondral allografting, chondrogenic cell and transplantation; but are limited due to suboptimal integration with host tissues.
The present invention claims tissue engineered intervertebral discs comprising a nanofibrous polymer hydrogel amalgam having cells dispersed therein, methods of fabricating tissue engineered intervertebral discs by culturing a mixture of stem cells or intervertebral disc cells and a electrospun nanofibrous polymer hydrogel amalgam in a suitable bioreactor, and methods of treatment comprising implantation of tissue engineered intervertebral disc into a subject.
The electrospinning process is a simple, economical means to produce biomaterial matrices or scaffolds of ultra-fine fibers derived from a variety of biodegradable polymers (Li WJ,
1. W-J Li,
2. W-J Li,
3. CK Kuo,
4. W-J Li,
Provides the ability to grow larger biologic samples than microfluidic systems, while utilizing smaller medium volumes than conventional bioreactors. The bioreactor culture chamber is adapted to contain sample volumes on a milliliter scale (10 [mu]L to 1 mL, with a preferred size of 100 [mu]L), significantly larger than chamber volumes in microfluidic systems (on the order of 1 [mu]L). Typical microfluidic systems are designed to culture cells and not larger tissue samples.
The integrated medium reservoirs and bioreactor chamber design provide for, (1) concentration of biofactors produced by the biologic sample, and (2) the use of smaller amounts of exogenous biofactor supplements in the culture medium. The local medium volume (within the vicinity of the sample) is less than twice the sample volume. The total medium volume utilized is small, preferably 2 ml, significantly smaller than conventional bioreactors (typically using 500-1,000 mL).
Provides for real-time monitoring of sample growth and function in response to stimuli via an optical port and embedded sensors. The optical port provides for microscopy and spectroscopy measurements using transmitted, reflected, or emitted (e.g., fluorescent, chemiluminescent) light. The embedded sensors provide for measurement of culture fluid pressure and sample pH, oxygen tension, and temperature.
Capable of providing external stimulation to the biologic sample, including mechanical forces (e.g. fluid shear, hydrostatic pressure, matrix compression, microgravity via clinorotation), electrical fields (e.g., AC currents), and biofactors (e.g., growth factors, cytokines) while monitoring their effect in real-time via the embedded sensors, optical port, and medium sampling port.
Monitoring of biologic sample response to external stimulation can be performed non-invasively and non-destructively through the embedded sensors, optical port, and medium sampling port. Testing of tissue mechanical and electrical properties (e.g., stiffness, permeability, loss modulus via stress or creep test, electrical impedance) can be performed over time without removing the sample from the bioreactor device.
The bioreactor sample chamber can be constructed with multiple levels fed via separate perfusion circuits, facilitating the growth and production of multiphasic tissues.
Chimpanzee Fabs against the B5 and A33 outer extracellular membrane proteins of vaccinia virus were isolated and converted into complete mAbs with human gamma1 heavy chain constant regions. The two mAbs displayed high binding affinities to B5 and A33. The mAbs inhibited the spread of vaccinia virus as well as variola virus (the causative agent of smallpox)
1. Z Chen,
2. Z Chen,
The present invention utilizes the characteristic chemical property of hydrazide groups on one reactant to react with aldehyde groups or cyanate esters on the other reactant with an improved conjugate yield of at least sixty percent. With this conjugation efficiency the leftover unconjugated protein and polysaccharide would not need to be removed and thus the purification process of the conjugate product can be limited to diafiltration to remove the by-products of small molecules. The new conjugation reaction can be carried out within one or two days with reactant concentrations between 1 and 25 mg/mL at PS/protein ratios from 1:2 to 3:1, at temperatures between 4 and 40 degrees Centigrade, and in a pH range of 5.5 to 7.4, optimal conditions varying from PS to PS.
It is generally recognized that an effective vaccine against
A safety and immunogenicity study in infants are under way. The aim is to administer the conjugate vaccine with routine infant immunization. Preliminary results shows the vaccine is safe in 2 months old infants.
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: 301/496-7057; fax: 301/402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
Available for licensing are microRNA (miRNA) biomarkers that show differential expression in the adenocarcinoma diagnosis and Barrett's esophagus status, and they can predict diagnosis and Barrett's esophagus with accuracies of 71.4% and 74.7%, respectively. Thus, these miRNA biomarkers that may predispose individuals to Barrett's esophagus and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma could provide a means for earlier detection and help in better identifying treatment options.
Method to diagnose and treat Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma.
miRNA pharmaceutical compositions to treat Barrett's esophagus.
Survival rate of esophageal cancer is 10% to 16% in Europe and United States respectively.
miRNA technologies have an emerging market, and in 2007, it was worth an estimated 23 million dollars in the U.S. and it has a projected annual growth rate of 100%.
NIH inventors have created a new mouse model for obesity and type II diabetes. In this model, both copies of the ANKRD26 gene are inactivated by the insertion of a marker gene (beta-galactosidase) into the open reading frame of the gene. The resulting knockout mouse exhibits extreme obesity, increased organ and body size,
Study and identify treatments for obesity and type II diabetes.
Examine ANKRD26 expression under various conditions.
Study the progression of obesity and type II diabetes in a specific genetic background.
Distinct phenotype from other mouse models for obesity and type II diabetes allows broader study of the diseases when used in combination with other mouse models.
Distinct phenotype allows the study of obesity in a previously unidentified genetic background.
This technology is a method to cause AR-induced cell death (apoptosis) through photoactivation of a non-steroidal androgen receptor antagonist 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-2,2-dimethyl-6-(trifluoromethyl)-8-pyridono[5,6-g] quinoline (TDPQ). Upon TDPQ binding to AR, a highly potent photocytoxic reaction induced once the TDPQ-AR complex is exposed to visible light irradiation of a specific wavelength. The inventors have cell-culture results demonstrating that cell death is a function of TDPQ, AR and light irradiation. This treatment method can potentially target AR-containing cancerous cells, while sparing nearby cells that lack AR.
The process has been extended to other nuclear receptors by choice of other photoactivatable ligands for these receptors. Certain suitable ligands are marketed drugs.
Potential therapeutics for progesterone and glucorticoid receptor ligand related conditions such as breast and brain cancers, lymphoma, leukemia and arthritis.
Method to treat androgen, progesterone, and glucorticoid receptor related conditions.
An estimated 218,890 new cases of prostate cancer and 27,050 deaths due to prostate cancer in the U.S. in 2007.
Hirsutism affects approximately 5% of adult women in the United States.
Hair loss and acne industries are worth several billions of dollars.
1. B Risek
2. B Risek
The antibodies could also be used to detect AAMP-1 in patient's sera as a useful diagnostic marker for multiple carcinomas including high nuclear grade ductal carcinoma in situ (Clinical Cancer Research Dec 2002 8:3788-95).
Claimed proteins and polypeptides could also be used to promote cell adhesion to a substrate, promote tissue acceptance of prostheses, and promote wound healing.
1. ME Beckner
2. A Adeyinka
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: 301/496-7057; fax: 301/402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
1. WO Lui
2. I Martinez
Description of Technology: The technology available for licensing and commercial development relates to molecular motors powered by proteins. Some implementations describe a molecular motor in which multiple concentric cylinders or nested cones rotate around a common longitudinal axis. Opposing complementary surfaces of the cylinders or cones are coated with complementary motor protein pairs, such as actin and myosin. The actin and myosin interact with one another in the presence of ATP to rotate the cylinders or cones relative to one another, and this rotational energy is harnessed to produce work. Speed of movement is controlled by the concentration of ATP and the number of nested cylinders or cones. The length of the cylinders or cones can also be used to control the power generated by the motor.
Another configuration forms the motor out of a set of stacked disks, much like CDs on a spindle. The advantage of this form is extreme simplicity of construction compared to the nested cylinders or cones. In yet another configuration, which has aspects of both of the previous forms, the surfaces are broken into annular rings in order to overcome that the inner surfaces rotate at a different rate than the outer surfaces. This belt form may ultimately be used in molecular manufacturing.
Many other applications that could use a motor in other biotechnological areas, in addition to the medical applications.
The inventions can be implemented on either a microscopic or macroscopic scale.
HHS Reference No. E-018-1999/1—allowed U.S. Application No. 10/061,377 filed 02/01/2002, entitled “Molecular Motor.”
Licensing Contact: Cristina Thalhammer-Reyero, PhD, MBA; 301-435-4507;
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804; telephone: 301/496-7057; fax: 301/402-0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
1. J Heymann, M Hayles, I Gestmann, L Giannuzzi, L Lich, S Subramaniam. Site-specific 3D imaging of cells and tissues with a dual beam microscope. J. Struct. Biol. 2006 Jul;155(1):63-73.
2. J Heymann, D Shi, S Kim, D Bliss, J Milne, S Subramaniam. 3D imaging of melanoma cells using automated “ion abrasion scanning electron microscopy”. Microsc Microanal. 2007 Aug;13(Suppl 2):360-361, doi 10.1017/S1431927607079287.
Seven percent (7%) of the elderly are under polypharmacy and purchase over 30% of prescription drugs and 40% of over-the-counter (OTC) drugs.
Medication misuse costs the health care system over $177 billion dollars and results in more than 200,000 deaths each year.
This invention claims methods of producing and recovering PA from a cell or organism, particularly a recombinant cell or microorganism. The invention claims production and purification of modified PA from a non-sporogenic strain of
The invention relates to improved methods of producing and recovering sporulation-deficient
U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/402,285 filed 09 Aug 2002 (HHS Reference No. E-268-2002/0-US-01).
U.S. Patent Application No. 10/638,006 filed 08 Aug 2003, now U.S. Patent 7,261,900 (HHS Reference No. E-268-2002/0-US-02).
U.S. Patent Application No. 11/831,860 filed 31 Jul 2007 (HHS Reference No. E-268-2002/0-US-03).
The invention also relates to PA variants, and/or compositions thereof, which are useful for eliciting an immunogenic response in mammals, particularly humans, including responses that provide protection against, or reduce the severity of, infections caused by
The subject invention provides chimeric nucleic acids comprising a retroviral gag sequence, a target nucleic acid sequence derived from a nucleic acid encoding a fusion partner, and a frame shift site. Expression of the chimeric gene cassette results in packaging the fusion partner into the Gag pseudovirion. Suitable fusion partners can be derived from any protein of interest which has a biological activity or which elicits a cellular or humoral immune response.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice.
The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) invites the research community to apply to attend a grantsmanship workshop. This workshop will provide researchers, fellows, and graduate students with an in-depth understanding of the NIH grants and review processes, clarify
The Workshop will take place on June 3-5, 2008, in Rockville, Maryland. Those interested in CAM research are particularly encouraged to attend.
NCCAM funds research grants that explore the science of CAM. For more information, see
To request more information, visit the NCCAM Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal infromation concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Office of the National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
60-day notice and request for comments; Reinstatement without change of a previously approved information collection OMB Control Number 1670-0005.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on approved information collection request (ICR) OMB 1670-0005, Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) System. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), DHS is soliciting comments for the approved information collection request.
Written comments should be received on or before March 25, 2008, to be assured consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to Deborah Bea, Program Manager, National Communications System, 245 Murray Lane, Bldg. 410, MS 8510, Washington, DC 20528-8510, Phone 703-235-5359, Fax 703-235-5806, or e-mail
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to Deborah Bea, Program Manager, National Communications System, 245 Murray Lane, Bldg. 410, MS 8510, Washington, DC 20528-8510, Phone 703-235-5359, Fax 703-235-5806, or e-mail
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments which:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and
Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, 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 800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Department of the Interior.
Notice of Availability for a Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR).
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) and California Department of Water Resources (DWR), as co-lead agencies, have jointly prepared a Final EIS/EIR for the Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA) which would implement section 205(a) of the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act of 1990, Title II of Public Law 101-618 (Settlement Act). The Final EIS/EIR has evaluated the proposed action (TROA Alternative), Local Water Supply Alternative, and No Action Alternative. Implementation of the proposed action would not result in any significant adverse environmental effects. A Notice of Availability of the Revised Draft EIS/EIR was published in the
No Federal or State decision will be made on the proposed action until a minimum of 30 days after the release of the Final EIS/EIR. After this 30-day period, Interior and DWR will complete their respective Record of Decision (ROD) and Notice of Determination (NOD). The ROD and NOD will identify the action to be implemented.
A copy of the Final EIS/EIR (compact disk or bound) may be obtained by writing to Kenneth Parr, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 705 North Plaza St., Rm. 320, Carson City, NV 89701 or by calling Reclamation at 800-742-9474 (enter 26) or 775-882-3436 or DWR at 916-651-0746. The Final EIS/EIR is also accessible from the following Web site:
Kenneth Parr, Reclamation, telephone 775-882-3436, TDD 775-882-3436, fax 775-882-7592, e-mail:
Copies of the Final EIS/EIR are available for public review at:
• California Department of Water Resources, Central District Office, 901 P St., Suite 313B, Sacramento, CA 95814.
• Bureau of Reclamation, Public Affairs Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825.
• Bureau of Reclamation, 705 North Plaza Street, Carson City, NV 89701.
• Fish and Wildlife Service, 1340 Financial Blvd, Rm. 234, Reno, NV 89502.
• Natural Resources Library, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240-0001.
• At various county libraries; please call 800-742-9474 (enter 26) for locations.
Section 205(a) of the Settlement Act directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), in conjunction with others, to negotiate an operating agreement governing operation of Federal Truckee River reservoirs and other specified matters. Interior, U.S. Department of Justice, States of California and Nevada, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, Sierra Pacific Power Company, Truckee Meadows Water Authority, and other entities in California and Nevada completed a negotiated agreement (i.e., Negotiated TROA) in February 2007. The Negotiated TROA is available as an appendix to the Final EIS/EIR or viewed at
TROA would, in part, (1) enhance conditions for the threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout and endangered cui-ui in the Truckee River basin; (2) increase municipal and industrial (M&I) drought protection for Truckee Meadows (Reno-Sparks metropolitan area); (3) improve Truckee River water quality downstream from Sparks, Nevada; and (4) enhance instream flows and recreational opportunities in the Truckee River basin. At the time TROA takes effect, the Settlement Act provides that a permanent allocation between California and Nevada of water in the Lake Tahoe, Truckee River, and Carson River basins will also take effect. Allocation of those waters has been a long-standing issue between the two States; implementation of TROA resolves that issue. In addition, Section 205 of the Settlement Act requires that TROA, among other things, implement the provisions of the Preliminary Settlement Agreement as modified by the Ratification Agreement (PSA) and ensure that water is stored in and released from Federal Truckee River reservoirs to satisfy the exercise of water rights in conformance with the
Before TROA can be approved by the Secretary and the State of California, potential environmental effects of the agreement must be analyzed pursuant to NEPA and CEQA. Accordingly, Interior and DWR have jointly prepared a Final EIS/EIR for that purpose. A Draft EIS/EIR based on an earlier draft agreement was initially prepared and released for public review in February 1998. Subsequently, ongoing negotiations substantially modified the proposed
Following agreement to the Negotiated TROA in February 2007 by the negotiators, a Final EIS/EIR was completed. The Negotiated TROA is available as an appendix to the Final EIS/EIR or viewed at
The TROA Alternative is identified in the Final EIS/EIR as the preferred and environmentally superior alternative.
No Action Alternative (No Action). Under No Action, Truckee River reservoir operations would remain unchanged from current operations and would be consistent with existing court decrees, agreements, and regulations that currently govern surface water management (i.e., operating reservoirs in the Truckee River and Lake Tahoe basins and maintaining current minimum instream flows) in the Truckee River basin. TMWA's existing programs for surface water rights acquisition and groundwater pumping for M&I use would continue. Groundwater pumping and water conservation in Truckee Meadows, however, would satisfy a greater proportion of projected future M&I demand than under current conditions. Groundwater pumping in California would also increase to satisfy a greater projected future M&I demand.
Local Water Supply Alternative (LWSA). All elements of Truckee River reservoir operations, river flow management, Truckee River hydroelectric plant operations, minimum reservoir releases, reservoir spill and precautionary release criteria, and water exportation from the upper Truckee River basin and Lake Tahoe basin under LWSA would be the same as described under No Action. The principal differences between LWSA and No Action would be the source of water used for M&I purposes, extent of water conservation, implementation of a groundwater recharge program in Truckee Meadows, and assumptions regarding governmental decisions concerning approval of new water supply proposals.
TROA Alternative (TROA). TROA would modify existing operations of all designated reservoirs to enhance coordination and flexibility while ensuring that existing water rights are served and flood control and dam safety requirements are met. TROA would incorporate, modify, or replace various provisions of the Truckee River Agreement (TRA) and the Tahoe-Prosser Exchange Agreement (TPEA). As negotiated, TROA would supersede all requirements of any agreements concerning the operation of all reservoirs, including those of TRA and TPEA, and would become the sole operating agreement for all designated reservoirs.
All reservoirs would continue to be operated under TROA for the same purposes as under current operations and with most of the same reservoir storage priorities as under No Action and LWSA. The Settlement Act requires that TROA ensure that water is stored in and released from Truckee River reservoirs to satisfy the exercise of water rights in conformance with the
The primary difference between TROA and the other alternatives is that TROA would provide opportunities for storing and managing various categories of credit water, not provided for in current operations. Signatories to TROA generally would be allowed to accumulate credit water in storage by retaining or capturing water in a reservoir that would have otherwise been released from storage or passed through the reservoir to serve their respective downstream water right (e.g., retaining Floriston Rate water that would have been released to serve an
In addition to credit water, TROA also establishes criteria for new wells in the Truckee River Basin in California to minimize short-term reduction in stream flow, provides for the implementation of the interstate allocation between California and Nevada, provides for the settlement of litigation, establishes a habitat restoration fund for the Truckee River, and establishes more strict conditions and approval requirements for pumping or siphoning water from Lake Tahoe, among other benefits.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment.
The Fish and Wildlife Service announces that the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge in Benton County, Arkansas, is available for review and comment. This document was prepared pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Draft CCP/EA describes the Service's proposal for management of the refuge for 15 years.
Written comments must be received at the address in the
To provide written comments or to obtain a copy of the Draft CCP/EA, please write to: Ms. Tina Chouinard, Refuge Planner, Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge, 6772 Highway 76 South, Stanton, TN 38069. The Draft CCP/EA is available on compact diskette or hard copy. It also may be accessed and downloaded from the Service's Internet site:
Tina Chouinard; Telephone: 318/305-0643.
The Service developed three alternatives for managing the refuge and chose Alternative 3 as the proposed alternative.
Under Alternative 1, no refuge management or resource protection would occur. Fish and wildlife populations would not be monitored, habitats would not be managed or monitored, no land protection would occur, and no law enforcement activities would be performed. The Service would probably enter into management agreements with the Arkansas State Game and Fish Commission and/or The Nature Conservancy.
Under Alternative 2, there would be no change from current management of this un-staffed refuge. Under this alternative, 123 acres of refuge lands would be protected and maintained for resident wildlife, migratory non-game birds, and threatened and endangered species. Refuge management programs would continue to be developed and implemented with little baseline biological information. All refuge management activities would be directed toward achieving the refuge's primary purposes, which are to properly administer, conserve, and develop the 123-acre-area for protection of a unique cave ecosystem that provides essential habitat for the endangered gray bat, endangered cave crayfish, the threatened Ozark cavefish, as well as other significant cave-dwelling wildlife species. Active habitat and wildlife management would continue to be limited to protection of the cave entrances and limited access to surface and subsurface habitats. Little to no environmental education and wildlife interpretation would occur. No improvements would be made to the exterior for wildlife observation or wildlife photography. Under this alternative, the refuge would not seek out partnerships with adjacent landowners or with other Federal and State agencies to contribute to the overall natural resource conservation effort in the area.
Under Alternative 3, the proposed alternative, all refuge management actions would be directed toward achieving the refuge's primary purposes, which are to properly administer, conserve, and develop the 123-acre-area for protection of a unique cave ecosystem that provides essential habitat for the endangered gray bat, the endangered cave crayfish, the threatened Ozark cavefish, and other significant cave-dwelling wildlife species, while contributing to other national, regional and State goals to protect and restore karst habitats and species. Wildlife and plant censuses and inventory activities would be initiated and maintained to obtain the biological information needed to continue current refuge management programs and implement crucial management programs on and off the refuge. Active habitat management would be implemented to maintain and enhance water quality and quantity within the cave system, the recharge zone (groundwater recharge areas), and waterways within the bat foraging areas through best management practices, easements, and partnerships with private landowners and other Federal and State agencies. Continuous groundwater quality monitoring is crucial to the existence of the aquatic species utilizing the cave stream and groundwater corridors.
Wildlife-dependent recreation activities, such as wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, would be provided. Utilizing various partners, the refuge would develop a small environmental education program, focusing on karst environments. The refuge would develop a community-based volunteer program by establishing a Cave Steward program. Volunteers would be educated on management issues and utilized to help complete wildlife and plant surveys, maintenance projects, and public recreation and education programs.
This notice is published under the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; final comprehensive conservation plan and finding of no significant impact for environmental assessment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of our final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for Rice Lake and Mille Lacs NWRs, Minnesota. In this final CCP, we describe how we will manage these refuges for the next 15 years.
Copies of the Final CCP and FONSI are available on compact disk or hard copy. You may obtain a copy by writing to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation Planning, Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111 or you may access and download a copy via the planning Web site at
Walt Ford, (218) 768-2402.
With this notice, we complete the CCP process for Rice Lake and Mille Lacs NWRs that began with the
Rice Lake and Mille Lacs NWRs are located in east-central Minnesota. Both refuges are administered by the staff at Rice Lake NWR. Rice Lake NWR is a mosaic of lakes, marshes, forests, and grasslands that provide a variety of habitat for migrant and resident wildlife. The Refuge is especially noted for its fall concentrations of Ring-necked Ducks, which often number over 150,000 birds. The Refuge also includes pre-historic and historic cultural resources of recognized importance. Mille Lacs NWR is the smallest refuge in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 0.57-acre Refuge consists of two islands in Mille Lacs Lake. One island is managed as a nesting colony for the State-listed threatened Common Tern. The other island is used by other colonial nesting species. The CCP will guide us in managing and administering Rice Lake and Mille Lacs Refuges for the 15 years following publication of the final CCP. Alternative B, as we described in the environmental assessment, is the foundation for the CCP.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee
Our draft CCP and NEPA document (72 FR 34711; June 25, 2007) addressed several priority issues raised by us and others. To address these priority issues, we developed and evaluated 2 alternatives during the planning process.
Under Alternative A, Current Management, the 170 acres of grassland on the auto tour route would be maintained; stable water levels in Rice Lake would be maintained throughout the growing season and at sufficient level to allow rice harvest; the 1,400 acre area with the pending Wilderness recommendation would be managed as de facto wilderness; Native American ceremonies would be held under special use permit and wild rice harvest coordinated with a local Native American committee; cultural resources would not be interpreted on-site; demand for interpretation and environmental education would be responded to as staff and time permitted; the erosion of Hennepin Island would continue; and the 2005 landcover at the Sandstone Unit would be maintained while allowing for forest succession.
Under Alternative B, Preferred Alternative, 85 acres would be maintained as grassland on the auto tour route to facilitate wildlife observation; water levels would be allowed to fluctuate in Rice Lake to more closely approximate a natural system; the 1,400 acre Wilderness recommendation would be withdrawn to allow for more active management; Native American ceremonies would be held under special use permit and wild rice harvest would be coordinated with a local Native American committee; additional interpretation of cultural resources would be developed in cooperation with the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe; demand for interpretation and environmental education would be responded to with additional interpretive opportunities and educational programs with the addition of a park ranger position; the erosion of Hennepin Island would be reversed through rebuilding and protection with a constructed reef; and the 2005 landcover at the Sandstone Unit would be maintained while allowing for forest succession.
We solicited comments on the draft CCP and environmental assessment for Rice Lake and Mille Lacs NWRs from June 25, 2007 to July 30, 2007. We held an open house at the refuge headquarters on July 10, 2007, to receive comments. We received approximately 15 written comments during the 35 day comment period. We responded to all substantive comments in an appendix to the CCP.
After considering the comments we received, we have chosen Alternative B as our preferred alternative. Management of the Refuges for the next 15 years will focus on: (1) Improving the long-term sustainability of wild rice in Rice Lake; (2) reestablishing the white pine super-canopy in Refuge forests; and (3) strengthening programs in wildlife-dependent recreation and cultural resources protection.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a Proposed Land Exchange in Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, and announcement of Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act subsistence hearings.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a Proposed Land Exchange in the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, is available for public comment. We prepared this DEIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. The Service is furnishing this notice to advise the public and
We must receive your comments on or before March 25, 2008.
Written comments may be submitted on-line at
Cyndie Wolfe at the above address.
The Yukon Flats Refuge is located in eastern interior Alaska. The exterior boundaries encompass about 11.1 million acres, including 2.5 million acres owned or selected by Native corporations established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA; 43 U.S.C. 1601,
Doyon, Limited (Doyon) is an Alaska Native Regional Corporation established under ANCSA. Under the authority of ANCSA, Congress granted to Doyon land entitlements within an area that later became the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in 1980. Doyon has ownership interests in nearly 2 million acres within the boundaries of the Refuge, including the surface and subsurface estates of 1.15 million acres of land, and the subsurface estate of another 782,000 acres. An additional 56,500 acres remain to be allocated by Doyon to Village Corporations located in the Refuge; Doyon would own the subsurface to these lands. Doyon is owned by over 14,000 Alaska Natives (Native Americans) with ties to a large portion of interior Alaska. Approximately 1,300 people reside in nine communities in or near the Yukon Flats Refuge. Most residents are Alaska Natives and many are Doyon shareholders.
Negotiators for Doyon and the Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, have agreed in principle to exchange certain lands within the Refuge. Under the agreement, the United States (U.S.) would convey to Doyon the title to Refuge lands that may hold developable oil and gas resources. In exchange, Doyon would convey to the U.S. certain lands owned by Doyon within the Refuge boundary. These lands include wetlands previously identified by the Service as priority fish and wildlife habitats. In addition, both parties have agreed to exchange nearly six townships (132,000 acres each) to consolidate ownerships and facilitate land management within the Refuge. All lands acquired by the U.S. would be managed as part of the Yukon Flats Refuge. Activities on Doyon-owned lands are not subject to regulation by the Service.
At the request of Doyon and the public, the Service has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to evaluate the effects of the exchange, in accordance with procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370d).
The DEIS evaluates a range of reasonable alternatives, including the following four alternatives:
Proposed Action: Equal-value land exchange (based on fair market appraisals) as described in the Agreement in Principle (for the full text of the Agreement, see Appendix A of the DEIS or the project Web site at
Doyon currently owns about 1.055 million acres of land with oil and gas potential inside the Refuge. Therefore, any alternative, including the “no action” alternative, could result in oil and/or gas development on Doyon-owned lands. If Doyon develops any of its lands, including those received through exchange, the resulting infrastructure could facilitate development on other private lands in the Refuge. The impacts of development on Doyon's current land holdings, with or without a land exchange, are analyzed as Cumulative Effects in the DEIS. In most cases, access to Doyon lands would cross federally-owned lands. In these cases, Doyon would be required to apply for a right-of-way permit under Title XI of ANILCA. At that time, a separate NEPA process would evaluate various transportation/pipeline corridor alternatives as well as the proposed oil field development.
During scoping, the Service identified a number of issues that are analyzed in detail in the DEIS. Most of the public scoping comments focused on the potential impacts of oil and gas development in the Yukon Flats rather than the land exchange itself. Therefore much of the DEIS focuses on development impacts. Specifically, the DEIS addresses how the proposed alternatives could affect fish and wildlife; wetlands and aquatic habitats; the physical environment (water quality and quantity, hydrology, air quality, climate); subsistence; cultural/archaeological resources; socioeconomics; refuge purposes; biological integrity, diversity and environmental health; land use (including special designation areas, recreation, visual resources) and environmental justice (including human health).
Section 810 of ANILCA requires the Service to evaluate the effects of the alternatives on subsistence activities and to hold public hearings if any alternative may significantly restrict subsistence activities. The Service analysis finds that the cumulative effects, considered in conjunction with the alternatives, meet the “may significantly restrict” threshold. Therefore, the Service will hold subsistence hearings in conjunction with the DEIS public hearings.
Public availability of comments: 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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of Availability of a Draft Habitat Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental Assessment for the Karner blue butterfly; receipt of application for an incidental take permit; request for comments.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Applicant) has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for a 20-year incidental take permit (ITP) for the federally endangered Karner blue butterfly (
This notice, provided pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, advises the public and other agencies of the availability of the draft HCP and draft EA for review and comment.
To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments on or before March 25, 2008.
Send your comments or request information by any of the following methods:
• U.S. Mail: Comments should be sent to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056.
• Facsimile: 612-713-5292.
• E-Mail:
All comments received become part of the official public record. Public requests for comments submitted will be handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations [40 CFR 1506.6(f)]. 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 we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. If a respondent
Peter Fasbender at 612-713-5343 or
Individuals requesting copies of the draft EA and draft HCP should contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by telephone at (612) 713-5343 or by letter (see
The purpose of the draft HCP is to manage habitat to promote recovery of the species and to minimize incidental take of KBB, mitigate the effects of any such take to the maximum extent practicable, and otherwise avoid any appreciable reduction in the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the KBB in the wild. The Applicant developed the draft HCP to facilitate conservation of oak savanna ecosystems (KBB habitat) and to help maintain occupied KBB habitat on both public and private land in Michigan. The goals of the HCP are to: (1) Support persistence of a functioning oak savanna ecosystem in Michigan; (2) support maintenance of oak-savanna habitats in a condition and configuration necessary to sustain existing populations of KBB and other associated species of concern; and (3) integrate diverse land uses with the conservation of the oak savanna ecosystem, KBB and other associated species of concern.
Active management of KBB habitat is necessary for the conservation of KBB and oak savanna. However, some management practices (e.g., prescribed burning, mowing) necessary for maintaining early-successional habitats may result in incidental take of KBB, and section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of an endangered species. Therefore, to obtain the legal authority to manage KBB habitat with the potential resultant take of KBB, the Applicant has applied for an ITP which would allow habitat management, utility and transportation right-of-way maintenance, and certain development activities that avoid or minimize and mitigate take when conducted in occupied KBB habitat.
The Applicant has applied for a statewide ITP and developed a statewide HCP with the intent that other land managers and/or landowners may participate as sub-permittees, subject to the conditions of the final permit, in the event their otherwise lawful activities result in take of KBB. Currently, land managers and landowners need to obtain authorization on a project-by-project basis to conduct legally the activities listed above. This situation results in a patchwork of projects conducted with little coordinated planning or consideration of range-wide impacts to KBB and other species of concern. By contrast, projects implemented under the HCP would be done according to consistent procedures in a highly coordinated effort. The HCP will facilitate efforts to evaluate and minimize the cumulative adverse impacts of individual projects to KBB populations.
Actions conducted under the HCP are not intended or expected to either increase or decrease the amount of occupied KBB habitat in Michigan. Rather, management action will be conducted to help prevent the loss of occupied habitat on non-Federal land. Maintenance of existing populations is a critical component of the KBB conservation program in Michigan. It is also consistent with objectives of the Federal Recovery Plan, which outlines a strategy for “maintaining extant populations” and “improving and stabilizing populations where the butterfly is imperiled.” Nevertheless, other management actions may take place on non-federal lands in Michigan not occupied by KBB that result in an increase in occupied habitat. The ITP and HCP described herein also are intended to cover any occupied KBB habitat that may develop in the future.
The purpose of the draft EA is to evaluate and publicly disclose the possible environmental consequences issuance of an ITP and implementation of the draft HCP could have on the quality of the physical, biological, and human environment, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Prior to issuing the ITP, the Service is required to analyze alternatives considered in the development of the HCP. This analysis is contained in the draft EA, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for the Federal action of issuing an ITP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The draft EA considers two “action” alternatives and one “no action” alternative.
The area encompassed by the HCP may contain facilities eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places and other historical or archeological resources may be present. The National Historic Preservation Act and other laws require these properties and resources be identified and considered in project planning. The public is requested to inform the Service of concerns about archeological sites, buildings and structures, historic events, sacred and traditional areas, and other historic preservation concerns.
The public process for the proposed Federal action will be completed after the public comment period, at which time the Service will evaluate the permit application (if appropriate to the selected alternative), the HCP, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. If the requirements are met, the Service will issue an ITP to the Applicant for incidental take of KBB.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.
Proposed extension of an information collection (1028-0078).
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are notifying the public that we will submit to the Office of management and Budget (OMB) an information collection request (ICR) to renew approval of the paperwork requirements for the North American Amphibian Monitoring Program (NAAMP). This notice provides the public an opportunity to comment on the ICR.
Submit written comments by March 25, 2007.
You may submit comments to the Department of the Interior, USGS, via:
•
•
• Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior; USGS Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 807 National Center, Reston, VA 20192. Please reference Information Collection 1028-0078 in your comments.
Linda Weir at (301) 497-5932 or the USGS information collection clearance officer at the phone number listed below.
To comply with the public consultation process, we publish this
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Extension of Approved Information Collection, OMB Control Number 1004-0169.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plans to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend an existing approval to collect information from mining claimants concerning use and occupancy of mining claims on public lands. The nonform information under 43 CFR subpart 3715 authorizes the BLM to manage the use and occupancy of public lands for developing the mineral deposits by mining claimants.
You must submit your comments to the BLM at the address below on or before March 25, 2008. The BLM will not necessarily consider any comments received after the above date.
You may send comments to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Mail Stop 401LS, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20045, “ATTN: 1004-0169”.
You may send comments via the Internet to
All comments will be available for public review at the L Street address during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.) Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
You may contact Roger Haskins at 202-452-0355 (Commercial or FTS). Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) on 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message for Mr. Haskins.
5 CFR 1320.12(a) requires that we provide a 60-day notice in the
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of our estimates of the information collection burden,
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The General Mining Law (30 U.S.C. 612), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733), and the regulations is collected under 43 CFR 3715 authorize the BLM to manage use and occupancy of mining claims on public lands. The nonform information in the regulations is collected under 43 CFR part 3715, which authorizes the BLM to collect information concerning proposed mining development activities on public lands. Without this information, the BLM would not be able to analyze and approve mining claimants' proposed use and occupancy activities.
Mining claimants planning to occupy their mining claims on public lands under the mining laws must submit the following information to the BLM:
(1) A detailed map that identifies the site and shows the place of temporary and permanent structures for occupancy, the location of and reason for the structures intended to exclude the public, and the location of reasonable public passage or access routes through or around the area adjacent to public lands;
(2) A written description of the proposed occupancy that describes in detail how the proposed occupancy is reasonably incident to mining and how the proposed occupancy meets the conditions of 43 CFR 3715.2 and 3715.2-1; and
(3) An estimate of the period of use of the structures during which the public would be excluded, and a schedule for removing them and reclaiming the lands when the operations end.
Based upon the BLM's experience with mining claims use and occupancy activity, it estimates the public reporting information collection burden takes 2 hours to gather and complete. The respondents are mining claimants and operators of prospecting, exploration, mining, and processing operations. The estimated number of responses per year is 150 and the total annual burden is 300 hours. The BLM will summarize all responses to this notice and include them in the request OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of the Interior.
Notice of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Advisory Committee (GSENMAC) Meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and The Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Advisory Committee (GSENMAC) will meet as indicated below.
The GSENMAC will meet March 5 and 6, 2008.
The GSENMAC will meet at the Escalante Interagency Visitor Center, Conference Room, 755 W. Main Street, Escalante, UT.
Larry Crutchfield, Public Affairs Officer, GSENM Headquarters Office, 190 East Center, Kanab, Utah 84741; phone (435) 644-4310, or e-mail
The meeting on March 5 will begin at 8:30 a.m. and conclude at 6 p.m.; the meeting on March 6 will begin at 8:30 a.m. and conclude at 3:30 p.m.
The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Advisory Committee (GSENMAC) was first appointed by the Secretary of Interior on September 26, 2003, pursuant to the Monument Management Plan, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) and was subsequently reappointed June 2, 2006. As specified in the Monument Management Plan, the GSENMAC will have several primary tasks: (1) Review evaluation reports produced by the Management Science Team and make recommendations on protocols and projects to meet overall objectives. (2) Review appropriate research proposals and make recommendations on project necessity and validity. (3) Make recommendations regarding allocation of research funds through review of research and project proposals as well as needs identified through the evaluation process above. (4) Could be consulted on issues such as protocols for specific projects.
Topics to be presented and discussed by the GSENMAC include: Management updates to the GSENMAC, Ad Hoc Reports on Restoration and Information management, and discussion of science planning.
Members of the public are welcome to address the committee beginning at 5 p.m. local time on March 5, 2008, in Escalante, Utah, at the Interagency Visitor Center. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, a time limit could be established. Interested persons may make oral statements to the GSENMAC during this time or written statements may be submitted for the GSENMAC's consideration. Written statements can be sent to: Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Attn.: Larry Crutchfield, 190 E. Center Street, Kanab, UT 84741. Information to be distributed to the GSENMAC is requested 10 days prior to the start of the GSENMAC meeting.
All meetings are open to the public; however, transportation, lodging, and meals are the responsibility of the participating public.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below.
The meeting dates are March 5-7, 2008, at the Las Cruces District Office,
The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in New Mexico. All meetings are open to the public. At this meeting, topics include issues on renewable and nonrenewable resources.
Theresa Herrera, New Mexico State Office, Office of External Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-0115, 505.438.7517.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Announcement of meeting.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces that the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board will conduct a meeting on matters pertaining to management and protection of wild, free-roaming horses and burros on the Nation's public lands.
The Advisory Board will meet Monday February 25, 2008, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., local time. This will be a one day meeting.
The Advisory Board will meet in Tucson, Arizona, at the Radisson Suites Tucson, 6555 E. Speedway Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85710. The Radisson's phone number is (520) 721-7100.
Written comments pertaining to the Advisory Board meeting should be sent to: Bureau of Land Management, National Wild Horse and Burro Program, WO-260, Attention: Ramona DeLorme, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Reno, Nevada, 89502-7147. Submit written comments pertaining to the Advisory Board meeting no later than close of business, February 15, 2008. See the
Ramona DeLorme, Wild Horse and Burro Administrative Assistant, at 775-861-6582. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may reach Ms. DeLorme at any time by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
Under the authority of 43 CFR part 1784, the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board advises the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the BLM, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Chief of the Forest Service, on matters pertaining to management and protection of wild, free-roaming horses and burros on the Nation's public lands. The tentative agenda for the meeting is:
The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. An individual with a disability needing an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting, such as an interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format, must notify the person listed under
The Federal Advisory Committee Management Regulations [41 CFR 101-6.1015(b),] require BLM to publish in the
Members of the public may make oral statements to the Advisory Board on February 25, 2008, at the appropriate point of the agenda. This opportunity is anticipated to occur at 3 p.m., local time. Persons wishing to make statements should register with the BLM by noon on February 25, 2008, at the meeting location. Depending on the number of speakers, the Advisory Board may limit the length of presentations. At previous meetings, presentations have been limited to three minutes in length. Speakers should address the specific wild horses and burro-related topics listed on the agenda. Speakers must submit a written copy of their statement to the address listed in the
Participation in the Advisory Board meeting is not a prerequisite for submission of written comments. The BLM invites written comments from all interested parties. Your written comments should be specific and explain the reason for any recommendation. The BLM appreciates any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on management and protection of wild horses and burros are those that are either supported by quantitative information or studies or those that include citations to and analysis of applicable laws and regulations. Except for comments provided in electronic format, speakers should submit two copies of their written comments where feasible. The BLM will not necessarily consider comments received after the time indicated under the
In the event there is a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for a copy of your comments, the BLM will make them available in their entirety, including your name and address. However, if you do not want the BLM to release your name and address in response to a FOIA request, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. The BLM will honor your request to the extent allowed by law. The BLM will release all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
Speakers may transmit comments electronically via the Internet to:
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
Notice of realty action.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to sell 40 acres of public lands near Wamsutter, Wyoming, Sweetwater County, to the Town of Wamsutter for current and future affordable housing purposes. These lands consist of one parcel totaling 40.00 acres more or less, which has been identified for disposal in the Great Divide Resource Management Plan, dated November 9, 1990. The sale will be conducted using modified competitive bidding procedures in accordance with and under the applicable provisions of sections 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1713), its implementing regulations, and in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-2, BLM land sale regulations at 43 CFR Part 2710 and the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000, Public Law 106-248, July 25, 2000.
Comments regarding the proposed sale must be received by the BLM on or before March 10, 2008. Sealed bids must be received by March 25, 2008.
Comments regarding the proposed sale, including the environmental assessment (EA), should be addressed to: Field Manager, Rawlins Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1300 N. Third Street, Rawlins, Wyoming 82301. More detailed information regarding the proposed sale and the land involved may be viewed during normal business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the Rawlins Field Office (RFO).
Chuck Valentine at (307) 328-4307 or by e-mail at
The Town of Wamsutter, Wyoming (Wamsutter), has proposed 40.00 acres be sold for the purpose of providing affordable housing for current and future residents. Suitable housing is extremely limited in Wamsutter, where a population growth has been spurred on by nearby oil and gas development. It is extremely important to Wamsutter's economic development to provide land for affordable housing. Wamsutter is an adjacent landowner and has legal access to the proposed disposal parcel. Other lands located within the municipal boundaries of Wamsutter are not suitable for housing due to topography, existing utilities and/or non-compatible adjacent uses. Wamsutter is willing to purchase the parcel at not less than fair market value, subject to modified competitive bidding procedures. Wamsutter is concerned that open bidding, without allowing them the right to meet the highest bid, would preclude the opportunity to develop the adjacent property for affordable housing. On consideration of the factors described above, which include the ownership or control of the adjacent lands and the absence of identified needs for the parcel other than those proposed by Wamsutter, the authorized officer has determined that the request by Wamsutter meets the criteria in 43 CFR 2711.3-2 and that a modified competitive sale best serves the public interest. The authorized officer has determined that the method of sale will be to offer to the designated bidder the right to meet the highest bid in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-2(a)(1)(i), and CFR 2711.3-2(a)(2) as described above. This notice designates Wamsutter as the one bidder with the right to meet the highest bid.
(1) Modified competitive bidding includes, but is not limited to:
(i) Offering to designated bidders the right to meet the highest bid. Refusal or failure to meet the highest bid shall constitute a waiver of such bidding provisions; or
(ii) A limitation of persons permitted to bid on a specific tract of land offered for sale; or
(iii) Offering to designated bidders the right of first refusal to purchase the lands at fair market value. Failure to accept an offer to purchase the offered lands within the time specified by the authorized officer shall constitute a waiver of this preference consideration.
(2) Factors that shall be considered in determining when modified competitive bidding procedures shall be used, include but are not limited to: “Needs of State and/or local government, adjoining landowners, historical users, and other needs for the tract * * *.”
The proposed sale is consistent with the BLM Great Divide Resource Management Plan dated November 9, 1990, and would serve important public objectives which cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly elsewhere. The land contains no other known public values. Maps, the approved appraisal report, and the environmental assessment covering the proposed sale are available for review at the BLM, Rawlins Field Office, Rawlins, Wyoming (RFO).
Sealed bids must be received by the RFO at the address listed above, not later than 60 days after publication of this notice in the
Sealed bids must be contained in an envelope marked “Sealed Bid for Parcel WYW-160261.” All bidders must submit, with their sealed bid, a certified check, postal money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable to the Bureau of Land Management in an amount not less than 20% of the appraised fair market value (FMV), which has been determined to be $120,000.00 for WYW-160261. If two or more envelopes containing valid bids of the same amount are received, the determination of which is to be considered the highest bid shall be through submission of supplemental sealed bids. Bids will be opened at the RFO at the address listed above within 70 days from the publication of this Notice.
The land described contains 40.00 acres, more or less, in Sweetwater County.
1. Based upon receipt of valid bids, BLM will offer Wamsutter the right to meet the highest bid and purchase the lands at an amount equal to the highest bid price, which must be not less than the fair market value as determined by the Secretary. If Wamsutter declines this offer, the bidder with the highest sealed bid price will be declared the high bidder. Upon acceptance by BLM of the offer to purchase, the declared high bidder must remit prior to expiration of 180 days from the land sale offer date, the balance of the accepted full bid price to BLM in the form of a certified check, money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable to the order of the Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins Field Office, 1300 N. Third Street, Rawlins, Wyoming 82301. Personal checks will not be accepted. Failure to pay the full price within the 180 days will disqualify the apparent high bidder and cause the entire 20% deposit to be forfeited to the BLM.
2. Maps delineating the individual proposed sale parcel are available for public review at the BLM RFO along with the appraisal and the environmental assessment.
3. The BLM may accept or reject any or all offers, or withdraw the parcel of land or interest therein from sale, if, in the opinion of the authorized officer, consummation of the sale would not be fully consistent with FLPMA or other applicable laws or would not be in the public interest. If not sold, the parcel may be identified for sale at a later date without further legal notice.
4. Federal law requires bidders to be U.S. citizens 18 years of age or older; a corporation subject to the laws of any State or of the United States; a State, State instrumentality, or political subdivision authorized to hold property, or an entity including, but not limited to, associations or partnerships capable of holding property or interest therein under the laws of the State of Wyoming. Certification of qualification, whether of citizenship or corporate or partnership status, must accompany the bid deposit.
5. The patent, when issued, will contain a reservation to the United States for:
a. A right-of-way is reserved for ditches and canals constructed by authority of the United States under the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945); and
b. All the minerals in the lands so patented pursuant to section 209 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1719, including, without limitation, substances subject to disposition under the general mining laws, the general mineral leasing laws, the Materials Act and the Geothermal Steam Act, and to it, or persons authorized by it, the right to prospect for, mine and remove the minerals from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe. This includes all necessary and incidental activities conducted in accordance with the provisions of the mining, geothermal, mineral leasing, and material disposal laws in effect at the time such activities are undertaken, including without limitation, necessary access and exit rights, all drilling, underground, open pit or surface mining operations, storage and transportation facilities deemed necessary and authorized under law and implementing regulations.
c. Those rights for mineral material site purposes granted to Wyoming Department of Transportation, its successors or assigns by Right-of-Way Serial No. WYW-109146, under the Interstate and Defense Highways Act and the Federal-Aid Highway Act (23 U.S.C. 317(A), (072 Stat. 0916)).
6. The patent, when issued, will be made subject to the following existing rights of record:
a. Those rights for road purposes granted to Wyoming Department of Transportation, its successors or assigns by Right-of-Way Serial No. WYW-0116729 and WYW-030313, under the Act of November 9, 1921 (43 Stat. 212);
b. Those rights for electric power purposes granted to Pacific Power & Light, its successors or assigns by Right-of-Way Serial No. WYW-136474 and WYW-81342, Under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1761-1771;
c. Those rights for electric power purposes granted to Pacific Power & Light, its successors or assigns by Right-of-Way Serial No. W-0131538, under the Act of March 4, 1911 (36 Stat. 1253);
d. Those rights for telephone and telegraph purposes granted to Colorado Interstate Gas, its successors or assigns by Right-of-Way Serial No. WYW-62912, under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1761-1771;
e. Those rights for road purposes granted to BP America Production Company, its successors or assigns by Right-of-Way Serial No. WYW-143762, under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1761-1771;
f. Those rights for road purposes granted to the Town of Wamsutter, Wyoming, its successors or assigns by Right-of-Way Serial No. WYW-76278, under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1761-1771; and
g. Applications received prior to publication of this Notice if processing the application would have no adverse effect on the federally approved Fair Market Value (FMV).
Upon publication of this notice in the
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action in whole or in part. In the absence of any timely filed objections, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.
The land will not be offered for sale prior to March 25, 2008.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease.
Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease COC65790 from IPR Lay Creek, LLC for lands in Moffat County, Colorado. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.
Bureau of Land Management, Milada Krasilinec, Land Law Examiner, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at 303.239.3767.
The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 21, 2007, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea. Letters supplementing the complaint were filed on December 28, 2007 and January 15, 2008. The complaint as supplemented alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain liquid crystal display devices and products containing the same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,193,666, 6,771,344, 7,295,196, and 6,937,311. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
Mareesa A. Frederick, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2007).
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain liquid crystal display devices and products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, 8, 15-17, 19-21, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 7,193,666; claims 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,344; claims 1-9, 11-14, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,196; and claims 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,937,311, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is—Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 416 Maetan-dong, Youngtong-gu, Suwon, Kyunggi-Do, Korea 443-742.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is Mareesa A. Frederick, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Paul J. Luckern is designated as the presiding administrative law judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in
Failure of the respondents to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondents, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or cease and desist order or both directed against the respondents.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution of antidumping investigation and scheduling of a preliminary phase investigation.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of an investigation and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping investigation No. 731-TA-1143 (Preliminary) under section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from China of small diameter graphite electrodes, provided for in subheading 8545.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation pursuant to section 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping investigations in 45 days, or in this case by March 3, 2008. The Commission's views are due at Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by March 10, 2008.
For further information concerning the conduct of this investigation and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
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 (
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that on January 11, 2008, a proposed Consent Decree in the case of
In this proceeding, the United States filed a claim pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607, for reimbursement of costs incurred in connection with response actions taken at the Butler Mine Tunnel Superfund Site, in Pittston Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the settling Defendant agrees to pay $1,830,120 in reimbursement of costs previously incurred by the United States.
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The Consent Decree may be examined at U.S. EPA Region III, Office of Regional Counsel, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, c/o Jefferie Garcia, Esq. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined at the following Department of Justice Web site:
Notice is hereby given that on January 8, 2008, a proposed Consent Decree in
On November 10, 2004, the United States, on behalf of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), filed a Complaint under Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), against Ashland Inc. (Ashland) seeking recovery of $23,145,119.00 in past costs, plus all future costs incurred by the Army Corps of Engineers in responding to the release or threat of release of hazardous substances at the Ashland 2 Site in Tonawanda, New York. Ashland has placed $2.75 million into an escrow account; the Consent Decree provides that Ashland will transfer the principal amount of $2.75 million plus any interest accrued from August 22, 2007 to the United States. In exchange, the United States has given Ashland a covenant not to sue, with restrictions, for the Ashland 1, 2, Rattlesnake Creek, and Seaway Sites under Sections 106, 107(a), and 113(f). of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606, 9607(a), and 9613(f).
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Western District of New York, 138 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202 and at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, NY 14207. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Notice is hereby given that on January 11, 2008, a proposed Consent Decree in the case of
In this proceeding, the United States filed a claim pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The Consent Decree may be examined at U.S. EPA Region III, Office of Regional Counsel, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, c/o Gail Wilson, Esq. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined at the following Department of Justice Web site:
Notice is hereby given that on January 11, 2008, a proposed Consent Decree in
This settlement relates to Operable Unit 2 of the RSR Corporation Superfund Site located in the western part of the City of Dallas, Dallas County, Texas (“the Site”).
The proposed Consent Decree settles an action brought under section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622, seeking,
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either e-mailed to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Northern District of Texas, 1100 Commerce Street, Suite 300, Dallas, Texas 75242-1699, and at U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Notice is hereby given that on January 14, 2008, a proposed Consent Decree, in
Under the Consent Decree, S.H. Bell shall: (1) Pay a civil penalty of $50,000; (2) comply with all applicable emissions limitations and testing requirements in its existing source operating permits and any amendments; (3) cooperate with Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (``Ohio EPA'') and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (``Pennsylvania DEP'') officials in the processing of S.H. Bell's filed applications for appropriate source
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and either emailed to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at: (1) The Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, 801 West Superior Avenue, Suite 400, Cleveland, OH, 44113 (216-622-3600); and (2) the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5), 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507 (contact: John C. Matson (312-886-2243).
During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may also be examined on the following U.S. Department of Justice Web site,
In accordance with 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on January 15, 2008, a proposed consent decree in
The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the proposed consent decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and may be submitted electronic mail to the following address:
The consent decree may be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
On June 8, 2007, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Nasim F. Khan, M.D. (Respondent), of Houston, Texas. The Show Cause Order proposed the denial of Respondent's pending application for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a practitioner on two grounds: (1) That she lacked authority under state law to handle controlled substances, and (2) that her “registration would be inconsistent with the public interest.” Show Cause Order at 1;
The Show Cause Order specifically alleged that “[o]n June 26, 2006, [Respondent's] Texas Controlled Substance Registration was terminated,” and that she was therefore “not currently authorized by the State of Texas to prescribe, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances.” Show Cause Order at 1. The Show Cause Order further alleged that Respondent had committed acts inconsistent with the public interest because she had “allowed [her] DEA registration to be used to dispense controlled substances for other than legitimate medical purposes” and had “engage[ed] in self-prescribing of controlled substances, in violation of the Texas Controlled Substances Act.”
On June 15, 2007, the Show Cause Order, which also notified Respondent of her right to request a hearing on the allegations, was served on Respondent by Federal Express delivered to her residence. Because: (1) More than thirty days have passed since service of the Show Cause Order, and (2) neither Respondent, nor anyone purporting to represent her, has requested a hearing, I conclude that Respondent has waived her right to a hearing.
Respondent is a physician with a specialty in psychiatry and pathology. Respondent previously held a DEA Certificate of Registration as a practitioner at the registered location of Houston Medical Clinic, 10881 Richmond Ave., Apt. 412, Houston, Texas. In July 2004, DEA Diversion Investigators with the Houston Field Division received information that Respondent was prescribing promethazine with codeine cough syrup, a schedule V controlled substance,
In August 2005, DEA Diversion Investigators (DIs) received information that two unlicensed individuals (F.K. and V.V.), who worked at the Main Medical Clinic (which was located in Jacinto City, Texas), were using Respondent's DEA registration to issue controlled-substance prescriptions for drugs which included Lorcet 10/650 (a branded drug combining hydrocodone and acetaminophen and a schedule III controlled substance,
The DIs subsequently went to the clinic and interviewed several people. While the DIs were told that Respondent had terminated her employment at the clinic, they also obtained a stack of prescription carbons. The copies indicated the patient's name, the name of a controlled substance, and Respondent's DEA number. During other interviews, the DIs determined that Respondent had seen only one or two “patients” each day, and that most of the clinic's “patients” were seen by other people including several foreign graduate students who were not licensed in any field of medical practice. The DIs also confirmed that V.V. had sold a stack of prescriptions, which bore a signature similar to Respondent's, for a large amount of cash.
Thereafter, on August 11, 2005, the DIs interviewed Respondent at the location of a clinic (named the “45 Clinic”) which she was opening in Houston and for which she needed to change the address of her registered location.
In the course of the investigation, the DIs had previously determined that Respondent had obtained controlled substances based on 117 prescriptions issued to her under her DEA number. During the interview, Respondent denied that she had self-prescribed and claimed that her son was also a physician and had prescribed the controlled substances for her. Subsequently, the DIs searched the Texas Medical Board's website and found that there was no listing for her son.
The DIs had also previously determined that between January 1, 2004, and August 11, 2005, Respondent had obtained approximately 474 twenty-five ml. bottles of schedule V cough medicines. When asked as to why she had ordered the drugs, Respondent maintained that they were small containers of cough syrup which she used when she was unable to sleep.
While at Respondent's new clinic, the DIs interviewed V.V., the same individual who had been implicated in selling controlled-substance prescriptions at Respondent's former employer. V.V. told the investigators that she had first met Respondent on that very day (when she had purportedly interviewed for a position at the clinic) and that her duties at Respondent's clinic would include scheduling appointments, taking vital signs, and other duties performed by receptionists.
Thereafter, on August 30, 2005, a registration technician changed Respondent's registered location to the address of her new clinic. Approximately three weeks later, on September 19, 2005, Respondent notified a DI that V.V. was using her DEA number to write unauthorized prescriptions for unknown individuals.
Later that day, two DIs interviewed Respondent at her residence. Respondent told the DIs that she had terminated her employment at the Main Medical Clinic because she suspected that its owner was involved in illegal activities. Respondent stated that she had contacted DEA because she had received information that the Corpus Christi, Texas Police Department was looking for her regarding prescriptions she had written. Respondent further stated that during the previous week, she had gone to her new clinic and attempted to retrieve her prescriptions but was told that the pads belonged to the clinic. Respondent added that she had become concerned that someone was using her DEA number to issue prescriptions without her consent. Because of the unauthorized use of her number, Respondent then agreed to voluntarily surrender her DEA registration. She also surrendered her state controlled-substances registration.
On September 30, 2005, Respondent applied for a new registration using the address of the 45 Clinic for her proposed registered location. Several days later, two DIs went to Respondent's residence and attempted to interview her. Upon opening the door, Respondent started screaming at the DIs and stated that they should contact her attorney. When one of the DIs asked Respondent for her attorney's phone number, Respondent stated that she would get the number and slammed the door. Several minutes later, Respondent opened the door, threw a piece of paper at the DI, and stated in a loud voice that “the White House knew who her father was and that she was his daughter.” After the DIs told Respondent that they were there to speak to her about her application, Respondent stated that “there would be no trick or treating here today.” One of the DIs again asked Respondent whether she had applied for a new registration. Respondent answered “yes” and again slammed the door shut.
Thereafter, a local pharmacist notified DEA investigators that on October 3 and 4, he had received two prescriptions which were written under Respondent's DEA number. The pharmacist told the DIs that when he had attempted to verify one the prescriptions, Respondent did not return the call. Respondent, in a subsequent interview, denied issuing the prescriptions.
On January 5, 2006, a detective with the Garland, Texas Police Department notified one of the DIs that numerous prescriptions written under Respondent's former DEA registration had been presented at a local pharmacy. The prescriptions bore the name and address of the Main Medical Clinic, Respondent's former employer.
Thereafter, on March 28, 2006, an official of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) notified a DI that the State intended to terminate Respondent's state controlled-substances registration. The state official further told the DI that Respondent's application had been erroneously granted because at the time the application was approved, the State was upgrading its computer system and was unable to access her history.
Subsequently, on June 26, 2006, DPS terminated Respondent's state controlled-substances registration on the ground that she was prohibited under the State's rules for re-applying for a period of one year following her surrendering of her state registration. I further find that the State has not re-instated her controlled-substances registration.
I also find that on August 24, 2007, Respondent entered into an Agreed Order with the Texas Medical Board. Under the order, Respondent voluntarily and permanently surrendered her medical license. According to the Texas Medical Board's website, “[t]he action was based on [Respondent's] failure to meet the standard of care due [to] her non-therapeutic prescription of controlled substances to four patients and to herself.”
Section 303(f) of the Controlled Substances Act provides that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners * * * to dispense * * * controlled substances in schedule II, III, IV, or V, if the applicant is authorized to dispense * * * controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Section 303(f) further provides that “[t]he Attorney General may deny an application for such registration if he determines that the issuance of such registration would be inconsistent with the public interest.”
(1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
(2) The applicant's experience in dispensing * * * controlled substances.
(3) The applicant's conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.
(4) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
(5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.
“[T]hese factors are * * * considered in the disjunctive.”
In this case, I conclude that there are two independent grounds for denying Respondent's application. First, Respondent is not currently authorized under Texas law to handle controlled substances and thus does not meet an essential requirement for a registration under the CSA. Second, while it appears that Respondent will not be returning to medical practice anytime soon, her experience in dispensing controlled substances and her record of compliance with applicable laws make clear that granting her a registration “would be inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f).
Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a practitioner must be currently authorized to handle controlled substances in “the jurisdiction in which [she] practices” in order to maintain a DEA registration.
Here, the investigative file establishes that Respondent's Texas controlled-substances registration was terminated on June 26, 2006. Moreover, there is no evidence that the State has issued a new controlled substance registration to her, and the Agreed Order which Respondent entered into with the Texas Medical Board suggests that the State will not grant her a new controlled-substances registration any time soon. Because Respondent is without authority to handle controlled substances in Texas, the State in which she seeks a DEA registration, she does not meet an essential prerequisite for a new DEA registration. Accordingly, her application is denied on that basis.
I further note that even if Respondent possessed a state registration, the record would still support the denial of her application on the ground that her registration would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). As the State found, Respondent has engaged in the non-therapeutic prescription of controlled substances both to herself and others.
With respect to her self-prescribing, the record establishes that Respondent issued to herself 117 prescriptions for narcotic-cough syrups, which are schedule V controlled substances. The record further establishes that Respondent's statements to investigators that the prescriptions were issued to her by her son, and that her son was a physician, were false.
Moreover, there is also substantial and disturbing evidence that Respondent failed to exercise proper control over her prescriptions pads and allowed unlicensed and un-registered individuals at the Main Medical Clinic to write prescriptions under her DEA registration. This conduct violates federal law and regulations, which require that a prescription be “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of [her] professional practice,” 21 CFR 1306.04(a), and that each person writing a prescription be “[a]uthorized to prescribe controlled substances by the jurisdiction in which he is licensed to practice his profession and * * * [e]ither registered or exempted from registration.”
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that the application of Nasim F. Khan, M.D., for
The Department of Labor (DOL) hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection requests (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 each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including among other things a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Bridget Dooling, OMB Desk Officer for the Employment Standards Administration (ESA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316/Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not toll-free numbers), E-mail:
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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by (TA-W) number issued during the period of January 7 through January 11, 2008.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States;
2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) Either—
(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) A loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met.
1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older.
2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable.
3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified.
The Department has determined that criterion (1) of Section 246 has not been met. The firm does not have a significant number of workers 50 years of age or older.
The Department has determined that criterion (2) of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable.
The Department has determined that criterion (3) of Section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met.
The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The investigation revealed that criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been met. The workers' firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier to or a downstream producer for a firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for TAA.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of January 7 through January 11, 2008. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on November 29, 2007, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Dielink International, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
The worker group is covered by an active certification (TA-W-62,043, as amended), which expires September 17, 2009. Consequently, further investigation would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on December 3, 2007, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Development, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
The worker group is covered by an active certification (TA-W-62,043, as amended), which expires September 17, 2009. Consequently, further investigation would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on December 4, 2007, applicable to workers of 3M, Electronic Solutions Division, including on-site leased workers of Volt and Manpower, Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The notice was published in the
At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of organic interconnect substrates for electronic components.
New information shows that leased workers of Aramark, ISS Facility Services, Smith Micro Technologies, Per-Mar Security, B&B Electric, and Market and Johnson were employed on-site at the Eau Claire, Wisconsin location of 3M, Electronic Solutions Division. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of 3M, Electronic Solutions Division to be considered leased workers.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include leased workers of Aramark, ISS Facility Services, Smith Micro Technologies, Per-Mar Security, B&B Electric, and Market and Johnson working on-site at the Eau Claire, Wisconsin location of the subject firm.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at 3M, Electronic Solutions Division, Eau Claire, Wisconsin who were adversely-impacted by increased customer imports of organic interconnect substrates for electronic components.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-62,381 is hereby issued as follows:
“All workers of 3M Eau Claire, Electronic Solutions Division, including on-site leased workers of Volt, Manpower, Aramark, ISS Facility Services, Smith Micro Technologies, Per-Mar Security, B&B Electric, and Market and Johnson, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 30, 2006, through December 4, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.”
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 4, 2008.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 4, 2008.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on December 3, 2007 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Magna Donnelly Engineered Glass, Holland, Michigan.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
By application dated November 29, 2007, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (the Union) requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of Ravenswood Specialty Services, Inc., Ravenswood, West Virginia (subject firm) to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The negative determination was issued on October 18, 2007. The Department's Notice of determination was published in the
The petition was denied because the subject firm did not shift production to a foreign country, the subject firm did not import nylon polymer or Minlon, and the subject firm's major declining customer did not import nylon polymer or Minlon during the relevant period.
In the request for reconsideration, the Union stated that “the workers' separations are due to foreign imports and a shift of production to a foreign country. We are in the process of gathering further information to help support this position and will forward it to your office as soon as possible.”
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), administrative reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2) if it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3) if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
The Union did not supply facts not previously considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or (2) a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that
In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on September 17, 2007, applicable to workers of Synergis Technologies Group Corporation, including on-site leased workers from Forge Industrial Staffing, and All Performance Staffing, Grand Rapids, Michigan. The notice was published in the
At the request of petitioners, a company official and a state agency representative, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of metal stamping dies.
New information provided by the company shows that the worker group includes those employees of Synergis Technologies Group Corporation divisions known as Dielink International and Dievelopment. These two divisions are located at different street addresses in Grand Rapids, but are engaged in employment related to the production of metal stamping dies. Furthermore, the Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage account for these divisions is reported under Synergis Technologies Group Corporation. The company official also confirms that the worker group includes on-site leased workers from Aerotech. The Department has determined that the Aerotech workers were sufficiently under the control of Synergis Technologies Group Corporations.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers of Dielink International, Dievelopment, and workers from Aerotek working on-site at the Grand Rapids, Michigan locations of the subject firm.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at Synergis Technologies Group Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan who were adversely-impacted by a shift in production of metal stamping dies to China.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-62,043 is hereby issued as follows:
“All workers of Synergis Technologies Group Corporation, Dietech International and Dievelopment, Grand Rapids, Michigan, including on-site leased workers from Forge Industrial Staffing, All Performance Staffing and Aerotek, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 24, 2006, through September 17, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.”
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on December 31, 2007 in response to a petition filed by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers-Woodworkers, Local W-536 on behalf of workers at Weyerhaeuser Longview Lumber, Longview, Washington.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice of petitions for modification of existing mandatory safety standards.
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and 30 CFR Part 44 govern the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for modification. This notice is a summary of petitions for modification filed by the parties listed below to modify the application of existing mandatory safety standards published in Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
All comments on the petitions must be received by the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances on or before February 25, 2008.
You may submit your comments, identified by “docket number” on the subject line, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
We will consider only comments postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or proof of delivery from another delivery service such as UPS or Federal Express on or before the deadline for comments. Individuals who submit comments by hand-delivery are required to check in at the receptionist desk on the 21st floor.
Individuals may inspect copies of the petitions and comments during normal business hours at the address listed above.
Edward Sexauer, Chief, Regulatory Development Division at 202-693-9444 (Voice),
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) allows the mine operator or representative of miners to file a petition to modify the application of any mandatory safety standard to a coal or other mine if the Secretary determines that: (1) An alternative method of achieving the result of such standard exists which will at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection afforded the miners of such mine by such standard; or (2) that the application of such standard to such mine will result in a diminution of safety to the miners in such mine. In addition, the regulations at 30 CFR 44.10 and 44.11 establish the requirements and procedures for filing petitions for modifications.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Dr. Walter Kit, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Dr. Walter Kit, NASA PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., JE0000, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1350,
Contractors performing research and development are required by statutes, NASA implementing regulations, and OMB policy to submit reports of inventions, patents, data, and copyrights, including the utilization and disposition of same. The NASA New Technology Summary Report reporting form is being used for this purpose.
NASA FAR Supplement clauses for patent rights and new technology encourage the contractor to use an electronic form and provide a hyperlink to the electronic New Technology Reporting Web (eNTRe) site
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
All comments should be addressed to Dr. Walter Kit, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Dr. Walter Kit, NASA PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., JE0000, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1350,
Grantees and cooperative agreement partners are required to submit new technology reports indicating new inventions and patents.
Grant recipients are encouraged to use information technology to prepare patent reports through a hyperlink to the electronic New Technology Reporting Web (eNTRe) site
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announce a forthcoming meeting of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel.
Wednesday, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
100 Spaceport Way, Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 (Florida Space Authority).
Ms. Kathy Dakon, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Executive Director, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0732.
The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel will hold its 1st Quarterly Meeting for 2008. This discussion is pursuant to carrying out its statutory duties for which the Panel reviews, identifies, evaluates, and advises on those program activities, systems, procedures, and management activities that can contribute to program risk. Priority is given to those programs that involve the safety of human flight.
The agenda will include Safety Organization and Management, Human Capital, and Constellation Program Safety.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. Seating will be on a first-come basis. Please contact Ms. Susan Burch on (202) 358-0550 at least 48 hours in advance to reserve a seat. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitor's register.
Photographs will only be permitted during the first 10 minutes of the meeting. During the first 30 minutes of the meeting, members of the public may make a 5-minute verbal presentation to the Panel on the subject of safety in NASA. To do so, please contact Ms. Susan Burch on (202) 358-0914 at least 48 hours in advance. Any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the Panel at the time of the meeting. Verbal presentations and written comments should be limited to the subject of safety in NASA.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, Commission) has published a final site-specific supplement to the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS),” NUREG-1437, regarding the renewal of operating license DPR-59 for an additional 20 years of operation for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP). JAFNPP is located on Lake Ontario in Oswego County, approximately seven miles northeast of the City of Oswego, New York. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources.
As discussed in Section 9.3 of the final Supplement 31, based on: (1) The analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the Environmental Report submitted by Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the NRC staff's own independent review; and (5) the NRC staff's consideration of public comments, the recommendation of the staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for JAFNPP are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision makers would be unreasonable.
The final Supplement 31 to the GEIS is publicly available at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, or from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS).
The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of license application, and opportunity to request a hearing.
A request for a hearing must be filed by March 25, 2008.
Paul Michalak, Hydrogeologist, Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-7612; fax number: (301) 415-5955; e-mail:
By letter dated October 2, 2007, Energy Metals Corporation—US (EMC), submitted a Source Materials License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the Moore Ranch Uranium Project in Campbell County, Wyoming. The Moore Ranch Uranium Project would involve the recovery of uranium by in situ leach (ISL) extraction techniques.
An NRC administrative review, documented in a letter to EMC dated December 20, 2007, found the application acceptable to begin a technical review (Adams Accession No. ML073511649). Before approving the license application, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC's regulations.
These findings will be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and a site-specific environmental review consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 51.
The NRC hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an application for a source materials license regarding EMC's proposal to construct and operate the Moore Ranch Uranium Project ISL uranium extraction facility in Campbell County, Wyoming. Any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding, and who desires to participate as a party, must file a request for a hearing and a specification of the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing, in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 2007, 72 FR 49139 (Aug. 28, 2007). The E-Filing rule requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requester must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at
Once a petitioner/requester has obtained a digital ID certificate, has a docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at
A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC Web site at
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this
Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be admitted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
The formal requirements for documents contained in 10 CFR 2.304(c)-(e) must be met. If the NRC grants an electronic document exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g)(3), then the requirements for paper documents, set forth in 10 CFR 2.304(b) must be met.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b), a request for a hearing must be filed by March 25, 2008.
In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR 2.309, a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant must state:
1. The name, address, and telephone number of the requester;
2. The nature of the requester's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
3. The nature and extent of the requester's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;
4. The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requester's interest; and
5. The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b).
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1), a request for hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the contentions sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or petition must:
1. Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted;
2. Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention;
3. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding;
4. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding;
5. Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requester's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the requester/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue; and
6. Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application (including the applicant's environmental report and technical report) that the requester/petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the requester/petitioner believes the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the requester's/petitioner's belief.
In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(2), contentions must be based on documents or other information available at the time the petition is to be filed, such as the application, supporting technical (i.e., safety analysis) report, environmental report or other supporting document filed by an applicant or licensee, or otherwise available to the petitioner. On issues arising under the National Environmental Policy Act, the requester/petitioner shall file contentions based on the applicant's environmental report. The requester/petitioner may amend those contentions or file new contentions if there are data or conclusions in the NRC draft, or final environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or any supplements relating thereto, that differ significantly from the data or conclusions in the applicant's documents. Otherwise, contentions may be amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the presiding officer.
Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the following groups:
1. Technical—primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Technical Report for the proposed action.
2. Environmental—primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Environmental Report for the proposed action.
3. Emergency Planning—primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Emergency Plan as it relates to the proposed action.
4. Physical Security—primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Physical Security Plan as it relates to the proposed action.
5. Miscellaneous—does not fall into one of the categories outlined above.
If the requester/petitioner believes a contention raises issues that cannot be classified as primarily falling into one of these categories, the requester/petitioner must set forth the contention and supporting bases, in full, separately for each category into which the requester/petitioner asserts the contention belongs with a separate designation for that category.
Requesters/petitioners should, when possible, consult with each other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the co-sponsoring requesters/petitioners is designated the lead representative. Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(3), any requester/petitioner that wishes to adopt a contention proposed by another requester/petitioner must do so, in accordance with the E-Filing rule, within ten (10) days of the date the contention is filed, and designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the requester/petitioner.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(g), a request for hearing and/or petition for leave to intervene may also address the selection of the hearing procedures, taking into account the provisions of 10 CFR 2.310.
Documents related to this action, including the October 2, 2007 license application and its supporting documentation (i.e., Technical Report and Environmental Report), are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of Issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued Generic Letter (GL) 2008-01 all holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, except those who have permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel. The NRC is issuing this GL to address the issue of gas
(1) To request addressees to submit information to demonstrate that the subject systems are in compliance with the current licensing and design bases and applicable regulatory requirements, and that suitable design, operational, and testing control measures are in place for maintaining this compliance, and
(2) To collect the requested information to determine if additional regulatory action is required.
This
The GL was issued on January 11, 2008.
Not applicable.
Warren Lyon at 301-415-2897 or by e-mail
NRC Generic Letter 2008-01 may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if you have problems in accessing the documents in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice.
This gives notice of OPM decisions granting authority to make appointments under Schedules A, B, and C in the excepted service as required by 5 CFR 6.6 and 213.103.
C. Penn, Group Manager, Executive Resources Services Group, Center for Human Resources, Division for Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability, 202-606-2246.
Appearing in the listing below are the individual authorities established under Schedules A, B, and C between December 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007. Future notices will be published on the fourth Tuesday of each month, or as soon as possible thereafter. A consolidated listing of all authorities as of June 30 is published each year.
No Schedule A appointments were approved for December 2007.
No Schedule B appointments were approved for December 2007.
The following Schedule C appointments were approved during December 2007.
BOGS80002 Confidential Assistant to the Associate Director for Natural Resource Programs. Effective December 11, 2007.
QQGS80002 Special Assistant to the Director to the Chief of Staff. Effective December 04, 2007.
DSGS61103 Staff Assistant to the Under Secretary for Arms Control and Security Affairs. Effective December 4, 2007.
DSGS61270 Public Affairs Specialist to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective December 21, 2007.
DYGS00230 Public Affairs Specialist to the Director, Public Affairs. Effective December 27, 2007.
DYGS00501 Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Domestic Finance. Effective December 27, 2007.
DYGS00502 Senior Policy Advisor to the Under Secretary for Domestic Finance. Effective December 27, 2007.
DDGS17120 Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs). Effective December 07, 2007.
DDGS17124 Special Events Coordinator to the Assistant Secretary of Defense Public Affairs. Effective December 14, 2007.
DDGS17121 Staff Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Middle East). Effective December 18, 2007.
DDGS17127 Special Assistant to the Deputy General Counsel Legal Counsel. Effective December 19, 2007.
DWGS60086 Special Assistant to the General Counsel. Effective December 4, 2007.
DJGS00069 Confidential Assistant to the Director, Office of Public Affairs. Effective December 7, 2007.
DJGS00252 Director of Advance to the Attorney General. Effective December 11, 2007.
DJGS00196 Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective December 20, 2007.
DMGS00729 Special Assistant to the Chief Privacy Officer. Effective December 07, 2007.
DMGS00735 Director of Special Projects and Protocol to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective December 27, 2007.
DMGS00736 Director of Strategic Communications to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective December 27, 2007.
DAGS00928 Director of External Affairs to the Administrator, Farm Service Agency. Effective December 7, 2007.
DAGS00926 Deputy Chief of Staff to the Chief of Staff. Effective December 14, 2007.
DAGS00927 Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. Effective December 27, 2007.
DCGS00603 Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for International Trade. Effective December 21, 2007.
DCGS00154 Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. Effective December 27, 2007.
DCGS00172 Policy Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. Effective December 27, 2007.
DCGS00338 Press Secretary to the Director of Public Affairs. Effective December 27, 2007.
DCGS00359 Confidential Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective December 27, 2007.
DCGS00492 Confidential Assistant to the Director of Advance. Effective December 27, 2007.
DCGS00561 Legislative Affairs Specialist to the Deputy Under Secretary and Deputy Director of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Effective December 27, 2007.
DCGS60596 Confidential Assistant to the Director of Public Affairs. Effective December 27, 2007.
DLGS60263 Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Labor-Management Programs. Effective December 11, 2007.
DBGS00658 Deputy Assistant Secretary for External Affairs to the Assistant Secretary, Office of Communications and Outreach. Effective December 4, 2007.
DBGS00531 Press Secretary to the Assistant Secretary, Office of Communications and Outreach. Effective December 19, 2007.
DBGS00644 Chief of Staff for the Office of Communications and Outreach to the Assistant Secretary, Office of Communications and Outreach. Effective December 21, 2007.
DBGS00505 Deputy Secretary's Regional Representative, Region 6 to the Director, Regional Services. Effective December 27, 2007.
EPGS07031 Deputy Press Secretary to the Associate Administrator for Public Affairs. Effective December 4, 2007.
DEGS00626 Special Advisor to the White House Liaison. Effective December 11, 2007.
CTOT00058 Special Assistant to the Commissioner. Effective December 17, 2007.
PMGS00065 Attorney—Advisor to the General Counsel. Effective December 7, 2007.
BGGS01213 Director, Communications and Public Affairs Department to the Deputy Executive Director, Office of Policy and External Affairs. Effective December 27, 2007.
DTGS60301 Associate Director for Governmental Affairs to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. Effective December 4, 2007.
5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218.
On March 23, 2007, pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act
On August 1, 2007, Amex, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”), International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE”), NYSE, and NYSE Arca filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed Three-Characters Plan (“Amendment No. 1”). The Commission requests comment on Amendment No. 1 from interested persons.
Amendment No. 1 makes the following modifications to the proposed Three-Characters Plan: (1) Adds two new parties to the proposed plan; (2) amends the symbol portability provision of the proposed plan with respect to three-character symbols; (3) clarifies that the Three-Characters Plan covers reservations of one-, two-, and three-character symbols for options under the OPRA Plan; and (4) minor, non-substantive, technical changes, including re-naming the plan administrator.
The Three-Characters Plan was originally submitted by Amex, NYSE, and NYSE Arca. The Three-Characters Plan would grant the plan participants the following symbol reservation rights: (1) NYSE and Amex each would receive the right to reserve 200 symbols without any time or other limitations or restrictions as “perpetual reservations” and 1,500 symbols for a limited time of 24 months as “limited-time reservations” (2) all other parties would receive the right to reserve 40 perpetual reservations, and (3) NYSE Arca would receive the right to reserve 500 limited-time reservations.
The Commission requests commenters' views on the amended provisions to the proposed Three-Characters Plan that add CBOE and ISE as parties to the plan and that would grant them the limited-time reservation rights described above. The Commission also requests commenters' views on the number of symbols a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) should be permitted to reserve as perpetual reservations or limited-time reservations. In particular, the Commission requests commenters' view on any basis on which it would be appropriate for certain SROs to receive more reservations than other SROs. For example, should there be a distinction in the number of limited-time reservations that non-primary listing markets receive? If so, what factors should be taken into account in allotting the number of limited-time reservations? Finally, the Commission requests commenters' views on how these amended provisions would affect new listing markets.
The proposed Three-Characters Plan originally provided that, if an SRO lists a security that transferred from another SRO, the SRO from which the issuer delisted its security would have the right to the symbol for that security, unless it consents to the transfer of the symbol to the other SRO. If the SRO to which the issuer transferred its listing believes there is a compelling business reason why it should have the rights to the symbol (if it is a two- or three-character symbol, but not a one-character symbol), such SRO could submit to the Processor the determination of which SRO shall have the rights in that symbol.
Amendment No. 1 modifies this proposed portability provision with respect to three-character symbols. Specifically, an SRO to which a security that uses a three-character symbol transfers its listing would have the rights to that three-character symbol,
The Commission requests comment on the change in Amendment No. 1 regarding the portability of a three-character symbol to a new listing market when an issuer transfers its listing. When an issuer moves its listing to a new listing market, should either the former listing market or the new listing market retain the right to use the issuer's symbol? How would awarding the rights to the symbol to the former listing market affect competition? How would awarding such rights to the new listing market affect competition? Finally, the Commission requests comment on whether one- and two-character symbols should be subject to the same portability process as three-character symbols.
The proposed Three-Characters Plan originally stated that the plan was intended to be the exclusive means of allocating and using symbols of one-, two-, or three-characters, and none of such one-, two-, or three-character symbols were to be allocated or used for securities other than those reflected on “Network A” or “Network B” as those terms are defined in the Consolidated Tape Association Plan (“CTA Plan”).
The Commission requests comment on the amended provision regarding the proposed Three-Characters Plan's scope. In particular, the Commission requests comment on whether it is appropriate that the proposed scope of the Three-Characters Plan include options. Should the Commission approve a plan solely covering equity security symbols or should both equity and option security symbols be covered? Are there other matters with respect to the scope of the plans that commenters believe the Commission should consider? In particular, should only root symbols be covered or should suffixes be included as well?
Amendment No. 1 also made a number of minor, non-substantive technical changes, including modifying the name for the plan administrator. The proposed Three-Characters Plan originally referred to the plan administrator as the “International Symbols Reservation Authority (“ISRA”).” Amendment No. 1 renamed the authority the “Intermarket Symbols Reservation Authority (“ISRA”).” The Commission requests comment on the name of the plan administrator.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the Act. The Commission invites comments on whether the foregoing assures fair competition among all parties, including new listing markets. 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.
By the Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act.
Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc. (“MSIM”), Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc. (“MSIA”), Morgan Stanley AIP GP LP (“MSAIP”), Van Kampen Asset Management (“VKAM”),
Applicants request an order to permit the Funds to engage in principal transactions in certain money market instruments with MS & Co.
The application was filed on July 7, 2005, and amended on October 9, 2007, and December 26, 2007. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in this notice.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 12, 2008, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: c/o Amy Doberman, Esq., Morgan Stanley Investment Management, 522 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10036.
Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, (202) 551-6817 or Janet M. Grossnickle, Branch Chief, (202) 551-6821 (Office of Investment Company Regulation, Division of Investment Management).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-551-8090).
1. Each Fund is an open-end or closed-end management company registered under the Act and is organized as a business trust or corporation under the laws of various states, as specified in the application. The Current Advisers are wholly owned subsidiaries of Morgan Stanley (“MS”), a Delaware corporation. Each Adviser is (or will be) registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Each Fund has an investment advisory agreement with the applicable Adviser pursuant to which the Adviser provides investment advisory and management services. MS & Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of MS, is registered as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”). MS & Co., a primary dealer in U.S. Government securities, is one of the largest dealers in the United States in commercial paper, repurchase agreements and other money market instruments.
2. Applicants state that the Advisers and MS & Co. are functionally independent of each other and operate as completely separate entities under the umbrella of MS, the parent holding company. While MS & Co. and the Advisers are under common control, each entity has its own separate officers and employees, is separately capitalized, maintains its own separate books and records and operates on different sides of walls of separation with respect to the Funds and Money Market Instruments. The Advisers also maintain offices physically separate from MS & Co.
3. Investment decisions for the Funds are determined solely by the Advisers. The portfolio managers and other employees that are responsible for the investment of the Funds are employed solely by one of the Advisers (and not MS & Co.), and have lines of reporting responsibility solely within the Advisers. The compensation of personnel assigned to an Adviser will not depend on the volume or nature of trades with MS & Co., except to the extent that such trades may affect the profits and losses of MS and its subsidiaries as a whole.
4. As used in the application, the term Taxable Money Market Instruments refers to taxable securities which are eligible for purchase by money market funds under rule 2a-7, including short-term U.S. Government securities, short-term U.S. Government agency securities, bank money market instruments, bank notes, commercial paper, other short-term fixed income instruments and repurchase agreements. The term Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments refers to tax-exempt securities which are eligible for purchase by money market funds under rule 2a-7, including conventional municipal notes, tax-exempt commercial paper, variable rate demand notes, put bonds and flexible notes. Money Market Instruments consist of Taxable and Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments. Each Fund that is not a Money Market Fund is authorized to invest in Taxable Money Market Instruments pursuant to its investment objectives and policies.
5. Trading in Money Market Instruments generally takes place in over-the-counter markets consisting of groups of dealers who are primarily major securities firms or large commercial banks. The money market consists of sophisticated and elaborate telephonic and electronic communications networks among buyers and sellers, which generally precludes being able to obtain a single market price for a given instrument at any given time. Applicants state that the money market (for both Taxable and Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments) tends to be somewhat segmented. The markets for the different types of instruments will vary in terms of price, volatility, liquidity and availability. With respect to any given type of security or instrument, there may be only a few dealers who can be expected to have the security in inventory and be in a position to quote a favorable price. Applicants also state that different dealers may quote different prices with respect to the same type of instrument because of differing outlooks on future yields, to adjust their inventory or because of competitive pressure (or the lack thereof) to meet other dealers' quotes. Only customers of a dealer may obtain quotations for Money Market Instruments and trade on them.
6. MS & Co. is one of the world's largest dealers in Taxable Money Market Instruments, ranking among the top firms in each of the major markets and product areas. As of September 30, 2007, MS & Co. had become the sixth largest dealer in terms of the number of new U.S. asset-backed commercial paper programs, the most significant part of the commercial paper market by outstanding dollar amounts. Applicants believe that MS & Co. is one of the ten leading dealers in the repurchase agreement market. MS & Co's average outstanding repurchase agreements for December 2006, 2006 to September, 2007 ranged from $154 billion to $206 billion. MS & Co. is an active participant in the public auction market for U.S. Treasuries, being one of only 22 primary dealers and receiving on average from 4% to 9% of the primary distribution of U.S. Treasuries. In secondary trading, MS & Co. ranked as one of the top 5 primary dealers for U.S. Treasuries with maturities under three years for each of the last eight quarters (through the third quarter of 2007). MS & Co. also has been an active participant in the secondary market for government agency securities and ranked fourth in underwriting primary issuances in 2006. MS & Co. is also one of the leading participants in the market for medium-term note (“MTNs”). MTNs are offered continuously in public or private offerings, with maturities beginning at nine months. MTNs represent a significant portion of the longer-term money market investment alternatives because commercial paper is not issued with maturities greater than nine months. From July 2006 to July 2007, MS & Co. ranked as the fifth largest manager or co-manager of MTN programs in terms of proceeds ($88.6 billion) and market share (8.5%). MS & Co. is also a leading manager of issuances of Extendible Liquidity Securities®, a MS proprietary product, which is another longer-term alternative. From July 2000 through October 1, 2007, MS & Co. served as lead manager on 91 EXLs® issuances, which represented 53% of the total aggregate value of all EXLs® issued during that period.
7. MS & Co. also is a major participant in both the primary new issue market and in the secondary dealer market for Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments. MS & Co. estimates that its market share in the new issue market for Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments included 13% of conventional notes, 7% of tax-exempt commercial paper and 8% of variable rate demand notes for the first nine months in 2007. Applicants state that there is no comprehensive information published as to the dollar amount and volume of secondary market transactions executed in Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments. However, MS & Co. believes that it is generally one of the top five secondary market dealers in Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments. Based upon MS & Co. estimates, MS & Co. was responsible for 8.7% of the trading volume in variable rate demand notes and tax-exempt commercial paper among MS & Co. and nine other leading dealers as of
8. Applicants state that over the past few years, the growth in Money Market Instruments has been substantially outpaced by the growth in portfolios which purchase Money Market Instruments, which has contributed to the limited availability of Money Market Instruments to the Funds.
9. Subject to the general supervision of the board of directors/trustees of each of the Funds (each a “Board”), the Advisers are responsible for making investment decisions and for the placement of portfolio transactions. The Funds have no obligation to deal with any dealer or group of dealers in the execution of their portfolio transactions. When placing orders, an Adviser must attempt to obtain the best net price and the most favorable execution of its orders. In doing so, it takes into account such factors as price, the size, type and difficulty of the transaction involved and the dealer's general execution and operational facilities. The transaction costs of the Funds with respect to Money Market Instruments consist primarily of dealer or underwriter spreads. Spreads vary some based on the type of money market security or the occurrence of turbulent market conditions, but generally spread levels for Taxable Money Market Instruments are in the range of 1 to 5 basis points (.01% to .05%), while spreads for Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments typically are not greater than 12.5 basis points (0.125%).
1. Applicants request an order pursuant to sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act exempting certain transactions from the provisions of section 17(a) of the Act to permit MS & Co., acting as principal, (a) to sell or purchase Taxable Money Market Instruments to or from the Funds; and (b) to sell or purchase Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments to or from the Money Market Funds, subject to the conditions set forth below.
2. Section 17(a) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person or principal underwriter of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of that person, acting as principal, from selling to or purchasing from the registered company, or any company controlled by the registered company, any security or other property. Because an Adviser is an affiliated person of the Funds it advises and MS & Co. and the Advisers are under common control, the Funds are currently prohibited from conducting portfolio transactions with MS & Co. in transactions in which MS & Co. acts as principal.
3. Section 17(b) of the Act provides that the Commission, upon application, may exempt a transaction from the provisions of section 17(a) if evidence establishes that the terms of the proposed transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair, and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and that the proposed transaction is consistent with the policy of the registered investment company concerned and with the general purposes of the Act. Section 6(c) provides that the Commission may conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision or provisions of the Act or of any rule or regulation thereunder, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
4. Applicants note the following in support of the requested relief:
(a) With over approximately $75 billion invested in Money Market Instruments, the Funds are major buyers and sellers in the tax-exempt and taxable money market with a strong need for access to large quantities of high quality Money Market Instruments. The applicants believe that access to a major dealer as MS & Co. in this market increases the Funds' ability to obtain suitable portfolio securities.
(b) The policy of the Funds of investing in securities with short maturities combined with the active portfolio management techniques employed by the Advisers results in a high level of portfolio activity and the need to make numerous purchases and sales of Money Market Instruments. This high level of portfolio activity emphasizes the importance of increasing opportunities to obtain suitable portfolio securities and best price and execution.
(c) The tax-exempt and taxable money market, including the market for repurchase agreements, is highly competitive, and maintaining a dealer as prominent as MS & Co. in the pool of dealers with which the Funds could conduct principal transactions may provide the Funds with opportunities to purchase and sell Money Market Instruments, including those not available from any other source.
(d) MS & Co. is such a major factor in the tax-exempt and taxable money market that being unable to deal directly with MS & Co. may indirectly deprive the Funds of obtaining best price and execution even when the Funds trade with unaffiliated dealers.
5. Applicants believe that the requested order will provide the Funds with a broader and more complete access to the money market (both taxable and non-taxable) which is necessary to carry out the policies and objectives of each of the Funds in obtaining the best price, execution and quality in all portfolio transactions, and will provide the Funds with important new information sources in the taxable and tax-exempt money market, to the direct benefit of investors in the Funds. Applicants believe that the transactions contemplated by the application are identical to those in which they are currently engaged except for the proposed participation of MS & Co. and that such transactions are consistent with the policies of the Funds as recited in their registration statements and reports filed under the Act. Applicants further believe that the conditions below and the procedures to be followed with respect to transactions with MS & Co. are structured in such a way as to ensure that the transactions will be, in all instances, reasonable and fair, will not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and that the requested exemption is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. The exemption shall be applicable to principal transactions in the secondary market and primary or secondary fixed price dealer offerings not made pursuant to underwriting syndicates. With respect to Tax-Exempt Money Market Instruments, principal purchase or sale transactions will be conducted only in Money Market Instruments that are First Tier Securities as defined in rule 2a-7(a)(12)(i) under the Act. With respect to Taxable Money Market Instruments, the principal purchase or sale transactions which may be conducted pursuant to the exemption will be limited to transactions in
(a) No Fund shall make portfolio purchases pursuant to the exemption that would result directly or indirectly in a Fund investing pursuant to the exemption more than 2% of its
(b) The exemption shall not apply to an
(c) The Funds may engage in repurchase agreements with MS & Co. only if MS & Co. has: (i) Net capital, as defined in rule 15c3-1 under the 1934 Act, of at least $100 million and (ii) a record (including the record of predecessors) of at least five years continuous operations as a dealer during which time it engaged in repurchase agreements relating to the kind of security subject to the repurchase agreement. MS & Co. shall furnish the Advisers with financial statements for its most recent fiscal year and the most recent semi-annual financial statements made available to its customers. The Advisers shall determine that MS & Co. complies with the above requirements and with other repurchase agreement guidelines adopted by the Board. Each repurchase agreement will be
(d) The exemption shall not apply to any purchase or sale of any security, other than a repurchase agreement, issued by MS or any affiliated person thereof, or to any security subject to a
2. The relevant Adviser (unless the Board decides that the Fund should make these determinations) will determine with respect to each principal transaction conducted by a Fund pursuant to the order, based upon the information available to the Funds and the Advisers, that the price available from MS & Co. is at least as favorable to the Fund as the prices obtained from two other dealer bids in connection with securities falling within the same category of instrument, quality and maturity (but not necessarily the identical security or issuer) (“price test”). In the case of “swaps” involving trades of one security for another, the price test shall be based upon the transaction viewed as a whole and not upon the two components thereof individually. With respect to each transaction involving repurchase agreements, the relevant Adviser will determine (unless the Board decides that the Fund should make these determinations), based upon the information reasonably available to the Fund and the Advisers, that the income to be earned from the repurchase agreement is at least equal to that available from other sources. In the case of variable rate demand notes, for which dealer bids are not ordinarily available, the Funds will only undertake purchases and sales where the rate of interest to be earned from the variable rate demand note is at least equal to that of variable rate demand notes of comparable quality that are available from other dealers. Neither MS nor any other affiliate thereof (other than the Advisers) will have any involvement with respect to proposed transactions between the Funds and the Advisers and, except to the extent set forth in condition 6(d) below, will not attempt to influence or control in any way the placing by the Funds or the Advisers of orders with MS & Co.
3. Before any principal transaction may be conducted pursuant to the order, the relevant Fund or Adviser must obtain such information as it deems reasonably necessary to determine that the price test (as defined in condition (2) above) has been satisfied. In the case of each purchase or sale transaction, the relevant Fund or Adviser must make and document a good faith determination with respect to compliance with the price test based on current price information obtained through the contemporaneous solicitation of bona fide offers in connection with securities falling within the same category of instrument, quality and maturity (but not necessarily the identical security or issuer). With respect to variable rate demand notes, contemporaneous solicitation of a bona fide offer will be construed to mean any bona fide offer solicited during the same trading day. With respect to prospective purchases of securities by a Fund, the dealer firms from which prices are solicited must be those who have securities of the same categories and the type desired in their inventories and who are in a position to quote favorable prices with respect thereto. With respect to the prospective sale of securities by a Fund, these dealer firms must be those who, in the experience of the Funds and the Advisers, are in a position to quote favorable prices. Before any repurchase agreements are entered into pursuant to the exemption, the Fund or the Adviser must obtain and document competitive quotations from at least two other dealers with respect to repurchase agreements comparable to the type of repurchase agreement involved, except that if quotations are unavailable from two such dealers, only one other competitive quotation is required.
4. Principal transactions in all Money Market Instruments other than repurchase agreements conducted by a Fund pursuant to the order shall be limited to no more than (a) an aggregate of 25% of the direct or indirect purchases and 25% of the direct or indirect sales of
5. MS & Co.'s dealer spread regarding any transaction with the Funds will be no greater than its customary dealer spread on similar transactions (with unaffiliated parties) of a similar size during a comparable time period. Its customary dealer spread also will be consistent with the average or standard spread charged by dealers in Money Market Instruments of a similar type and transaction size.
6. The Advisers, on the one hand, and MS & Co. on the other, will operate on different sides of appropriate walls of separation with respect to the Funds and the Money Market Instruments. The walls of separation will include all of the following characteristics, and such others that MS & Co. and the Advisers consider reasonable to facilitate the factual independence of the Advisers from MS & Co.:
(a) Each of the Advisers will maintain offices physically separate from those of MS & Co.
(b) The compensation of persons assigned to any of the Advisers (
(c) MS & Co. will not compensate the Advisers based upon its profits or losses on transactions conducted pursuant to the exemption, provided that the allocation of the profits by MS to its shareholders and the determination of general firm-wide compensation of officers and employees, will be unaffected by this undertaking.
(d) Personnel assigned to the Advisers' investment advisory operations on behalf of the Funds will be exclusively devoted to the business and affairs of one or more of the Advisers. Personnel assigned to MS & Co. will not participate in the decision-making process for or otherwise seek to influence the Advisers other than in the normal course of sales and dealer activities of the same nature as are simultaneously being carried out with respect to nonaffiliated institutional clients. Each Adviser, on the one hand, and MS & Co., on the other hand, may nonetheless maintain affiliations other than with respect to the Funds, and in addition with respect to the Funds as follows: (i) Adviser personnel may rely on research, including credit analysis and reports prepared internally by various subsidiaries and divisions of MS & Co.; and (ii) The senior executives of MS that have responsibility for overseeing operations of various divisions, subsidiaries and affiliates of MS are not precluded from exercising those functions over the Advisers because they oversee MS & Co. as well, provided that such persons shall not have any involvement with respect to proposed transactions pursuant to the exemption and will not in any way attempt to influence or control the placing by the Funds or any Adviser of orders in respect of Money Market Instruments with MS & Co.
7. The Funds and the Advisers will maintain such records with respect to those transactions conducted pursuant to the exemption as may be necessary to confirm compliance with the conditions to the requested relief. To this end, each Fund shall maintain the following:
(a) An itemized daily record of all purchases and sales of securities pursuant to the exemption, showing for each transaction the following: (i) The name and quantity of securities; (ii) the unit purchase or sale price; (iii) the time and date of the transaction; and (iv) whether the security was a
(b) Records sufficient to verify compliance with the volume limitations contained in condition (4) above. MS & Co. will provide the Funds with all records and information necessary to implement this requirement.
(c) Each Fund shall maintain a ledger or record showing, on a daily basis, the percentage of the Fund's
(d) Each Fund shall maintain records sufficient to verify compliance with the repurchase agreement requirements contained in condition 1(c) above.
The records required by this condition (7) will be maintained and preserved in the same manner as records required under rule 31a-1(b)(1) under the Act.
8. The legal and compliance departments of MS & Co. and the Advisers will prepare and administer guidelines for personnel of MS & Co. and the Advisers to make certain that transactions conducted pursuant to the order comply with the conditions set forth in the order and that the parties generally maintain arm's-length relationships. In the training of MS & Co's personnel, particular emphasis will be placed upon the fact that the Funds are to receive rates as favorable as other institutional purchasers buying the same quantities. The legal and compliance departments will periodically monitor the activities of MS & Co. and the Advisers to make certain that the conditions set forth in the order are adhered to.
9. The members of the Board of each of the Funds who are not “interested persons” as defined in Section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“Independent Trustees”) will approve, periodically review, and update as necessary, guidelines for the Funds and the Advisers that are reasonably designed to make certain that the transactions conducted pursuant to the exemption comply with the conditions set forth herein and that the above procedures are followed in all respects. The Independent Trustees will periodically monitor the activities of the Funds and the Advisers in this regard to ensure that these goals are being accomplished.
10. The Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will have approved each Fund's participation in transactions conducted pursuant to the exemption and determined that such participation by the Fund is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders. The minutes of the meeting of the Board at which this approval was given must reflect in detail the reasons for the Board's determination. The Board will review no less frequently than annually each Fund's participation in transactions conducted pursuant to the exemption
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the rules of the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”) to extend an existing pilot program that increases the position and exercise limits for options on the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (“IWM”) traded on BOX (“IWM Option Pilot Program”). The text of the rule proposal is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The IWM Option Pilot Program provides for increased position and exercise limits for IWM options traded on BOX. Specifically, the IWM Option Pilot Program increased the position and exercise limits for IWM options from 250,000 contracts to 500,000 contracts.
The Exchange is not proposing any other changes to the IWM Option Pilot Program. The Exchange represents that it has not encountered any significant problems or difficulties relating to the IWM Option Pilot Program since its inception. The Exchange believes that the above stated reasons justify the IWM Option Pilot Program and requests that the Commission extend the IWM Option Pilot Program for the requested additional pilot period, through March 1, 2008.
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.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow the benefits of the IWM Option Pilot Program to continue without interruption.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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 Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 14, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to expand the Program and to request permanent approval of the Program. The Program currently allows ISE to select a total of 5 individual stocks on which an option series may be listed at $1 strike price intervals. To be eligible for selection into the Program, the underlying stock must close below $20 in its primary market on the previous trading day. If selected for the Program, the Exchange may list strike prices at $1 intervals from $3 to $20, but no $1 strike price may be listed that is greater than $5 from the underlying stock's closing price in its primary market on the previous day. The Exchange also may list $1 strikes on any other option class designated by other securities exchanges that employ a similar Program under their respective rules. The Exchange may not list long-term option series (LEAPS) at $1 strike price intervals for any class selected for the Program. The Exchange also is restricted from listing any series that would result in strike prices being $0.50 apart.
The Exchange proposes to expand the Program to allow ISE to select a total of 10 individual stocks on which an option series may be listed at $1 strike price intervals. Additionally, ISE proposes to raise the upper limit of the price range on which it may list $1 strikes from $20 to $50. The existing restrictions on listing $1 strikes will continue,
ISE concluded from its analysis of the Program that the impact on the automated systems of ISE, OPRA, and market data vendors has been minimal.
In its filing with the Commission, ISE stated its belief that $1 strike price
After careful review and based on the Exchange's representations, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposed expansion to permit the Exchange to select a total of 10 individual underlying stocks trading at less than $50 on which option series may be listed at $1 strike price intervals, and the request to make the Program permanent, should provide investors with added flexibility in the trading of equity options and further the public interest by allowing investors to establish equity options positions that are better tailored to meet their investment objectives. The Commission also believes that the proposal strikes a reasonable balance between the Exchange's desire to accommodate market participants by offering a wider array of investment opportunities and the need to avoid unnecessary proliferation of options series and the corresponding increase in quotes. The Commission notes that the existing restrictions on listing $1 strike price intervals will continue to apply,
The Commission expects the Exchange to continue to monitor for options with little or no open interest and trading activity and to act promptly to delist such options. In addition, the Commission expects that ISE will continue to monitor the trading volume associated with the additional options series listed as a result of this proposal and the effect of these additional series on market fragmentation and on the capacity of the Exchange's, OPRA's, and vendors' automated systems.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 6.8 in order to extend the pilot program (the “IWM Pilot Program”) that allows for increased position and exercise limits on options overlying the iShares® Russell 2000® Index Fund (“IWM”) traded on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The IWM Pilot Program provides for increased position and exercise limits for IWM options traded on NYSE Arca.
The purpose of this rule change is to extend the IWM Pilot Program through March 1, 2008. The Exchange is not proposing any other changes to the IWM Pilot Program at this time.
The Exchange believes that maintaining the increased position and exercise limits for IWM options will lead to a more liquid and competitive market environment for IWM options that will benefit all investors interested in trading this product. As a result, the Exchange believes that the above stated reasons justify the IWM Pilot Program and requests that the Commission extend the IWM Pilot Program through March 1, 2008.
NYSE Arca represents that it has not encountered any problems or difficulties relating to the IWM Pilot Program since its inception.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) 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 Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow the benefits of the IWM Pilot Program to continue without interruption.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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 Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
NYSE Arca proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 7.1 in order to provide the Exchange with flexibility, similar to that of other options exchanges, regarding the time at which options on exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) cease trading on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's principal office, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
In its filing with the Commission, NYSE Arca 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 those 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 parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 7.1 (“Rule”), Trading Sessions, to provide the Exchange with flexibility, similar to that of other options exchanges, regarding the time at which options on ETFs cease trading on the Exchange. The rule currently specifies the trading hours for options on ETFs as commencing at 6:30 a.m. Pacific Time (“PT”) and ending at the same time as the primary listing exchange closes its core trading session in the underlying ETF.
Recently, the Exchange submitted a proposed rule change that was effective upon filing that governed the trading hours of options on ETFs.
Since that date, the Exchange has closed trading in options on NYSE Arca Equities primary listed ETFs at 1 p.m. PT. For the most part, other options exchanges followed suit. However, certain options exchanges, most notably the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”), the American Stock Exchange, and the International Stock Exchange have continued to trade options on iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (“IWM”), an ETF that is listed on NYSE Arca Equities, until 1:15 p.m. PT. The Exchange, meanwhile, closes trading in options on IWM at 1 p.m. PT in keeping with NYSE Arca Rule 7.1.
Although compliant with its rules, the Exchange is operating at a competitive disadvantage because other options exchanges allow their members to trade options on IWM until 1:15 p.m. PT. To address this apparent disadvantage, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.1 similar to CBOE Rule 6.1 so that options on ETFs may be traded on the Exchange until 1:15 p.m. each business day.
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.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed 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 from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
NYSE Arca has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay and designate the proposed rule change to become operative upon filing. The proposed rule is similar to rules of other exchanges and does not appear to raise any novel or significant regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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 Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 24(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act; under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act; and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
The applicants request an order that would permit (a) series of open-end management investment companies to issue shares (“Shares”) that can be redeemed only in large aggregations (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at negotiated prices; (c) dealers to sell Shares to purchasers in the secondary market unaccompanied by a prospectus when prospectus delivery is not required by the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”); (d) certain affiliated persons of the series to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; and (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the series to acquire Shares.
The TIGERS Revenue Trust (the “Trust”) and VTL Associates, LLC (the “Adviser”).
The application was filed on February 8, 2007 and amended on September 5, 2007 and December 7, 2007. Applicants have agreed to file an amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in the notice.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 12, 2008, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, One Commerce Square, 2005 Market Street, Suite 2020, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Barbara T. Heussler, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6990, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Public Reference Desk, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington DC 20549-0102 (telephone (202) 551-5850).
1. The Trust is registered as an open-end management investment company and is organized as a Delaware statutory trust authorized to issue multiple series or portfolios. The Trust intends to offer and sell Shares of at least one or more separate investment portfolios (“each an “Index Fund”).
2. Each Index Fund will hold certain securities (“Portfolio Securities”) selected to correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of a specified index of domestic equity securities (an “Underlying Index”). No entity that creates, compiles, sponsors or maintains an Underlying Index (“Index Provider”) is or will be an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, or an affiliated person of an affiliated person, of the Trust, its investment adviser (“VTL”), any sub-adviser of a series of the Trust (including BNY), a promoter of the Trust or any of its series, or the Trust's distributor (including Foreside Fund Services, LLC). The Underlying Index for the TIGERS Revenue-Weighted Large Cap Index Fund is the RevenueShares Large Cap Index; the Underlying Index for the TIGERS Revenue-Weighted Mid Cap Index Fund is the RevenueShares Mid Cap Index; and the Underlying Index for the TIGERS Revenue-Weighted Small Cap Index Fund is the RevenueShares Small Cap Index. The Trust may offer additional Index Funds in the future based on other Underlying Indexes comprised of domestic equity securities (“Future Index Funds”).
3. The investment objective of each Index Fund will be to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of its Underlying Index. Intra-day values of the Underlying Index will be disseminated every 15 seconds throughout the trading day. An Index Fund will utilize either a “replication strategy” or “representative sampling” which will be disclosed with regard to each Index Fund in its prospectus (“Prospectus”).
4. Shares of the Index Funds will be sold in Creation Units of 50,000 Shares, as will be specified in the Index Funds' Prospectus. All orders to purchase Creation Units must be placed with the Distributor by or through a party that has entered into an agreement with the Trust and the Distributor (“Authorized Participant”). An Authorized Participant must be either: (a) A broker-dealer or other participant in the continuous net settlement system of the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), a clearing agency registered with the Commission; or (b) a participant (“DTC Participant”) in the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). Shares of each Index Fund generally will be sold in Creation Units in exchange for an in-kind deposit by the purchaser of a portfolio of securities designated by the Adviser to correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the relevant Underlying Index (the “Deposit Securities”), together with the deposit of a specified cash payment (“Cash Component”).
5. Purchasers of Shares in Creation Units may hold such Shares or may sell such Shares into the secondary market.
6. Shares will not be individually redeemable, and owners of Shares may acquire those Shares from the Index Fund, or tender such Shares for redemption to the Index Fund, in Creation Units only. To redeem, an investor will have to accumulate enough Shares to constitute a Creation Unit. Redemption orders must be placed by or through an Authorized Participant. An investor redeeming a Creation Unit generally will receive (a) Portfolio Securities designated to be delivered for Creation Unit redemptions (“Fund Securities”) on the date that the request for redemption is submitted, which may not be identical to the Deposit Securities required to purchase Creation Units on that date,
7. Neither the Trust nor any Index Fund will be marketed or otherwise held out as a traditional open-end investment company or a mutual fund. The designation of the Trust and the Index Funds in all marketing materials will be limited to the terms “exchange-traded fund,” an “investment company,” a “fund,” or a “trust.” All marketing materials that describe the method of obtaining, buying or selling Creation Units, or Shares traded on the Exchange, or refer to redeemability, will prominently disclose that Shares are not individually redeemable and that the owners of Shares may purchase or redeem those Shares from the Index Fund in Creation Units only. The same approach will be followed in the SAI, shareholder reports and investor educational materials issued or circulated in connection with the Shares. The Index Funds will provide copies of their annual and semi-annual shareholder reports to DTC Participants for distribution to beneficial owners of Shares.
1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 24(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act; under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provisions of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and protection of investors.
3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management investment company that is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately his proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Because Shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an order that would permit the Trust to register as an open-end management investment company and issue individual Shares of each Index Fund that are redeemable in Creation Units only. Applicants state that investors may purchase or redeem Creation Units from an Index Fund. Applicants further state that the price at which Shares trade should be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities created by the option to purchase or redeem continually Shares in Creation Units, which should help ensure that Shares will not trade at a material
4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security, which is currently being offered to the public by or through a principal underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c-1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming or repurchasing a redeemable security do so only at a price based on its NAV. Applicants state that secondary market trading in Shares will take place on the basis of current bid/offer prices and not at an offering price described in the Index Fund's Prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Thus, purchases and sales of Shares in the secondary market will not comply with section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) from these provisions.
5. Applicants assert that the concerns sought to be addressed by section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act with respect to pricing are equally satisfied by the proposed method of pricing Shares. Applicants maintain that while there is little legislative history regarding section 22(d), its provisions, as well as those of rule 22c-1, appear to have been intended to: (a) Prevent dilution caused by certain riskless-trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers; (b) prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers; and (c) ensure an orderly distribution of investment company shares by eliminating price competition from dealers offering shares at less than the published sales price and paying investors a little more than the published redemption price.
6. Applicants believe that none of these purposes will be thwarted by permitting Shares to trade in the secondary market at negotiated prices. Applicants state that secondary market transactions in Shares will not cause dilution for owners of such Shares because such transactions do not directly involve Index Fund assets. In addition, secondary market trading in Shares should not create discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers because any variances occurring in prices of the Shares during a given trading day, or from day to day, will be the result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Finally, applicants contend that the proposed distribution system will be orderly because competitive marketplace forces will ensure that the difference between the market price of Shares and their NAV remains narrow.
7. Section 24(d) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that the prospectus delivery exemption provided to dealer transactions by section 4(3) of the Securities Act does not apply to any transaction in a redeemable security issued by an open-end investment company. Applicants seek relief from section 24(d) to permit dealers selling Shares to rely on the prospectus delivery exemption provided by section 4(3) of the Securities Act.
8. Applicants state that Shares are bought and sold in the secondary market in the same manner as closed-end fund shares. Applicants note that transactions in closed-end fund shares are not subject to section 24(d), and thus closed-end fund shares are sold in the secondary market without prospectuses. Applicants contend that Shares likewise merit a reduction in the unnecessary compliance costs and regulatory burdens resulting from the imposition of the prospectus delivery obligations in the secondary market. Because Shares will be listed on an Exchange, prospective investors will have access to information about the product over and above what is normally available about an open-end security. Applicants state that information regarding market price and volume will be continually available on a real time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. The previous day's price and volume information will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. The Trust intends to maintain a website that will include the Prospectus and SAI, the relevant Underlying Index for each Index Fund, and additional quantitative information that is updated on a daily basis, including daily trading volume, closing price and the NAV for each Index Fund and information about the premiums and discounts at which the Index Fund's Shares have traded.
9. Applicants will arrange for broker-dealers selling Shares in the secondary market to provide purchasers with a product description (“Product Description”) that describes, in plain English, the relevant Index Fund and the Shares it issues. Applicants state that a Product Description is not intended to substitute for a full Prospectus. Applicants state that the Product Description will be tailored to meet the information needs of investors purchasing Shares in the secondary market.
10. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a registered investment company from acquiring securities of an investment company if such securities represent more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the acquired company, more than 5% of the total assets of the acquiring company, or, together with the securities of any other investment companies, more than 10% of the total assets of the acquiring company. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act prohibits a registered open-end investment company, its principal underwriter, and any broker or dealer from selling its shares to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or if the sale will cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies generally.
11. Applicants request an exemption to permit management investment companies (“Investing Management Companies”) and unit investment trusts (“Investing Trusts,” collectively with Investing Management Companies, “Investing Funds”) registered under the Act that are not part of the same “group of investment companies,” as defined in section 12(d)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act, as the Trust, to acquire shares of an Index Fund beyond the limits of sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B). Investing Funds exclude registered investment companies that are, or in the future may be, part of the same “group of investment companies,” within the
12. Each Investing Management Company will be advised by an investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act (the “Investing Fund Adviser”) and may be sub-advised by one or more investment advisers within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(B) of the Act (each an “Investing Fund SubAdviser”). Any Investing Fund Adviser or Investing Fund SubAdviser will be registered under the Advisers Act. Each Investing Trust will be sponsored by a sponsor (“Sponsor”).
13. Applicants submit that the proposed conditions to the relief requested adequately address the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, which include concerns about large scale redemptions of the acquired fund's shares, excessive layering of fees, and overly complex fund structures. Applicants believe that the requested exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
14. Applicants believe that neither the Investing Funds nor Investing Fund Affiliates would be able to exert undue influence over the Index Funds.
15. Applicants do not believe that the proposed arrangement will involve excessive layering of fees. The board of directors or trustees of any Investing Management Company, including a majority of the directors or trustees who are not “interested persons” (within the meaning of section 2(a)(19) of the Act), will find that the advisory fees charged under the advisory contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided under the advisory contract(s) of any Index Fund in which the Investing Management Company may invest. Except as provided in condition 11, an Investing Fund Adviser, or trustee or Sponsor of an Investing Trust will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Investing Management Company or Investing Trust in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by an Index Fund under rule 12b-1 under the Act) received by the Investing Fund Adviser or trustee or Sponsor to the Investing Trust or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund Adviser, trustee or Sponsor from the Index Funds in connection with the investment by the Investing Management Company or Investing Trust in the Index Fund. Applicants state that any sales loads or service fees charged with respect to shares of the Investing Fund will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in Conduct Rule 2830 of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”).
16. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangement will not create an overly complex fund structure. Applicants note that no Index Fund will acquire securities of any other investment company or company relying on section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent permitted by exemptive relief from the Commission that allows the Index Fund to purchase shares of a money market fund for short-term cash management purposes. To ensure that Investing Funds comply with the terms and conditions of the requested relief from section 12(d)(1) of the Act, a Participation Agreement will be entered into between the Index Fund and the Investing Fund. The Participation Agreement will require the Investing Fund to adhere to the terms and conditions of the requested order. The Participation Agreement will include an acknowledgment from the Investing Fund that it may rely on the requested order only to invest in the Index Funds and not in any other registered investment company. Applicants represent that each Investing Fund will represent in the Participation Agreement that if it exceeds the 5% or 10% limitation in section 12(d)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii) of the Act, it will disclose in its prospectus that it may invest in the Index Funds, and disclose in “plain English” in its prospectus the unique characteristics of doing so, including but not limited to, the expense structure
17. Applicants also note that an Index Fund may choose to reject a direct purchase by an Investing Fund. To the extent that an Investing Fund purchases Shares in the secondary market, the Index Fund would still retain its ability to reject purchases of Shares made in reliance on this order by declining to enter into the Participation Agreement prior to any investment by an Investing Fund in excess of the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A).
18. Section 17(a) of the Act generally prohibits an affiliated person of a registered investment company, or affiliated persons of affiliated persons (“Second-Tier Affiliate”) from selling any security to or purchasing any security from the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include (a) any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person, (b) any person 5% or more of whose outstanding voting securities are directly or indirectly owned, controlled or held with the power to vote by the other person, and (c) any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by or under common control with the other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act further states that a control relationship will be presumed where one person owns more than 25% of another person's voting securities. In addition, the Index Funds may be deemed to be controlled by the Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Adviser and hence affiliated persons of each other. The Index Funds also may be deemed to be under common control with any other registered investment company (or series thereof) advised by the Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Adviser (an “Affiliated Fund”). Applicants state that if Creation Units of all of the Index Funds or of one or more particular Index Funds are held by twenty or fewer investors, including an Exchange Specialist or Market Maker, some or all of such investors will be 5% owners of the Trust or such Index Funds, and one or more investors may hold in excess of 25% of the Trust or such Index Funds. Such investors would be deemed to be affiliated persons of the Trust or such Index Funds.
19. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(a) of the Act pursuant to sections 17(b) and 6(c) of the Act to permit persons that are affiliated persons or Second-Tier Affiliates of the Index Funds solely by virtue of: (a) Holding 5% or more, or in excess of 25%, of the outstanding Shares of one or more Index Funds; (b) having an affiliation with a person with an ownership interest described in (a); or (c) holding 5% or more, or more than 25%, of the Shares of one or more Affiliated Funds, to effectuate in-kind purchases and redemptions. Applicants further request exemptive relief pursuant to sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act to permit an Index Fund, 5% or more of whose Shares are held by an Investing Fund prior to a particular purchase or redemption transaction, to sell its Shares to and redeem its Shares from an Investing Fund.
20. Applicants assert that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting these types of affiliated persons from making in-kind purchases or in-kind redemptions of Shares of an Index Fund in Creation Units. The deposit procedures for both in-kind purchases and in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be effected in exactly the same manner. Deposit Securities and Fund Securities will be valued in the same manner as Portfolio Securities. Therefore, applicants state that in-kind purchases and in-kind redemptions will afford no opportunity for the affiliated persons of an Index Fund, or the Second-Tier Affiliates, to effect a transaction detrimental to other holders of Shares. Applicants also believe that in-kind purchases and redemptions will not result in self-dealing or overreaching of the Index Fund.
21. Applicants also seek relief from section 17(a) of the Act for any transaction in Creation Units directly between an Index Fund and any Investing Fund that owns 5% or more of an Index Fund prior to such transaction.
Applicants agree that any order of the Commission granting the requested relief to permit the operations of the Index Funds will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Each Index Fund's Prospectus and Product Description will clearly disclose that, for purposes of the Act, Shares are issued by the Index Fund and that the acquisition of Shares by investment companies is subject to the restrictions of section 12(d)(1) of the Act, except as permitted by an exemptive order that permits registered investment companies to invest in an Index Fund beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1) of the Act, subject to certain terms and conditions, including that the registered investment company enter into a Participation Agreement with the Trust regarding the terms of the investment.
2. As long as the Trust operates in reliance on the requested order, the Shares will be listed on an Exchange.
3. Neither the Trust nor any Index Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end fund or a mutual fund. Each Index Fund's Prospectus will prominently disclose that the Shares are not individually redeemable shares and will disclose that the owners of the Shares may acquire those Shares from the Index Fund and tender those Shares for redemption to the Index Fund in Creation Units only. Any advertising material that describes the purchase or sale of Creation Units or refers to redeemability will prominently disclose that the Shares are not individually redeemable, and that owners of Shares
4. The website for the Trust, which will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information, on a per Share basis, for each Index Fund: (i) The prior Business Day's NAV and the reported closing price, and a calculation of the premium or discount of such price against such NAV; and (ii) data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the daily closing price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters. In addition, the Product Description for each Index Fund will state that the website for the Trust has information about the premiums and discounts at which the Shares have traded.
5. The Prospectus and annual report for each Index Fund also will include: (i) The information listed in condition 4(ii), (a) in the case of the Prospectus, for the most recently completed year (and the most recently completed quarter or quarters, as applicable), and (b) in the case of the annual report, for the immediately preceding five years, as applicable; and (ii) the following data, calculated on a per Share basis for one, five and ten year periods (or the life of the Index Fund): (a) The cumulative total return and the average annual total return based on NAV and closing price, and (b) the cumulative total return of the relevant Underlying Index.
6. Before an Index Fund may rely on this order, the Commission will have approved, pursuant to rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act, an Exchange rule requiring Exchange members and member organizations effecting transactions in Shares to deliver a Product Description to purchasers of Shares.
The Applicants agree that any order of the Commission granting the requested relief from section 12(d)(1) will be subject to the following conditions:
7. The members of an Investing Fund's Advisory Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) an Index Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. The members of the SubAdviser Group will not control (individually or in the aggregate) an Index Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act. If, as a result of a decrease in the outstanding voting securities of an Index Fund, an Investing Fund's Advisory Group or the SubAdviser Group, each in the aggregate, becomes a holder of more than 25% of the outstanding voting securities of an Index Fund, it will vote its shares of the Index Fund in the same proportion as the vote of all other holders of the Index Fund's shares. This condition does not apply to the SubAdviser Group with respect to an Index Fund for which the Investing Fund SubAdviser or a person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Investing Fund SubAdviser acts as the investment adviser within the meaning of section 2(a)(20)(A) of the Act.
8. No Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate will cause any existing or potential investment by the Investing Fund in an Index Fund to influence the terms of any services or transactions between the Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate and the Index Fund or Index Fund Affiliate.
9. The board of directors or trustees of an Investing Management Company, including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to assure that the Investing Fund's Adviser and any Investing Fund SubAdviser are conducting the investment program of the Investing Management Company without taking into account any consideration received by the Investing Management Company or an Investing Fund Affiliate from an Index Fund or an Index Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions.
10. Once an investment by an Investing Fund in the securities of an Index Fund exceeds the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Trust's Board of Trustees (“Board”), including a majority of the disinterested Board members, will determine that any consideration paid by an Index Fund to the Investing Fund or an Investing Fund Affiliate in connection with any services or transactions: (i) Is fair and reasonable in relation to the nature and quality of the services and benefits received by the Index Fund; (ii) is within the range of consideration that the Index Fund would be required to pay to another unaffiliated entity in connection with the same services or transactions; and (iii) does not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned. This condition does not apply with respect to any services or transactions between an Index Fund and its investment adviser(s), or any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such investment adviser(s).
11. An Investing Fund Adviser, or a trustee or Sponsor of an Investing Trust will waive fees otherwise payable to it by the Investing Management Company or Investing Trust in an amount at least equal to any compensation (including fees received pursuant to any plan adopted by an Index Fund under rule 12b-1 under the Act) received from an Index Fund by the Investing Fund Adviser, trustee, or Sponsor to the Investing Trust or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund Adviser, trustee or Sponsor, other than any advisory fees paid to the Investing Fund Adviser, trustee or Sponsor or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund Adviser, trustee or Sponsor by the Index Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Management Company or Investing Trust in the Index Fund. Any Investing Fund SubAdviser will waive fees otherwise payable to the Investing Fund SubAdviser, directly or indirectly, by the Investing Management Company in an amount at least equal to any compensation received from an Index Fund by the Investing Fund SubAdviser, or an affiliated person of the Investing Fund SubAdviser, other than any advisory fees paid to the Investing Fund SubAdviser or its affiliated person by the Index Fund, in connection with the investment by the Investing Management Company in the Index Fund made at the direction of the Investing Fund SubAdviser. In the event that the Investing Fund SubAdviser waives fees, the benefit of the waiver will be passed through to the Investing Management Company.
12. No Investing Fund or Investing Fund Affiliate (except to the extent it is acting in its capacity as an investment adviser to an Index Fund) will cause an Index Fund to purchase a security in any Affiliated Underwriting.
13. The Board, including a majority of the disinterested Board members, will adopt procedures reasonably designed to monitor any purchases of securities by an Index Fund in an Affiliated Underwriting once an investment by an Investing Fund in Shares of the Index Fund exceeds the limit of section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, including any purchases made directly from an Underwriting Affiliate. The Board will review these purchases periodically, but no less frequently than annually, to determine whether the purchases were influenced by the investment by the Investing Fund in the Index Fund. The Board will consider, among other things: (i) Whether the purchases were consistent with the investment objectives and policies of the Index Fund; (ii) how the performance of securities purchased in an Affiliated Underwriting compares to the performance of comparable securities purchased during a comparable period of time in underwritings other than Affiliated Underwritings or to a benchmark such as a comparable market index; and (iii) whether the amount of securities purchased by the Index Fund
14. Each Index Fund will maintain and preserve permanently in an easily accessible place a written copy of the procedures described in the preceding condition, and any modifications to such procedures, and will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which any purchase in an Affiliated Underwriting occurred, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of each purchase of securities in Affiliated Underwritings once an investment by an Investing Fund in the securities of the Index Fund exceeds the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, setting forth from whom the securities were acquired, the identity of the underwriting syndicate's members, the terms of the purchase, and the information or materials upon which the Board's determinations were made.
15. Before investing in an Index Fund in excess of the limits in section 12(d)(1)(A), the Investing Fund and the Index Fund will execute a Participation Agreement stating, without limitation, that their boards of directors or trustees and their investment advisers, and the trustee and Sponsor of an Investing Trust, as applicable, understand the terms and conditions of the order, and agree to fulfill their responsibilities under the order. At the time of its investment in Shares of an Index Fund in excess of the limit in section 12(d)(1)(A)(i), an Investing Fund will notify the Index Fund of the investment. At such time, the Investing Fund will also transmit to the Index Fund a list of names of each Investing Fund Affiliate and Underwriting Affiliate. The Investing Fund will notify the Index Fund of any changes to the list of names as soon as reasonably practicable after a change occurs. The Index Fund and the Investing Fund will maintain and preserve a copy of the order, the Participation Agreement, and the list with any updated information for the duration of the investment and for a period of not less than six years thereafter, the first two years in an easily accessible place.
16. Before approving any advisory contract under section 15 of the Act, the board of directors or trustees of each Investing Management Company, including a majority of the disinterested directors or trustees, will find that the advisory fees charged under such advisory contract are based on services provided that will be in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided under the advisory contract(s) of any Index Fund in which the Investing Management Company may invest. These findings and their basis will be recorded fully in the minute books of the appropriate Investing Management Company.
17. Any sales charges and/or service fees charged with respect to shares of an Investing Fund will not exceed the limits applicable to a fund of funds as set forth in Conduct Rule 2830 of the NASD.
18. No Index Fund will acquire securities of any investment company or company relying on sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act in excess of the limits contained in section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act, except to the extent permitted by exemptive relief from the Commission that allows the Index Fund to purchase shares of a money market fund for short-term cash management purposes.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
No FEAR Act Notice.
5 CFR part 724.202 requires that each Federal agency provide notice in the
On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002, which is now known as the No FEAR Act. One purpose of the Act is to require that Federal agencies be accountable for violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. Public Law 107-174, Summary. In support of this purpose, Congress found that “agencies cannot be run effectively if those agencies practice or tolerate discrimination.” Public Law 107-174, Title I, General Provisions, section 101(1).
The Act also requires this agency to provide this notice to Federal employees, former Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment to inform you of the rights and protections available to you under federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws.
A Federal agency cannot discriminate against an employee or applicant with respect to the terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. Discrimination on these bases is prohibited by one or more of the following statutes: 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 29 U.S.C. 631, 29 U.S.C. 633a, 29 U.S.C. 791 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16.
If you believe that you have been the victim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or disability, you must contact an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor within 45 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action, or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45 calendar days of the effective date of the action, before you can file a formal complaint of discrimination with your agency.
A Federal employee with authority to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action must not use that authority to take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action against an employee or applicant because of a disclosure of information by that individual that is reasonably believed to evidence violations of law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, unless disclosure of such information is specifically prohibited by law and such information is specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs.
Retaliation against an employee or applicant for making a protected
A Federal agency cannot retaliate against an employee or applicant because that individual exercises his or her rights under any of the Federal antidiscrimination or whistleblower protection laws listed above. If you believe that you are the victim of retaliation for engaging in protected activity, you must follow, as appropriate, the procedures described in the Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws sections or, if applicable, the administrative or negotiated grievance procedures in order to pursue any legal remedy.
Under the existing laws, each agency retains the right, where appropriate, to discipline a Federal employee for conduct that is inconsistent with Federal Antidiscrimination and Whistleblower Protection Laws up to and including removal. If OSC has initiated an investigation under 5 U.S.C. 1214, however, according to 5 U.S.C. 1214(f), agencies must seek approval from the Special Counsel to discipline employees for, among other activities, engaging in prohibited retaliation. Nothing in the No FEAR Act alters existing laws or permits an agency to take unfounded disciplinary action against a Federal employee or to violate the procedural rights of a Federal employee who has been accused of discrimination.
For further information regarding the No FEAR Act regulations, refer to 5 CFR part 724, as well as the appropriate offices within the Tennessee Valley Authority (e.g., Equal Opportunity Compliance, Human Resources, the Office of the Inspector General, and TVA's Ombudsman). Additional information regarding Federal antidiscrimination, whistleblower protection and retaliation laws can be found at the EEOC Web site—
Pursuant to section 205 of the No FEAR Act, neither the Act nor this notice creates, expands or reduces any rights otherwise available to any employee, former employee or applicant under the laws of the United States.
Linda J. Sales-Long, 865-632-2515.
Federal Aviation Administration.
Notice of Availability of Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is issuing this notice to advise the public that the Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper for the Draft EIS will be made available for public comment pursuant to section 304 of the Vision 100 Century of Aviation Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-176) [49 U.S.C. 47171(l)]. The Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper has been prepared for the construction and operation of the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport, located along Interstate Highway 15 about 30 miles south of Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada. FAA is seeking comments on the Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper.
Andrew Brooks, Environmental Protection Specialist, AWP-610.6, Airports Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, California 90009-2007, Telephone: 650/922-1899. Comments on the Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper should be submitted to the address above and must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, Friday, February 29, 2008.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport (SNSA). The need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is based on the procedures described in FAA Order 1050.1E,
FAA and BLM are making the Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper available to the public and governmental agencies for review and comment. This working paper contains information that the FAA and BLM will include into the Purpose and Need Section of the Draft EIS. FAA and BLM will consider all comments received for the purpose of developing future documents supporting the Draft EIS. FAA and BLM will accept comments on the Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper until 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, Friday, February 23, 2008.
Copies of the Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper are available for public review at the following locations during normal business hours:
The document is also available for public review at the following libraries and other locations and at the following Web site:
The Draft Purpose and need Working Paper will be available for public comment for 30 days. Written comments on the Draft Purpose and Need Working Paper should be submitted to the address above under the heading “For Further Information Contact” and must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, Friday, February 29, 2008.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces a public meeting of the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to discuss rotorcraft issues.
The meeting is scheduled for Sunday, February 24, 2008, starting at 5 pm, Central Standard Time. Arrange for oral presentations by February 15, 2008.
George R. Brown Convention Center, Room 371 B and C (room subject to change, please check events program on day of meeting), 1001
Nicanor Davidson, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-207, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-5174, FAX (202) 267-5075, or e-mail at
The referenced meeting is announced pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. app. III).
The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
Attendance is open to the interested public, but will be limited to the availability of meeting room space. For persons participating by telephone, the call-in number is (202) 366-3920; the Passcode is “5551”. Anyone participating by telephone will be responsible for paying long-distance charges.
The public must make arrangements by February 15, 2008 to present oral statements at the meeting. Written statements may be presented to the ARAC at any time by providing 25 copies to the person listed in the
If you need assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for the meeting or meeting documents, please contact the person listed in the
Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M) and Springfield Terminal Railway Company (ST) (collectively, applicants) jointly have filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 Subpart F—
B&M and ST have certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead traffic on the line; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements of 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to these exemptions, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment or discontinuance shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, these exemptions will be effective on February 26, 2008, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to applicants' representative: Michael Q. Geary, Esq., Boston & Maine Corporation, Iron Horse Park, North Billerica, MA 01862.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemptions are void
B&M and ST have filed an environmental and historic report which addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment and discontinuance on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by February 1, 2008. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA, at (202) 245-0305. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.] Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), B&M shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by B&M's filing of a notice of consummation by January 25, 2009, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M) and Springfield Terminal Railway Company (ST) (collectively, applicants) jointly have filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 Subpart F—
B&M and ST have certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead traffic on the line; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements of 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to these exemptions, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment or discontinuance shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, these exemptions will be effective on February 26, 2008, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to applicants' representative: Michael Q. Geary, Iron Horse Park, North Billerica, MA 01862.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemptions are void
B&M and ST have filed an environmental and historic report which addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment and discontinuance on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by February 1, 2008. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA, at (202) 245-0305. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.] Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), B&M shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by B&M's filing of a notice of consummation by January 25, 2009, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is publishing the name of six entities whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995,
The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers of the entities identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, is effective on January 17, 2008.
Assistant Director, Compliance Outreach & Implementation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, tel.: 202/622-2420.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On October 21, 1995, the President, invoking the authority,
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, or that hereafter come within the United States or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) The persons listed in an Annex to the Order; (2) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and Secretary of State, to play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia; or (3) to materially assist in, or provide financial or technological support for or goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated in or pursuant to this order; and (4) persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons designated pursuant to this Order.
On January 17, 2008, the Director of OFAC removed from the list of Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers the entities listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Order.
The listing of the unblocked entities follows:
1. INVERSIONES MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ E HIJO, Avenida 4N 6N-67 of. 601, Cali, Colombia; Avenida 6N 23DN-16 of. 202, 301, 302, 401, 402, Cali, Colombia [SDNT]
2. INVERSIONES RODRIGUEZ ARBELAEZ Y CIA. S. EN C., Avenida 4N No. 5N-20, Cali, Colombia; Avenida 6N No. 23D-16 of. 402, Cali, Colombia [SDNT]
3. INVERSIONES RODRIGUEZ MORENO Y CIA. S. EN C., Calle 10 No. 4-47, Cali, Colombia [SDNT]
4. INVERSIONES Y CONSTRUCCIONES ATLAS LTDA. (f.k.a. INVERSIONES MOMPAX LTDA.; f.k.a. MOMPAX LTDA.), Calle 10 No. 4-47 piso 19, Cali, Colombia; NIT # 800102408-1 (Colombia) [SDNT]
5. INVERSIONES Y CONSTRUCCIONES COSMOVALLE LTDA. (f.k.a. COMPAX LTDA.; a.k.a. COSMOVALLE; f.k.a. INVERSIONES Y DISTRIBUCIONES COMPAX LTDA.), Calle 10 No. 4-47 piso 19, Cali, Colombia; NIT # 800102403-5 (Colombia) [SDNT]
6. M.O.C. ECHEVERRY HERMANOS LTDA., Calle 23AN No. 5AN-21, Cali, Colombia; NIT # 800038241-5 (Colombia) [SDNT]