Aging Administration
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Aging Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Justice Programs Office
Parole Commission
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Research and Special Programs Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Customs Service
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the administrative regulations of the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture to reflect the subpoena provisions of the Animal Health Protection Act. Under the Animal Health Protection Act, the Secretary of Agriculture can subpoena witnesses and documents relating to the administration or enforcement of the Animal Health Protection Act or any matter being investigated in connection with the Animal Health Protection Act. This final rule is necessary to establish regulations governing the issuance of subpoenas under this authority. We are also amending the administrative regulations, where necessary, by including references to the Animal Health Protection Act, the Plant Protection Act, and Title V of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, and removing references to statutes repealed by the Plant Protection Act.
November 26, 2002.
Mr. Alan R. Christian, Director, Investigative and Enforcement Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 85, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-8684.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), through its Veterinary Services (VS) program, regulates animals, animal products, and other articles to prevent the introduction or spread of animal diseases and pests. When it appears that VS regulations have been violated, APHIS conducts an investigation. In conducting the investigation, it may be necessary to issue a subpoena for testimony or for documents and other records.
Title X, subtitle E, of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171, 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317), known as the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA), updates and consolidates a number of animal health statutes. Under section 10415 of the AHPA (7 U.S.C. 8314), the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to issue subpoenas for testimony and for documents and other records relating to administration or enforcement of the AHPA. The authority for signing subpoenas has been delegated from the Secretary to the Under Secretary of Marketing and Regulatory Programs, and from the Under Secretary of Marketing and Regulatory Programs to the Administrator, APHIS (7 CFR 2.22 and 2.80).
The AHPA requires that we publish procedures for issuing subpoenas. According to § 10415(a)(2)(E) of the AHPA (7 U.S.C. 8314), the procedures must include a requirement that subpoenas be reviewed for legal sufficiency and signed by the Secretary. The Act further requires that “if the authority to sign a subpoena is delegated to an agency other than the Office of Administrative Law Judges, the agency receiving the delegation shall seek review of the subpoena for legal sufficiency outside that agency.”
To comply with these requirements, we are amending 7 CFR 1.29 and 1.131. Section 1.29 governs the issuance of subpoenas relating to investigations under statutes administered by the Secretary. Paragraph (3) states that the Office of the General Counsel, USDA, will review subpoenas for legal sufficiency that are issued under certain statutes. We are amending paragraph (3) to state that the Office of the General Counsel will also review for legal sufficiency subpoenas that are issued under the AHPA.
Section 1.131 comes under subpart H of part 1. Subpart H contains rules of practice for formal adjudicatory proceedings instituted by the Secretary under various statutes. We are amending § 1.131 to add the AHPA to the list of covered statutes. We are also updating § 1.131 by removing references to statutes that were repealed by the Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772).
We are also updating § 1.183, which comes under subpart J of part 1. Subpart J contains procedures relating to awards under the Equal Access to Justice Act in proceedings before the Department. We are amending § 1.183 by adding the AHPA and Title V of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, section 501(a) (7 U.S.C. 2279e) to the list of covered statutes and by revising the citations provided in the entry for the PPA.
This rule relates to internal agency management. Therefore, this rule is exempt from the provisions of Executive Orders 12866 and 12988. Moreover, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment are not required for this rule, and it may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule contains no information collections or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Antitrust, Blind, Claims, Concessions, Cooperatives, Equal access to justice, Federal buildings and facilities, Freedom of information, Lawyers, Privacy.
5 U.S.C. 301, unless otherwise noted.
5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 61, 87e, 228, 268, 499o, 608c(14), 1592, 1624(b), 2151, 2279e, 2621, 2714, 2908, 3812, 4610, 4815, 4910, 6009, 6107, 6207, 6307, 6411, 6808, 7107, 7734, 8313; 15 U.S.C. 1828; 16 U.S.C. 620d, 1540(f), 3373; 21 U.S.C. 104, 111, 117, 120, 122, 127, 134e, 134f, 135a, 154, 463(b), 621, 1043; 43 U.S.C. 1740; 7 CFR 2.35, 2.41.
5 U.S.C. 504(c)(1).
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Interim rule and request for comments.
We are amending the exotic Newcastle disease regulations by quarantining Los Angeles County, CA, and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, CA, and restricting the interstate movement of birds, poultry, products, and materials that could spread exotic Newcastle disease from the quarantined area. This action is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the interstate spread of exotic Newcastle disease from the quarantined area.
This interim rule was effective November 21, 2002. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before January 27, 2003.
You may submit comments by postal mail/commercial delivery or by e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket No. 02-117-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 02-117-1. If you use e-mail, address your comment to
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the
Dr. Aida Boghossian, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Emergency Programs Staff, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-8073.
Exotic Newcastle disease (END) is a contagious and fatal viral disease affecting the respiratory, nervous, and digestive systems of birds and poultry. END is so virulent that many birds and poultry die without showing any clinical signs. A death rate of almost 100 percent can occur in unvaccinated poultry flocks. END can infect and cause death even in vaccinated poultry.
The END regulations, contained in 9 CFR 82.1 through 82.15 (referred to below as the regulations), were established to prevent the spread of END in the United States in the event of an outbreak. Section 82.3, paragraph (a), provides that any area where birds or poultry infected with END are located will be designated as a quarantined area. Less than an entire State will be designated as a quarantined area only if the State enforces restrictions on intrastate movements from the quarantined area that are at least as stringent as the regulations. The regulations restrict the interstate movement of birds, poultry, products, and materials that could spread END from quarantined areas. Prior to this rule, no areas were listed as quarantined in § 82.3(c) because of END.
On October 1, 2002, END was confirmed in the State of California. The disease has been diagnosed in backyard poultry, which are raised on private premises for hobby, exhibition, and personal consumption. At this time, commercial poultry are not involved in the disease occurrence.
The State of California and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service have begun an intensive END eradication program in the quarantined area in Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Also, California has taken action to restrict the intrastate movement of birds, poultry, products, and materials that could spread END from the quarantined area.
Accordingly, to prevent the spread of END into other States, we are amending § 82.3(c) by designating Los Angeles County and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, CA, as a quarantined area for END. The quarantined area is described in the rule portion of this document.
This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent END from spreading to other States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
We will consider comments that we receive during the comment period for this interim rule (see
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.
This rule amends the END regulations by adding Los Angeles County and portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, CA, to the list of quarantined areas. The regulations restrict the interstate movement of birds, poultry, products, and materials that could spread END from the quarantined area.
This emergency situation makes timely compliance with section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Animal diseases, Poultry and poultry products, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
7 U.S.C. 8304-8306, 8308, 8313, and 8315; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
(c) The following areas are quarantined because of END:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
This procedural rule amends the compliance certification regulations by revising the deadline date for all electric motor manufacturers to certify compliance to the Department of Energy that their motors meet the applicable energy efficiency standards.
This rule is effective November 26, 2002.
James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-41, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, telephone (202) 586-8654, telefax (202) 586-4617, or:
Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, Mail Station GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-7432, telefax (202) 586-4116, or:
Section 345(c) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) requires “manufacturers to certify, through an independent testing or certification program nationally recognized in the United States, that such motor meets the applicable [nominal full load efficiency standard]” (42 U.S.C. 6316(c)). The Department of Energy (DOE) construes the statutory language to provide manufacturers with two equivalent ways to fulfill the certification requirement: (1) A
The procedures by which a manufacturer may certify the energy efficiency of the manufacturer's electric motors, through either a certification program or an accredited laboratory, are set forth in 10 CFR 431.24(a)(5). Section 431.123(a) in 10 CFR part 431 currently provides that, beginning on June 7, 2002, no electric motor “subject to an energy efficiency standard set forth in subpart C of this part” may be distributed in commerce unless it is covered by a Compliance Certification that the manufacturer has submitted to DOE.
On November 9, 2001, DOE published a notice of final rulemaking in the
At that time, DOE believed that the extension of the certification deadline to June 7, 2002, would provide sufficient time for all manufacturers to come into compliance with EPCA's requirements. The new deadline was based on DOE's belief that it would be able to promptly complete action on the petitions for certification program recognition that had been submitted by CSA International and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., and that such action could be completed in a timeframe that would allow manufacturers, if they so chose, to use an approved certification program and submit required certifications to DOE by the June 7, 2002 deadline. DOE had published for public comment the petition of CSA International on April 26, 2000 (65 FR 24429), and the petition of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. on October 3, 2001 (66 FR 50355).
DOE was not able to complete action on these two petitions for certification program recognition by June 7, 2002. DOE published its interim determinations to approve the CSA International and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., petitions for certification program recognition on July 5, 2002. 67 FR 45018 and 45028. Under the certification program recognition process set forth in 10 CFR 431.28(a)-(f), after the period for public comment for the interim determinations closes, DOE will review any comments and information submitted, as well as any responsive statements of the petitioners. DOE then will publish a final determination on the petitions. In the meantime, however, the situation remains the same as it was in November 2001 when DOE granted the previous extension of the deadline in 10 CFR 431.123(a). That is, a number of motor manufacturers have elected to base the certification of their motors' energy efficiency on a certification program that DOE classifies as nationally recognized; many of those manufacturers have committed resources in anticipation of certification programs being recognized by DOE; there are no certification programs nationally recognized for the purposes of section 345(c) of EPCA; it is impossible for manufacturers electing to use a nationally recognized certification program, as allowed by EPCA, to test and certify their motors for energy efficiency before June 7, 2002; and there is insufficient independent testing laboratory capacity for testing the thousands of basic models of electric motors covered by EPCA's efficiency standards. Therefore, DOE is amending section 431.123(a) to further extend the deadline for motor manufacturers to certify compliance with EPCA.
In view of the foregoing, DOE today amends 10 CFR 431.123 to replace “June 7, 2002” with a phrase cross-referencing a new paragraph (g), which establishes a new compliance date. New paragraph (g) of 10 CFR 431.123 provides that the new compliance date is April 30, 2003, or the date that is 120 days after the date on which DOE publishes its final determinations for the CSA International and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. petitions, whichever is earlier. The rule further provides that if DOE publishes the final determinations for the CSA International and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. petitions on different dates, the compliance certification date is the date that is 120 days after the date of publication of the earlier final determination. DOE believes this approach will result in certifications by manufacturers using certification programs at the earliest possible time. While establishing April 30, 2003 as the outside limit on the extension, DOE expects to issue final determinations on the two petitions in time to allow manufacturers to come into compliance before that date.
The Secretary of Energy has approved issuance of this final rule.
DOE reviewed today's rule under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
Today's regulatory action has been determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735). Accordingly, today's action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255) requires federal agencies to develop an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have “federalism implications.” Policies that have federalism implications are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations (65 FR 13735). DOE has examined today's rule and determined that it does 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. No further action is required by the Executive Order.
DOE has determined that this regulation would not result in any takings which might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
No new collection of information will be imposed by this rulemaking. Accordingly, no clearance by the Office of Management and Budget is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501,
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3 of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729) imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; write regulations to minimize litigation; provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Today's final rule does not incorporate commercial standards by reference. Therefore, section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act does not apply to today's final rule.
DOE has determined that today's final rule does not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to state, local or to tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) do not apply.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may affect family well-being. Today's final rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) requires federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposed action be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's final rule would not have any adverse effects on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Today's final rule is not subject to requirements for prior notice and opportunity for public comment because it is procedural in nature. However, to the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553(b) may apply to this rulemaking, DOE finds that is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish prior notice because it is impossible for manufacturers who elected to use a nationally recognized certification program, as allowed by EPCA, to comply with the certification requirement by the June 7, 2002 deadline, and because regulated manufacturers should be relieved as promptly as possible of the threat of potential enforcement of the June 7, 2002 deadline, with which it was impossible for them to comply. This situation also warrants DOE making this final rule effective upon publication in the
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of today's rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation,
42 U.S.C. 6311-6316.
(g)
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes equipped with certain Collins LRA-900 radio altimeters, that currently requires a revision to the Airplane Flight Manual to prohibit autopilot coupled autoland operations in certain conditions; or, for certain airplanes, replacement of certain Collins LRA-900 radio altimeters with Collins LRA-700 radio altimeters. This amendment also requires a one-time inspection to determine whether a Collins LRA-900 radio altimeter receiver/transmitter with a certain part number is installed, and modification of such a radio altimeter. This amendment is prompted by reports indicating that a fault in Collins LRA-900 radio altimeters having a certain part number could result in an incorrect and unbounded output of radio altitude to other airplanes. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent an undetected anomalous radio altitude signal that is passed along to the flare control law of the flight control computer, which could cause the airplane to flare too high or too low during landing, and consequently result in a hard landing. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective December 31, 2002.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 31, 2002.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
Brett Portwood, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5350; fax (562) 627-5210.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 98-24-51, amendment 39-10929 (63 FR 66422, December 2, 1998), which is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes equipped with certain Collins LRA-900 radio altimeters having certain part numbers, was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the single comment received.
The commenter suggests that the applicability in the proposed AD be changed from “McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F Airplanes Equipped with Collins LRA-900 Radio Altimeters,” to “McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 and -11F Airplanes Equipped with Collins LRA-900, Part Number (P/N) 822-0334-220, Radio Altimeters.” The commenter states that this would prevent operators of MD-11 airplanes with Collins radio altimeters having other P/Ns from performing an unnecessary inspection to comply with the proposed AD.
The FAA acknowledges, but does not agree with, the commenter's suggestion. The inspection to determine if airplanes have the radio altimeter with the P/N specified above is required by paragraph (b) of this AD, and the affected P/N is specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this AD. Operators can ascertain what the affected P/N is, and if the radio altimeters do not have the affected P/N, no further action is required by this AD. Therefore, no change to the applicability in this final rule is necessary.
The FAA has clarified the inspection requirement contained in the proposed AD. Whereas the proposed AD specified a visual inspection, the FAA has revised
After careful review of the available data, including the comment noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the change previously described. The FAA has determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
There are approximately 195 Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 64 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.
The actions that are currently required by AD 98-24-51 take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,840, or $60 per airplane.
The new actions that are required in this AD will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,840, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent an undetected anomalous radio altitude signal that is passed along to the flare control law of the flight control computer, which could cause the airplane to flare too high or too low during landing, and consequently result in a hard landing, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 24 hours after December 7, 1998 (the effective date of AD 98-24-51, amendment 39-10929): accomplish either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD.
(1) Revise the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual to include the following statement: “Autopilot coupled autoland operations below 100 feet above ground level (AGL) are prohibited.”
(2) For airplanes on which the LRA-700 radio altimeter installation has been approved in accordance with Type Certificate or Supplemental Type Certificate procedures: Replace both Collins LRA-900 radio altimeters having part number (P/N) 822-0334-220, with Collins LRA-700 radio altimeters having P/N 622-4542-221.
(b) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Perform a general visual inspection to determine the P/N of the radio altimeter receiver/transmitters, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD11-34-091, dated August 19, 1999.
For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is defined as: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
(1) If the airplane is equipped with Collins LRA-900 radio altimeter receiver/transmitters having P/N 822-0334-220: Prior to further flight, modify the radio altimeter receiver/transmitter in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD11-34-091, dated August 19, 1999.
(2) If the airplane is not equipped with Collins LRA-900 radio altimeter receiver/transmitters having P/N 822-0334-220: No further action is required by this paragraph.
Upon completion of the actions required by paragraph (b) of this AD, the revised limitations in the AFM, as required by paragraph (a)(1) of this AD, may be removed.
McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD11-34-091, dated August 19, 1999, refers to Rockwell Avionics Service Bulletin LRA-900-34-D, Revision 1, dated May 26, 1999, as an additional source of service information.
(c) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install on any airplane a Collins
(d)(1) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
(2) Alternative methods of compliance, approved previously in accordance with AD 98-24-51, amendment 39-10929, are approved as alternative methods of compliance with this AD.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(f) The inspection and modification shall be done in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD11-34-091, dated August 19, 1999. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the
(g) This amendment becomes effective on December 31, 2002.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 747-100, -200B, -200C, -200F, -300, -400, -400F, and 747SR series airplanes equipped with a MCSCD manufactured by Boeing. This action requires repetitive inspections for cracking of the lower lobe panel of the fuselage skin of the aft cargo bay, and repair if necessary. This action is necessary to find and fix cracking of the skin, which could lead to reduced structural integrity of the side cargo door cutout of the main deck, and result in rapid depressurization of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective December 11, 2002.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 11, 2002.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before January 27, 2003.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-270-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2131; fax (425) 227-1181.
The FAA recently received a report of cracking of the lower lobe panel of the fuselage skin of the aft cargo bay, between Station (STA) 1720 and 1740, on a Model 747-200F series airplane. The crack was 11.6 inches long and was located below the stringer 34L lap joint and the upper fastener row of the external reinforcing doubler of the cargo door cutout of the main deck. The airplane had accumulated 18,688 total flight cycles and 81,902 total flight hours. Subsequent examination and analysis of the cracked skin revealed that the crack originated from scratches in the skin exterior surface at multiple locations. Such cracking, if not found and fixed, could lead to reduced structural integrity of the side cargo door cutout of the main deck, and result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2487, Revision 1, dated October 31, 2002, which describes procedures for repetitive internal detailed or eddy current inspections for cracking of the lower lobe panel of the fuselage skin of the aft cargo bay at section 46, below stringer 34L, from STA 1640 through 1740 inclusive. If any cracking is found, the service bulletin specifies contacting the manufacturer for repair information. The service bulletin also recommends that operators submit inspection findings to Boeing following each inspection. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, this AD requires
The service bulletin specifies that the manufacturer may be contacted for disposition of repairs; however, this AD requires all repairs to be accomplished per a method approved by the FAA, or per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, to make such findings.
Although the service bulletin recommends that operators report findings to the manufacturer after each inspection, this AD does not include such a reporting requirement.
This is considered to be interim action. The manufacturer has advised that it currently is developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we may consider additional rulemaking.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2002-NM-270-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To find and fix cracking of the lower lobe panel of the fuselage skin of the aft cargo bay, which could lead to reduced structural integrity of the side cargo door cutout of the main deck, and result in rapid depressurization of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Do either an internal detailed or eddy current inspection to find cracking of the lower lobe panel of the fuselage skin of the aft cargo bay, below stringer 34L, from Station (STA) 1640 through 1740 inclusive, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2487, Revision 1, dated October 31, 2002. Do the initial inspection at the time shown in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as applicable. If the initial inspection was a detailed inspection, repeat that inspection at least every 50 flight cycles; if the initial inspection was an eddy current inspection, repeat that inspection at least every 250 flight cycles; as applicable. Although the service bulletin references a reporting requirement in paragraph 1.D., such reporting is not required by this AD.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”
(1) For airplanes on which the main deck side cargo door (MDSCD) was installed after the date of manufacture of the airplane: Do the inspection within 10,000 flight cycles after installation of the MDSCD, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later.
(2) For airplanes on which the MDSCD was installed before the date of manufacture of the airplane: Do the inspection prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles on the airplane, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later.
(b) Inspections done before the effective date of this AD per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2487, dated October 24, 2000; are considered acceptable for compliance with paragraph (a) of this AD.
(c) If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD: Before further flight, repair per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings. For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(f) Unless otherwise provided by this AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2487, Revision 1, dated October 31, 2002. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, PO Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on December 11, 2002.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30 airplanes. This action requires replacement of the Captain's and First Officer's chart holder assemblies on the cockpit control columns with new, improved assemblies. This action is necessary to prevent interference between the cockpit control wheels and the chart holder assembly, which could result in restricted movement of the control wheel travel when rotating the right- and left-wing-down, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective December 11, 2002.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 11, 2002.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before January 27, 2003.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-375-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Ken Sujishi, Aerospace Engineer, Systems & Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5353; fax (562) 627-5210.
The FAA has received information from an MD-90 flight simulator manufacturer of an interference problem between the cockpit control wheels and the Captain's and First Officer's chart holder assemblies on the cockpit control columns. Investigation revealed that when the control wheels are rotated both right-wing-down and left-wing-down, the grips/horns strike the left and right edge of the existing chart holders. Such interference restricts movement to a maximum of 107 to 109 degrees. The roll control tab stops are set at 116 degrees (no air load), and the travel-to-wheel stops are identified as 135 degrees. Such interference, if not corrected, could result in restricted movement of the control wheel travel when rotating the right- and left-wing-down, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
We have reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-25A070, excluding Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 26, 2002, which describes procedures for replacement of the Captain's and First Officer's chart holder assemblies located on the cockpit control columns, with new, improved assemblies. The service bulletin also references the airplane maintenance manual which describes procedures for a functional test after doing the replacement. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design that may be registered in the United States at some time in the future, the actions are required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described previously, except that the AD does not require completing the Evaluation Form.
None of the Model MD-90-30 airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. All airplanes included in the applicability of this rule currently are operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action. However, the FAA considers that this rule is necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that any of these subject airplanes are imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.
Should an affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would require approximately 1 work hour to accomplish the required replacement, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Parts will be provided by the manufacturer at no cost to operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement required by this AD would be $60 per airplane.
Since this AD action does not affect any airplane that is currently on the U.S. register, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, prior notice and public procedures hereon are unnecessary and the amendment may be made effective in less than 30 days after publication in the
Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by notice and opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-375-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent interference between the cockpit control wheels and the chart holder assembly, which could result in restricted movement of the control wheel travel when rotating the right- and left-wing-down, and
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace the Captain's and First Officer's chart holder assemblies on the cockpit control columns with new assemblies (including a functional test after replacement), per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-25A070, excluding Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 26, 2002.
(b) Accomplishment of the replacement before the effective date of this AD per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-25A070, dated November 8, 2001, is considered acceptable for compliance with paragraph (a) of this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) The actions shall be done per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-25A070, excluding Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 26, 2002. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on December 11, 2002.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30 airplanes, that requires one-time inspections to detect discrepancies of electrical wiring installations in various areas of the airplane; and corrective actions, if necessary. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent electrical arcing and/or heat-damaged wiring due to improper wire installations or maintenance practices, which could result in fire and smoke in various areas of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective December 31, 2002.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 21, 2002.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
George Mabuni, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5341; fax (562) 627-5210.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30 airplanes was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
Because the language in Notes 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the proposed AD is regulatory in nature, those notes have been redesignated (and consolidated) as new paragraph (c) of this final rule. The remaining lettered paragraphs and Notes have been reidentified accordingly.
The identity of each service bulletin in the proposed AD has been changed in this final rule from “* * * including Appendix A” to “* * * excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form.” The Appendix and Evaluation Form normally attached to the service bulletins are excluded because they do not contain information necessary to accomplish the requirements of this AD. Further, the Appendix was misidentified in the proposed AD as “Appendix A.”
After careful review of the available data, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes described previously. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
There are approximately 115 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 25 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
The FAA recommends that the actions required by this AD be accomplished after the replacement of the metallized polyethyleneteraphthalate (MPET) insulation blankets required by AD 2000-11-01, amendment 39-11749.
To prevent electrical arcing and/or heat-damaged wiring due to improper wire installations or maintenance practices, which could result in fire and smoke in various areas of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 5 years after the effective date of this AD, accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) of this AD.
(1) Do a one-time detailed inspection of all electrical wiring installations in the flight compartment and forward drop ceiling area, according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-066, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”
(2) Do a one-time detailed inspection of all electrical wiring installations in the electronic/electrical (E/E) compartment according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-067, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001.
(3) Do a one-time detailed inspection of all electrical wiring installations in the forward passenger compartment from stations Y=260.000 to Y=902.000 according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-068, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001.
(4) Do a one-time detailed inspection of all electrical wiring installations in the aft passenger compartment from stations Y=902.000 to Y=1395.000 according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-069, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001.
(5) Do a one-time detailed inspection of all electrical wiring installations in the forward and mid cargo compartments from stations Y=218.000 to Y=845.000 according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-070, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001.
(6) Do a one-time detailed inspection of all electrical wiring installations in the aft cargo compartment from stations Y=1064.000 to Y=1369.000 according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-071, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001.
(7) Do a one-time detailed inspection of all electrical wiring installations in the forward accessory compartment from stations Y=41.000 to Y=70.000 according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-072, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001.
(b) If any discrepancy is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD: Before further flight, accomplish the applicable corrective action(s) according to the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletins listed in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (b)(7) of this AD. Corrective actions that may be necessary include repairing cracked, split, or torn wiring insulation; re-attaching nylon (caterpillar) grommets; installing smaller-sized clamps; adjusting, replacing, or tightening sta-straps; repositioning certain wiring or clamps; tightening or securing clamps, terminals, or wire bundles; re-torquing screw terminals of the flag lug bus bar; repairing or replacing certain wiring, terminals, splices, or connectors; installing protective sleeving over wiring; and installing a silicone glass cloth over conduit ends.
(1) Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-066, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001.
(2) Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-067, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001.
(3) Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-068, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001.
(4) Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-069, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001.
(5) Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-070, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001.
(6) Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-071, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001.
(7) Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-072, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001.
The Appendix of the service bulletins referenced in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (b)(7) of this AD contains a form to report inspection findings. This AD does NOT require such reports to be submitted to the FAA.
(c) Inspections and corrective actions done before the effective date of this AD according to the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletins listed in the following table are acceptable for compliance with the applicable paragraphs of this AD:
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(f) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-066, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001; Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-067, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001; Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-068, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001; Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-069, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001; Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-070, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001; Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-071, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001; and Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-24-072, excluding Appendix and Evaluation Form, Revision 01, dated February 8, 2001; as applicable. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on December 31, 2002.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), that is applicable to Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT8D-200 series turbofan engines. This amendment requires initial and repetitive visual inspections, fluorescent magnetic particle inspections (FMPI), and fretting wear inspections of high pressure compressor (HPC) front hubs that have operated with PWA-110 coating in the interface between the hub and the stage 8-9 spacer. This amendment is prompted by the discovery of cracked tierod holes found during routine engine overhauls. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent a rupture of the HPC front hub that could result in an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.
Effective December 31, 2002. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 31, 2002.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108, telephone (860) 565-6600; fax (860) 565-4503. This information may be examined, by appointment, at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Christopher Spinney, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (781) 238-7175; fax (781) 238-7199.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.
Two commenters request that the AD be changed to allow credit for inspections occurring before 9,000 cycles in service (CIS). One commenter requests that the second inspection occur within 6,500 cycles of the initial inspection, while the other commenter requests that the second inspection occur as late as 18,000 cycles.
The FAA partially agrees. The FAA agrees that some credit should be given for inspections occurring before 9,000. We do not agree, however, that the second inspection should be delayed until 18,000 CIS. A 15,500 CIS limit is more appropriate. Further, the shop visit requirement will be relaxed to an accessibility requirement for HPC front hubs inspected before accumulating 9,000 CIS. Accordingly, the inspection interval for HPC front hubs has been modified for hubs with less than 17,000 CIS to account for hubs inspected before 9,000 CIS. These hubs can be reinspected at the first accessibility of the HPC front hub after accumulating 9,000 CIS but not to exceed 15,500 CIS.
One commenter requests that the effective date be chosen to allow sufficient time for an AMOC request.
The FAA agrees. The FAA provides a 35-day time frame from the date of publication to the effective date of the AD which should provide sufficient time to request an AMOC, if necessary.
One commenter requests that an LPT module replacement performed at an engine buildup shop be excluded from the shop visit requirements of this AD. The commenter feels that there are a small number of engines affected annually for this particular operator.
The FAA does not agree. The variability of every operator's maintenance program makes it difficult to define a shop visit that meets all operator's needs. The FAA believes the current definition is best suited for all operators. If an individual operator believes some engines should be exempt from the shop visit definition of the AD because of some unique features of their maintenance program, then they should seek approval for that provision in accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD.
One commenter states that the FAA underestimates the economic impact of the AD by failing to include ancilliary costs of the AD.
The FAA does not agree. The indirect costs associated with this AD are not directly related to this rule, and, therefore, are not addressed in the economic analysis for this rule. A full cost analysis for each AD, including such indirect costs, is not necessary since the FAA has already performed a cost benefit analysis when adopting the airworthiness requirements to which these engines were originally certificated. A finding that an AD is warranted means that the original design no longer achieves the level of safety specified by those airworthiness requirements, and that other required actions are necessary. Because the original level of safety was already determined to be cost beneficial, these additional requirements needed to return the engine to that level of safety do not add any additional regulatory burden, and, therefore, a full cost analysis would be redundant and unnecessary.
After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes described previously. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
There are approximately 2,648 PW JT8D-200 series turbofan engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 2,352 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this AD. The FAA also estimates that it would take approximately 6 work hours per engine to perform the inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost of the initial inspection to U.S. operators is estimated to be $846,720.
This final rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it 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. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this final rule.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each engine identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For engines that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
(a) Strip the protective coating, visually inspect for fretting wear, fluorescent magnetic particle inspect (FMPI), reidentify and replate HPC front hubs and the stage 8-9 spacers, and replace if necessary in accordance with the accomplishment instructions of Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) JT8D A6430, dated September 5, 2002, as follows:
(1) For HPC front hubs with fewer than 17,000 total cycles-in-service (CIS) on the effective date of this AD, inspect as follows:
(i) For HPC front hubs not inspected in accordance with ASB JT8D A6430, dated September 5, 2002, before accumulating 9,000 total CIS, inspect at the first shop visit after accumulating 9,000 total CIS not to exceed 18,000 total CIS.
(ii) For HPC front hubs inspected in accordance with ASB JT8D A6430, dated September 5, 2002, before accumulating 9,000 total CIS, inspect at the next accessibility of the HPC front hub after accumulating 9,000 total CIS not to exceed 15,500 total CIS.
(2) For HPC front hubs with greater than or equal to 17,000 total CIS but less than 19,000 total CIS on the effective date of this AD, inspect at the next shop visit, not to exceed 1,000 CIS from the effective date of this AD or 19,500 total CIS, whichever occurs first.
(3) For HPC front hubs with greater than or equal to 19,000 total CIS on the effective date of this AD, inspect within 500 CIS from the effective date of this AD.
(b) Thereafter, strip the protective coating, visually inspect for fretting wear, FMPI and replate HPC front hubs, and replace if necessary in accordance with the accomplishment instructions of Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) JT8D A6430, dated September 5, 2002, at intervals not to exceed 6,500 CIS since the last inspection.
(c) Installation of a Nickel-Cadmium plated HPC front hub that has never operated with PWA-110 coating in the interface between the HPC front hub and the stage 8-9 spacer and a Nickel-Cadmium or Electroless Nickel plated spacer is an optional terminating action for the inspections of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD.
(d) For the purposes of this AD, a shop visit is defined as an engine removal, where engine maintenance entails separation of pairs of major engine flanges or the removal of a disk, hub, or spool at a maintenance facility, regardless of other planned maintenance, except as follows:
(1) Engine removal for the purpose of performing field maintenance type activities at a maintenance facility in lieu of performing them on-wing is not a “shop visit”.
(2) Separation of flanges of the Combustion Chamber and Turbine Fan Duct Assembly (split flanges) for the purpose of accessing non-rotating accessory hardware is not a “shop visit”.
(3) Separation of flanges for the purpose of shipment without subsequent internal maintenance is not a “shop visit”.
(e) For the purposes of this AD accessibility of the HPC front hub is removal of the hub from the engine and deblading of that hub.
(f) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Engine Certification Office (ECO). Operators must submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, ECO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive, if any, may be obtained from the ECO.
(g) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be done.
(h) The inspections must be done in accordance with Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) JT8D A6430, dated September 5, 2002. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108, telephone (860) 565-6600; fax (860) 565-4503. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(i) This amendment becomes effective on December 31, 2002.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), that is applicable to Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A series turboprop engines that have certain turbine exhaust ducts that were modified by a number of different companies. This amendment requires inspections for low-quality welds and cracks of a large population of turbine exhaust ducts. This amendment is prompted by reports of cracks along the weld seams of certain turbine exhaust ducts. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent failure of the turbine exhaust duct due to cracking that could result in possible separation of the reduction gearbox and propeller from the engine, and possible loss of control of the airplane.
Effective December 31, 2002. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 31, 2002.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Pratt & Whitney Canada, 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada J4G1A1. This information may be examined, by appointment, at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer,
A supplemental proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that is applicable to Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A series turboprop engines was published in the
This engine model is manufactured in Canada and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, Transport Canada (TC) has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of TC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.
One commenter requests removal of any reference to Standard Aero Limited (SAL) of Winnipeg, Canada, from the AD. Since the first issue of the NPRM, the FAA has found that several other companies have incorrectly used the GTAW weld process. Therefore, any references to SAL can and will cause confusion for the operators.
The FAA agrees. All references to SAL are removed from the final rule.
The same commenter points out that the SNPRM incorrectly notes that TC AD CF-98-14 says “that condition if not corrected could result in possible separation of the reduction gearbox and propeller from the engine and possible loss of control of the airplane,” and that the TC AD actually states that compliance is required “to minimize the possibility of an in-flight shutdown due to a cracked exhaust duct.”
The FAA does not agree. The FAA feels that the commenter has misinterpreted the unsafe condition statement in the proposal's preamble, incorrectly attributing it to the TC AD. Based on the structure of the preamble, the FAA understands how the statement could be attributed to the TC AD. However, the FAA has determined “that condition if not corrected could result in possible separation of the reduction gearbox and propeller from the engine and possible loss of control of the airplane,” is the correct unsafe condition. Since the questionable section does not appear in the preamble of the final rule, no change needs to be made to the final rule.
The same commenter remarks that the SNPRM incorrectly states that a total of 116 exhaust ducts have been discovered with cracks along the affected weld seam, when in fact, to date the actual number of cracked ducts found with cracks is 18.
The FAA agrees. However, since the questionable statement does not appear in the preamble of a final rule, no change needs to be made to the final rule.
One commenter requests that the single port exhaust duct, P/N 3112171-01 and subsequently any reference to the PT6A-114 and PT61-114A engine models be excluded from the AD. For conversion of single port exhaust ducts, part number (P/N) 3112171-01, welding is done in a much different fashion. The original inner cone remains in place and the majority of it is untouched. Only a small portion of its free end is removed for the attachment of a cover. No welding is performed anywhere on or near the load bearing outer skin. The original junction between the outer skin and the inner cone is entirely undisturbed so adhesion between the propeller reduction gearbox flange and the outer skin is entirely unaffected and the load path is uncompromised.
The FAA agrees. The FAA has consulted with P&WC and has confirmed that the commenter is correct. The inner skin replacement is performed differently on a single port duct than on the dual duct. No welding is done in the “A” flange area for the -114 series. It was the welding at the “A” flange that triggered the original TC AD. There have been no reports of cracks or poor welds on the-114 models. P&WC has revised the-114 manuals to clearly state that the “A” flange is to be examined in detail at aircraft minor (150 hours) inspections and at hot section inspection. The PT6A-114 and PT6A-114A engines have been incorrectly included in the proposal. Therefore, models-114 and -114A, and exhaust duct P/N 3112171-01 are removed from the final rule.
After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes described previously. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
There are approximately 22,000 Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A series turboprop engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 7,000 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 work hours per engine to perform the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators is estimated to be $840,000.
This final rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it 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. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this final rule.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each engine identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For engines that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent failure of the turbine exhaust duct due to cracking that could result in possible separation of the reduction gearbox and propeller from the engine, and possible loss of control of the airplane, do the following:
(a) If the engine has not yet been overhauled, and if the turbine exhaust duct has not yet been subject to a shop visit for repair, no further action is required.
(b) Otherwise, at the next shop visit or within 150 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do the following:
(1) Inspect for low-quality welds created during repair, on the turbine exhaust duct near flange “A”, in accordance with paragraphs 3B through 3E of P&WC service bulletin (SB) No. PT6A-72-1610, Revision 2, dated October 1, 2002, for models PT6A-6, -6A, -6B, -20, -20A, -20B, -21, -25, -25A, -25C, -27, -28, -34, -34AG, -34B, -36, -135, and -135A engines, and SB No. PT6A-72-12173, dated January 24, 2002, for models PT6A-11, -11AG, -15AG, -110, and -112 engines.
(2) If it is determined that the welds meet the acceptable criteria specified in SB No. PT6A-72-1610, Revision 2, dated October 1, 2002; or SB No. PT6A-72-12173, dated January 24, 2002, continue using the duct until the next scheduled overhaul. Inspect duct per the engine overhaul manual before reinstallation.
(3) If it is determined that the welds do not meet the acceptable criteria specified in SB No. PT6A-72-1610, Revision 2, dated October 1, 2002; or SB No. PT6A-72-12173, dated January 24, 2002, replace the duct with a serviceable part, or perform the initial and repetitive inspections in the following paragraphs.
(c) Use 5X magnification to visually inspect the circumference of the forward area of the exhaust duct from the propeller reduction gearbox mounting flange to 2 inches aft of the flange for any crack indications. Mark and record cracks and return the duct to service, or replace with a serviceable part as follows:
(1) If no cracks are found, the duct may be returned to service; or
(2) If three or less cracks are found, and the total cumulative length of the cracks exceeds 2.0 inches, replace the duct with a serviceable part; or
(3) If any one crack exceeds 1.0 inch in length, replace the duct with a serviceable part; or
(4) If any two cracks are separated by less than six times the length of the longest crack (6L) or 3.0 inches or less, whichever is the closest separation, replace the duct with a serviceable part; or
(5) If more than three cracks are found, replace the duct with a serviceable part; and
(6) Mark all allowable cracks, on the duct, with suitable metal marking material; and
Marking materials that are suitable for use on the exhaust duct may be found in the P&WC Engine Manual.
(7) Record the length of the crack, location, number of duct hours, and time-since-overhaul (TSO).
(d) Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (c) of this AD as follows:
(1) For ducts that did not exhibit any cracking at the last inspection, repeat the inspection within 150 hours TIS since the last inspection. Return the duct to service or replace with a serviceable part as specified in paragraph (c)(1) through paragraph (c)(5) of this AD.
(2) For ducts that exhibited cracking at the last inspection, repeat the inspection within 25 hours TIS since the last inspection. Return the duct to service or replace with a serviceable part as follows:
(i) Inspect for new cracks, and cracks that were recorded as specified in paragraph (c) of this AD. Return the duct to service or replace with a serviceable part as specified in paragraph (c)(1) through paragraph (c)(5) of this AD.
(ii) In addition, if the growth rate of an existing crack exceeds 0.015 inch per hour TIS since the last inspection, replace the duct with a serviceable part.
(e) Replacing an affected exhaust duct with a serviceable exhaust duct constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD.
(f) For the purposes of this AD, a serviceable duct is defined as a duct that meets the acceptability limits of this AD.
(g) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Engine Certification Office (ECO). Operators must submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the ECO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive, if any, may be obtained from the ECO.
(h) Special flight permits are not allowed.
(i) The inspections must be done in accordance with the following Pratt & Whitney Canada (P&WC) service bulletins:
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Pratt & Whitney Canada, 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada J4G1A1. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in AD CF-98-41 in order to assure the airworthiness of these P&WC PT6A series turboprop engines in Canada.
(j) This amendment becomes effective on December 31, 2002.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is further delaying until January 26, 2004, the effective date of a final rule published in the
This final rule is effective December 26, 2002. The effective date for § 201.323 (21 CFR 201.323), added at 65 FR 4103, January 26, 2000, is delayed until January 26, 2004.
Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Christine F. Rogers, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-7), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041.
On January 26, 2000, FDA published final regulations at § 201.323 imposing certain requirements for aluminum-containing LVPs, SVPs, and PBPs used in TPN (65 FR 4103). The aluminum final rule was originally scheduled to become effective on January 26, 2001. In the
In the
The agency is also amending § 201.323(c)(3) of the aluminum final rule to reflect the fact that the effective date is now being extended to January 26, 2004. Section 201.323(c)(3) provides that a manufacturer may state the maximum level of aluminum in terms of historical levels, but only until completion of production of the first five batches after January 26, 2001, the date by which manufacturers were to have submitted supplements describing the validated assay method used to determine aluminum content. Because manufacturers now have until January 26, 2004, to submit supplements, this final rule is changing the date in § 201.323(c)(3) to reflect the fact that the effective date of the aluminum final rule has been extended to January 26, 2004.
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C 553(b)(3)(A). Alternatively, the agency's implementation of this action without opportunity for public comment comes within the good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) in that obtaining public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. The agency is delaying the effective date of § 201.323 because the agency has proposed to amend § 201.323. Given the imminence of the effective date of current § 201.323, seeking prior public comment on this delay is impracticable, as well as contrary to the public interest in the orderly issuance and implementation of regulations. Notice and comment procedures in this instance would create uncertainty, confusion, and undue financial hardship because, during the time that the agency would be proposing to extend the effective date for § 201.323, those companies affected would have to be preparing to relabel to comply with the January 26, 2003, effective date. In accordance with 21 CFR 10.40(e)(1), FDA is providing an opportunity for comment on which this delay should be modified or revoked.
FDA has examined the impacts of this delay of effective date under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory
Drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 355, 358, 360, 360b, 360gg-360ss, 371, 374, 379e; 42 U.S.C. 216, 241, 262, 264.
Parole Commission, Justice.
Final rule.
The U.S. Parole Commission is amending procedures governing parole proceedings for federal and District of Columbia offenders, and transfer treaty prisoners. Almost all the amendments are corrections and clarifications of the instructions for calculating the salient factor score, a component of the Commission's paroling policy guidelines. The Commission is also correcting a reference to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in a regulation regarding the imposition of release conditions for a transfer treaty prisoner released to a term of supervised release.
These rule amendments are effective December 30, 2002.
Office of General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Blvd., Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815, telephone (301) 492-5959. Questions about this publication are welcome, but inquiries concerning individual cases cannot be answered over the telephone.
The salient factor score is an actuarial device used by the Commission to evaluate the risk of parole violation by a prisoner if released to supervision. The score is a component of the Commission's paroling policy guidelines for making parole release decisions for U.S. Code offenders (28 CFR 2.20), and is also employed in the guidelines for DC Code offenders (28 CFR 2.80). The score comprises six criminal history items, including items such as number of prior convictions and commitments, and age at the time of current offense. The total score ranges from 0-10, with the higher score indicating that the prisoner is a better parole risk.
The Commission is now updating the instructions in the salient factor scoring manual to give better guidance in the scoring of the individual items. Some of the changes are corrections of text that should have been amended in earlier revisions of the score, or editorial improvements to make the instructions easier to read. Other changes reflect the application of the score in determining terms of imprisonment for DC Code supervised release violators. Finally, several new instructions implement advice the Commission's Office of General Counsel has provided to Commissioners and staff in the use of DC juvenile consent decrees and juvenile commitments to the DC Department of Human Services for salient factor scoring.
Aside from the amendments to the salient factor scoring manual, the Commission is also correcting a reference to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in its regulation at 28 CFR 2.68(l) on the imposition of conditions of supervised release for a transfer treaty prisoner who is released to a term of supervised release.
These amendments will be applied in any hearing or record review conducted after the effective date of the amendments.
The U.S. Parole Commission has determined that this final rule does not constitute a significant rule within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. The final rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), and is deemed by the Commission to be a rule of agency practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties pursuant to section 804(3)(c) of the Congressional Review Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Prisoners, Probation and parole.
18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1) and 4204(a)(6).
A.1 In General.
(a) Count all convictions/adjudications (adult or juvenile) for criminal offenses (other than the current offense) that were committed prior to the present period of confinement, except as specifically noted.
(b) Convictions for prior offenses that are not separated from each other by an intervening arrest (
(c) Do not count the current federal offense or state/local convictions resulting from the current federal offense ((
A.5 Diversion.
Conduct resulting in diversion from the judicial process without a finding of guilt (
A.14 Juvenile Consent Decree (District of Columbia). A juvenile consent decree in the District of Columbia is a diversionary disposition not requiring an admission or finding of guilt. Therefore, it is not to be used in scoring this item.
B.3 Definitions.
* * *
(b) This item includes confinement in adult or juvenile institutions, community corrections centers, and other residential treatment centers (
(c) If a committed sentence of more than 30 days is imposed prior to the current offense but the offender avoids or delays service of the sentence (
(d) District of Columbia Juvenile Commitment to Department of Human Services. In the District of Columbia, juvenile offenders may be committed to the Department of Human Services for placement ranging from a foster home to a secure juvenile facility. Such a commitment is counted only if it can be established that the juvenile was actually committed for more than 30 days to a secure juvenile institution or residential treatment center rather than a foster home.
C.1 Score 3 if the subject was 26 years of age or more at the commencement of the current offense and has three or fewer prior commitments.
C.2 Score 2 if the subject was 26 years of age or more at the commencement of the current offense and has four prior commitments.
C.3 Score 1 if the subject was 26 years of age or more at the commencement of the current offense and has five or more prior commitments.
C.4 Score 2 if the subject was 22-25 years of age at the commencement of the current offense and has three or fewer prior commitments.
C.5 Score 1 if the subject was 22-25 years of age at the commencement of the current offense and has four prior commitments.
C.6 Score 0 if the subject was 22-25 years of age at the commencement of the current offense and has five or more prior commitments.
C.7 Score 1 if the subject was 20-21 years of age at the commencement of the current offense and has three or fewer prior commitments.
C.8 Score 0 if the subject was 20-21 years of age at the commencement of the current offense and has four prior commitments.
C.9 Score 0 if the subject was 19 years of age or less at the commencement of the current offense with any number of prior commitments.
E.3 Definitions. * * *
(b) The term “parole” includes parole, mandatory parole, supervised release, conditional release, or mandatory release supervision (
(c) The term “confinement/escape status” includes institutional custody, work or study release, pass or furlough, community corrections center or other residential treatment center confinement (when such confinement is counted as a commitment under Item B), or escape from any of the above.
F.1 Score 1 if the offender was 41 years of age or more at the commencement of the current offense and the total score from Items A-E is 9 or less.
F.2 Score 0 if the offender was less than 41 years of age at the commencement of the current offense or if the total score from Items A-E is 10.
* * *
* * *
* * *
National Labor Relations Board.
Final rule.
The National Labor Relations Board is amending its regulations governing filing documents with the Board to permit certain documents to be filed utilizing forms that are now, or are expected to be made available in the future, on the Board's Web site (
Effective: November 26, 2002.
Lester A. Heltzer, Acting Executive Secretary, (202) 273-1067.
Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-00-10, “OMB Procedures and Guidance on Implementing the Government Paperwork Elimination Act,” the National Labor Relations Board has been developing forms to be placed on the Board's Web site (
The Board's present filing and service rules do not address such electronic filings. Indeed, the current rules could, in some respects, be read to prohibit some of the very filings that we are planning to permit. Consequently, we have decided to promulgate an omnibus provision giving blanket authority to members of the public to utilize new electronic forms as soon as they are placed on the Web site. As new forms are developed and implemented, they will be accompanied on the Web site by instructions describing how they are to be used. Documents filed in accordance with these instructions will be accepted even if there is some provision elsewhere in the Board's rules that prohibits, or seems to prohibit, such filings.
In the case of documents that are required to be served on other parties to a Board proceeding, some provision for expedited service must be made, consistent with Section 102.114(a). That paragraph provides that “service on all parties shall be made in the same manner as that utilized in filing the paper with the Board, or in a more expeditions manner.” In the case of filings made using forms on the Board's Web site, service by the “same” manner is not possible. Instead, we are substituting a requirement, drawn from our experience with our rules for filing by facsimile (Section 102.114(h)), that other parties be notified by phone and then either served personally, by overnight delivery service, or by facsimile transmission.
Because no notice of proposed rule-making is required for procedural rules, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The regulatory review provisions of Executive Order 12866 do not apply to independent regulatory agencies. However, even if they did, the proposed changes in the Board's rules would not be classified as “significant rules” under Section 6 of Executive Order 12866, because they will not result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or foreign markets. Accordingly, no regulatory impact assessment is required.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not
This part does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Administrative practice and procedure, Labor management relations.
Sec. 6, National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 151, 156). Section 102.117 also issued under sec. 552(a)(4)(A) of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)), and section 442a(j) and (k) of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 55a(j) and (k)). Sections 102.143 through 102.155 also issued under sec. 504(c)(1) of the Equal Access to Justice Act as amended (5 U.S.C. 504(c)(1)).
(i) The Agency's Web site (http://www.nlrb.gov) contains certain forms that parties or other persons are permitted to file with the Agency electronically. Parties or other persons choosing to utilize those forms to file documents electronically are permitted do so by following the instructions described on the Web site, notwithstanding any contrary provisions elsewhere in these rules. In the event the document being filed electronically is required to be served on another party to a proceeding, the other party shall be notified by telephone of the substance of the transmitted document and a copy of the document shall be served by personal service no later than the next day, by overnight delivery service, or, with the permission of the party receiving the document, by facsimile transmission.
By direction of the Board.
National Labor Relations Board.
Final rule.
The National Labor Relations Board is revising its rules that govern the time for filing certain papers with the Board. The revisions are being adopted in order to permit certain documents in NLRB representation cases, required to be filed by a certain date, to be filed late where the reason for the late filing constitutes “excusable neglect” and provided that no undue prejudice would result from the late filing. The intended effect of the revisions is to avoid the inequities that would result from rejecting all late-filed documents without regard to the reason why the party missed the filing deadline.
Effective: November 26, 2002.
Lester A. Heltzer, Acting Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, NW., Room 11600, Washington, DC 20570. Telephone: (202) 273-1067.
At present, the rules of the National Labor Relations Board provide for circumstances in which certain documents in unfair labor practice cases may be filed late but make no similar provision for late filing of documents in NLRB representation cases. The Board has concluded that it would be appropriate to provide a formal basis for accepting certain late-filed documents in representation cases.
The representation documents permitted to be filed late under the new rule are exceptions, requests for review, motions, briefs, and any document filed in response to any of the foregoing documents.
Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 102.111 are retained without modification. Subsection (c) of Section 102.111 is modified to provide that certain documents in representation cases may be filed late where the reason for filing constitutes “excusable neglect,” provided that no undue prejudice would result from the late filing. This is the same standard presently found in this section for late filings in unfair labor practice cases, and a standard that was borrowed from Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b). No attempt is made to define the myriad situations to which the rule might apply. Rather, this is a matter that is to be left to determination on a case-by-case basis. The rule continues to provide that a party seeking to file a document late must file, along with the document, a motion stating the grounds relied upon for requesting permission to file late, along with affidavits sworn to by individuals with personal knowledge of the specific facts relied upon in support of the request. Finally, the rule continues to stay the time for responding to any untimely filed document until the date a ruling issues accepting the untimely document.
The regulatory review provisions of Executive Order 12866 do not apply to independent regulatory agencies. However, even if they did, the proposed changes in the Board's rules would not be classified as “significant rules” under Section 6 of Executive Order 12866, because they will not result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or foreign markets. Accordingly, no regulatory impact assessment is required.
Because no notice of proposed rule-making is required for procedural rules, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) pertaining to regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply to these rules. However, even if the Regulatory Flexibility Act were to apply, the NLRB certifies that these rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities as they merely set forth procedures to be followed by the
These rules are not subject to Section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501) since they do not contain any new information collection requirements.
Because these rules relate to Agency procedure and practice and merely modify the agency's filing procedures, the Board has determined that the Congressional review provisions of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801) do not apply.
Administrative practice and procedure, Labor management relations.
Section 6, National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 151, 156). Section 102.117(c) also issued under Section 552(a)(4)(A) of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)). Sections 102.143 through 102.155 also issued under Section 504(c)(1) of the Equal Access to Justice Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 504(c)(1)).
(c) The following documents may be filed within a reasonable time after the time prescribed by these rules only upon good cause shown based on excusable neglect and when no undue prejudice would result:
(1) In unfair labor practice proceedings, motions, exceptions, answers to a complaint or a backpay specification, and briefs; and
(2) In representation proceedings, exceptions, requests for review, motions, briefs, and any responses to any of these documents. A party seeking to file such documents beyond the time prescribed by these rules shall file, along with the document, a motion that states the grounds relied on for requesting permission to file untimely. The specific facts relied on to support the motion shall be set forth in affidavit form and sworn to by individuals with personal knowledge of the facts. The time for filing any document responding to the untimely document shall not commence until the date a ruling issues accepting the untimely document. In addition, cross-exceptions shall be due within 14 days, or such further period as the Board may allow, from the date a ruling issues accepting the untimely filed documents.
By Direction of the Board.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will resume enforcement of the safety zone at the Cove Point liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility's offshore terminal on the Chesapeake Bay. The Coast Guard has not enforced the safety zone since the facility discontinued LNG operations in 1980. Due to construction activity at the terminal, the Coast Guard will resume enforcement of the safety zone.
This notice of enforcement is effective on November 26, 2002.
Lieutenant Dulani Woods, at Coast Guard Activities Baltimore, Port Safety, Security and Waterways Management Branch, at (410) 576-2513.
The liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility at Cove Point, Maryland is in the process of updating its terminal equipment in anticipation of transfer operations beginning in the spring of 2003. Although the Captain of the Port (COTP) Baltimore has not yet issued a Letter of Recommendation under 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 127.009, enforcement of the safety zone established in 33 CFR 165.502 will now resume.
The Cove Point facility originally started terminal operations in 1978 and conducted transfers of LNG from vessels until 1980. During this period a safety zone was established and actively enforced. Safety zone enforcement ceased when LNG transfer operations were stopped. The facility's terminal is located approximately one mile from shore and has developed into a fishing area since the terminal ceased transfer operations. Numerous commercial and recreational boats frequent this area during fishing seasons and at other times throughout the year.
The Coast Guard will resume continual enforcement of the safety zone during the construction process at the terminal, when heavy equipment will be in operation in the area. The enforcement of the safety zone will prevent unauthorized vessels from entering the work zone and creating safety hazards.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, (FEMA).
Interim rule.
This interim rule lists communities where modification of the Base (1-percent-annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their contents.
These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map(s) in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Administrator for Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration reconsider the changes. The modified BFEs may be changed during the 90-day period.
The modified BFEs for each community are available for inspection
Matthew B. Miller, Chief, Hazards Study Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3461 or (e-mail)
The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of changed conditions or new scientific or technical data.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
The changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
The Administrator for Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because modified BFEs are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.
This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.
Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Final rule.
Base (1-percent-annual-chance) Flood Elevations and modified Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the FIRM is available for inspection as indicated in the table below.
The final base flood elevations for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Michael M. Grimm, Acting Chief, Hazards Study Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3461 or (e-mail)
FEMA makes final determinations listed below of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed. The proposed BFEs and proposed modified BFEse were published in newspapers of local circulation and an opportunity for the community or individuals to appeal the proposed determinations to or through the community was provided for a period of 90 days. The proposed BFEs and proposed modified BFEs were also published in the
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67.
FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community.
The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
The Administrator of the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because final or modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Final rule.
Base (1-percent-annual-chance) Flood Elevations and modified Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the FIRM is available for inspection as indicated in the table below.
The final base flood elevations for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Michael M. Grimm, Acting Chief, Hazards Study Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3461 or (e-mail)
FEMA makes final determinations listed below of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed. The proposed BFEs and proposed modified BFEse were published in newspapers of local circulation and an opportunity for the community or individuals to appeal the proposed determinations to or through
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67.
FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community.
The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
The Administrator of the Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration certifies that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because final or modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.
Federal Communications Commission.
Correcting amendments.
This document contains a correction to the final regulation part 54, which was published in the
Effective November 26, 2002.
Katie King, Attorney, Wireline Competition Bureau (formerly, Common Carrier Bureau), Telecommunications Access Policy Division, (202) 418-7400.
Part 54 rules are issued pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The purpose of the part 54 rules is to implement section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 254. The final regulation that is subject to the correction deals with § 54.303 and how the Administrator calculates long term support.
As published, the final regulation contains an error which needs to be corrected.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 201, 205, 214, and 254 unless otherwise noted.
(b) * * *
(4) Beginning January 1, 2000, the Administrator shall calculate Long Term Support annually by adjusting the previous year's level of support to reflect the annual percentage change in the Department of Commerce's Gross Domestic Product-Chained Price Index (GDP-CPI).
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission asks the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service to review certain of the Commission's rules relating to the high-cost universal service support mechanisms to ensure that the dual goals of preserving universal service and fostering competition continue to be fulfilled.
Effective December 26, 2002.
Kathy Tofigh, Attorney, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, (202) 418-7400.
This is a summary of the Commission's Order in CC Docket No. 96-45 released on November 8, 2002. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
1. In this Order, we ask the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) to review certain of the Commission's rules relating to the high-cost universal service support mechanisms to ensure that the dual goals of preserving universal service and fostering competition continue to be fulfilled. In particular, we request the Joint Board to review the Commission's rules relating to high-cost universal service support in study areas in which a competitive eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) is providing service, as well as the Commission's rules regarding support for second lines. We request that the Joint Board provide recommendations to the Commission regarding if and how those rules should be modified. We anticipate that the Joint Board will seek public comment on whether these rules continue to fulfill their intended purposes, and whether modifications are warranted in light of developments in the telecommunications marketplace. We also ask the Joint Board to examine the process for designating ETCs.
2. In light of developments in the telecommunications marketplace since 1997, we believe that it is appropriate to request the Joint Board to review the Commission's rules relating to support in competitive study areas and support for second lines. We also ask the Joint Board to examine the process for designating ETCs. The Joint Board should address how its recommendations regarding the issues set forth below further the universal service goals outlined in section 254 of the Act, including the principle of competitive neutrality. In addition, the Joint Board should consider how its analysis relates to the five-year time frame for high-cost support adopted in the
3. We ask the Joint Board to review the methodology for calculating support for ETCs in competitive study areas. In the
4. Support for competitive ETCs currently is not capped under the Commission's rules. On the other hand, the Commission's rules limit the overall amount of rural high-cost loop support available to incumbent LECs. When the Commission adopted these rules in 2001, it concluded that the modified embedded cost mechanism would provide rural carriers with specific, predictable and sufficient support over the next five years. The Joint Board should address the potential benefits and costs of modifying these rules for stability, predictability, and sufficiency of the fund, as well as their potential effects on competition and competitive neutrality. In addition, the Joint Board should address the specific concerns raised in the
5. The Joint Board should also consider the extent to which the Commission's current rules relating to support for second lines may impact the size of the universal service fund, and provide recommendations on whether the Commission should adopt modifications in this area. Under our current rules, all residential and business connections provided by ETCs are eligible for high-cost support. In adopting these rules in 1997, the Commission recognized that “overly expansive universal service mechanisms potentially could harm all consumers by increasing the cost of telecommunications services for all.” At that time, the Commission indicated it would continue to evaluate the issue. We now ask the Joint Board to consider whether the goals of section 254 would be served if support were limited to a single connection to the end-user—whether provided by the incumbent or a competitive ETC. We also ask the Joint Board to consider whether such a rule would be competitively neutral and how it would impact competition.
6. Finally, the Joint Board should address the system for resolving requests for ETC designations under section 214(e)(2) of the Act. Some parties have argued that shortcomings in the current system hamper the emergence of competition in rural areas, whereas others have expressed concerns that universal service goals will be undermined if state commissions do not impose similar universal service obligations on incumbent LECs and competitive ETCs. Taking into consideration these concerns, we ask the Joint Board to consider whether it is advisable to establish federal processing guidelines for ETC applications, and if so, what should be included in such guidelines. Furthermore, in the
7. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 214(e), 254, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, this Order is adopted.
8. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 214(e), 254, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service is requested to review the Commission's rules relating to high-cost universal service support in study areas in which a competitive eligible telecommunications carrier is providing service and support for second lines and provide recommendations to the Commission.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document the Commission revised the duty cycle specifications for stolen vehicle recovery system operations on 173.075 MHz by adding a new duty cycle option of 1800 milliseconds every 300 seconds, with a maximum of six messages in any thirty-minute period. This action was taken to enable the enhancement of police performance in the recovery of stolen vehicles and apprehension of suspects. This rule change will facilitate: more efficient law enforcement, a decrease in the time between when a vehicle is discovered stolen and when the theft is reported to the police, greater stolen vehicle recovery rates, and a greater rate of apprehension of criminals.
Effective December 26, 2002.
Freda Lippert Thyden, Esq., Policy and Rules Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0627, TTY (202) 418-7233, or via e-mail at
This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's
In this
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the possible impact of the rule changes contained in this
2. This
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in Appendix A of the
3. In the
4. No comments were filed in direct response to the IRFA.
5. 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 business concern” under
6. The rule change adopted in this
7. No new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements would be imposed on applicants or licensees as a result of the actions taken in this rulemaking proceeding.
8. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed 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 or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603.
9. As an alternative, the Commission considered eliminating specified duty cycles for SVRS mobile and base transmitters. However, the Commission determined that the public interest continues to be served by retention of these duty cycles. The mobile duty cycle ensures that harmful interference to TV Channel 7 reception will not occur, while the base station duty cycle permits the growth of a competitive SVRS marketplace. The rule change adopted will accommodate the use of an early warning detector and, thus, enhance police performance in the recovery of stolen vehicles and apprehension of individuals suspected of committing these thefts.
10. Amendment of the duty cycle rule does not impose any new reporting or compliance requirements, however, it does permit an additional use of SVRS technology. The proposal contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and found to contain no new or modified form, information collection and/or record keeping, labeling, disclosure, or record retention requirements, and will not increase or decrease burden hours imposed on the public.
11. None
12. Authority for issuance of this
13. Pursuant to the authority of sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 303(r), § 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 90.20(e)(6),
14.
15. This proceeding
Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7).
(e) * * *
(6) The frequency 173.075 MHz is available for stolen vehicle recovery systems on a shared basis with the Federal Government. Stolen vehicle recovery systems are limited to recovering stolen vehicles and are not authorized for general purpose vehicle tracking or monitoring. Mobile transmitters operating on this frequency are limited to 2.5 watts power output and base transmitters are limited to 300 watts ERP. F1D and F2D emissions may be used within a maximum authorized 20 kHz bandwidth. Transmissions from mobiles shall be limited to 200 milliseconds every 10 seconds, except that when a vehicle is being tracked actively transmissions may be 200 milliseconds every second. Alternatively, transmissions from mobiles shall be limited to 1800 milliseconds every 300 seconds with a maximum of six such messages in any 30 minute period. Transmissions from base stations shall be limited to a total time of one second every minute. Applications for base stations operating on this frequency shall require coordination with the Federal Government. Applicants shall perform an analysis for each base station located within 169 km (105 miles) of a TV Channel 7 transmitter of potential interference to TV Channel 7 viewers. Such stations will be authorized if the applicant has limited the interference contour to fewer than 100 residences or if the applicant:
Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
Notice of meetings.
This document announces that Customs will hold a series of public meetings in accordance with section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002 to assist in the development of proposed regulations to provide for the mandatory collection by Customs of electronic cargo information prior to importation into or exportation from the United States. Separate meetings will be held to address specific importation/exportation issues pertaining to air, sea, truck and rail cargo. The meetings are open to interested members of the trade community.
The meetings to discuss mandatory advanced collection of electronic information pertaining to cargo are scheduled for the following dates:
• Air cargo: January 14, 2003;
• Truck cargo: January 16, 2003;
• Rail cargo: January 21, 2003; and
• Sea cargo: January 23, 2003.
All meetings will be held from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. in room B1.5-10 of the Ronald Reagan Building located at 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Interested parties must provide Customs with notice of intent to attend a particular meeting at least five business days prior to the scheduled date for that meeting. Notice may be provided to Robyn Day at (202) 927-1440 or via e-mail at
Robyn Day, U.S. Customs Service, Office of Trade Relations, at (202) 927-1440 or via e-mail at
Section 343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002 (the Act), Public Law 107-210, was signed into law on August 6, 2002. Section 343(a) directs the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate regulations, within one year of enactment of the Act, to provide for the mandatory collection by Customs of electronic cargo information prior to importation into or exportation from the United States. In the course of developing such regulations, section 343(a) directs the Secretary to solicit comments from and consult with a broad range of parties likely to be affected by the regulations, including importers, exporters, carriers, customs brokers, and freight forwarders.
Section 343(a) requires that the electronic cargo information required under the regulations be reasonably necessary to ensure aviation, maritime and surface transportation safety and security pursuant to those laws enforced and administered by Customs. The requirements to provide particular information generally is to be imposed on the party (
• The existence of competitive relationships among parties upon which the information collection requirements will be imposed;
• Differences among cargo carriers that arise from varying modes of transportation, different commercial practices and operational characteristics, and the technological capacity to collect and transmit information;
• The need for interim requirements to reflect the technology that is available at the time of promulgation of the regulations for purposes of transmitting/receiving/analyzing electronic information; and
• The need for transition periods and differences in transition times among modes of transportation.
This notice announces that Customs will hold a series of public meetings to assist in the development of proposed regulations pertaining to the mandatory advanced collection of electronic cargo information, with particular emphasis on the specific issues addressed above. Separate meetings will be held to address specific importation/exportation issues pertaining to air, sea, truck and rail cargo. The meetings are open to interested members of the trade community, however space is limited. The meetings are scheduled for the following dates:
• Air cargo: January 14, 2003;
• Truck cargo: January 16, 2003;
• Rail cargo: January 21, 2003; and
• Sea cargo: January 23, 2003.
All meetings will be held from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. in room B1.5-10 of the Ronald Reagan Building located at 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Interested parties must provide Customs with notice of their intent to attend a particular meeting at least five business days prior to the scheduled date for that meeting. Notice may be provided to Robyn Day at (202) 927-1440 or via e-mail at
It is noted that proposed legislation is currently pending (S. 1214, the Maritime Transportation Security Act) which may amend section 343 of the Trade Act of 2002. Any updates pertaining to either the substance or logistics of the scheduled meetings will be available on the Customs Internet Web site at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that appeared in the
November 26, 2002.
Linda Huntington, Executive Secretariat, Office of the Commissioner (HF-4), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4443.
In FR Doc. 02-28373, appearing on page 67572 in the
1. On page 67573, in the second column, in the sixth line, the phone number “301-594-1755” is corrected to read “301-827-3800”.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.
This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulations under section 1503(d) regarding the events that require the recapture of dual consolidated losses.
The public hearing originally scheduled for December 3, 2002, at 10 a.m., is canceled.
Sonya M. Cruse of the Regulations Unit, Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting), at (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free number).
A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice or public hearing that appeared in the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor.
Request for information.
OSHA requests information and comment on issues related to occupational exposure to beryllium, including current employee exposures to beryllium; the relationship between exposure to beryllium and the development of adverse health effects; exposure assessment and monitoring methods; exposure control methods; employee training; medical surveillance for adverse health effects related to beryllium exposure; and other pertinent subjects. The information received in response to this document will assist the Agency in determining an appropriate course of action regarding occupational beryllium exposure.
Comments must be submitted by the following dates:
(Please see the
Regular mail, express delivery, hand-delivery, and messenger service: You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. H005C, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. OSHA Docket Office and Department of Labor hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., EST.
(Please see the
General Information and press inquiries—Bonnie Friedman, Director, OSHA Office of Public Affairs, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-1999. Technical Information—Amanda Edens, OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-2093. Electronic copies of this
You may submit comments in response to this document by (1) hard copy, (2) fax transmission (facsimile), or (3) electronically through the OSHA webpage. Please note that you cannot attach materials such as studies or journal articles to electronic comments. If you have additional materials, you must submit three copies of them to the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, subject and docket number so we can attach them to your comments. Because of security-related problems there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 for information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery and messenger service.
All comments and submissions will be available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. Comments and submissions posted on OSHA's Web site will be available at
Until recently, the primary demand for beryllium came from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, where the metal was important in the development of nuclear weapons and in applications for the nuclear power industry. However, the use of beryllium has become more widespread in general industry, both in the manufacture of products containing beryllium and the salvage of materials containing beryllium.
For example, because of its lightness and strength, beryllium and beryllium alloy are used by the aerospace industry in the manufacture of high performance military aircraft, satellites, rocketry and the space shuttle. Beryllium and beryllium alloy are also used in X-ray machines and high-speed computers. Beryllium alloy is used by manufacturers of electrical components to make springs, switches, and other parts that are used in automotive, computer, telecommunication, and other industries. Additional alloy applications include tubing for oil and gas drilling; tool and die making and other mold-making; jewelry; golf clubs; and non-sparking tools. Beryllium oxide is used as a substrate for circuits in computer manufacture and in industries that produce lasers or traveling-wave tubes, automotive ignition systems, radar, microwave systems, and in other electronic and opto-electronic markets. Processes that create employee exposure in these industries typically involve machine shop, metalworking, and finishing processes, such as machining, sanding, stamping, grinding, crushing, lapping, and sintering.
Beryllium is also present in other industries that do not intentionally produce or process the metal. Examples of such activities include abrasive blasting operations, where coal or copper slag is used as a substitute for sand; spot or seam welding of specialized beryllium-copper electrodes; welding processes, where beryllium is in the electrode, in the flux or rod, or in the substrate alloy being fabricated; and recycling metals and other materials from computers and electrical products.
Some workers exposed to beryllium or beryllium compounds may develop beryllium sensitization, chronic beryllium disease (CBD, also sometimes known as berylliosis), lung cancer, or skin disease (Ex. 4-1). Acute beryllium disease, a pneumonitis resulting from high beryllium exposure, is now considered rare (Ex. 4-9).
Inhalation appears to be the primary route of exposure to beryllium. However, dermal contact can result in a beryllium-related skin disease characterized by a rash, or wart-like bumps (Ex. 4-15). Questions have been raised regarding the contribution of dermal exposure, ingestion, and genetic factors to the risk of sensitization and CBD. (
CBD primarily affects the lungs. Inhalation of beryllium dust appears to be the primary route of exposure in CBD. Research indicates that beryllium exposure causes some workers to become sensitized, which may result in the formation of granulomas (inflammatory cells surrounding beryllium particles) in the lung that reduce oxygen exchange (Ex. 4-15). Proliferation of granulomas leads to additional symptoms of CBD, such as dry cough, chest pain, weakness, fatigue and progressive shortness of breath (Ex. 4-9). Progression of the disease may lead to weight loss, acrocyanosis (blueness or pallor of the extremities usually associated with pain and numbness), and eventually, heart failure. The clinical course of CBD is considered highly variable; because the disease may develop slowly over time, workers may have the disease for years without knowing it. With progression, CBD is sometimes fatal. (Ex. 4-10).
The amount or length of exposure to beryllium necessary to cause a specific individual to develop CBD is not known, but recent information suggests that even short exposures to levels of beryllium below OSHA's Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 2 μg/m
Measurement of exposure to total airborne beryllium dust may not be the best predictor of CBD. Particle size, surface area, number of particles, solubility, and the chemical form of beryllium involved may all be relevant to the development of disease. It has been suggested that development of disease may be more closely correlated with the mass or number of particles deposited in the alveolar regions of the lung than with total dust exposure (Exs. 4-4 and 4-11).
Only workers who have developed sensitization to beryllium are believed to develop CBD. Following sensitization, CBD can develop with or without additional exposure (Ex. 4-13). Lang (Ex. 4-10) estimates that the probability of developing CBD following
The Beryllium Lymphocyte Proliferation Test (BeLPT) can identify employees who are sensitized to beryllium. Sensitized individuals are typically further evaluated by biopsy, high resolution computerized tomography, or other means, such as the exercise tolerance test or bronchoalveolar lavage, to determine if they have CBD. Diagnosis of CBD depends on demonstration of pathologic changes such as granulomas in the lungs, along with evidence that these changes are the result of hypersensitivity to beryllium (
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies beryllium and beryllium compounds as carcinogenic to humans (Ex. 4-3). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health classifies beryllium and beryllium compounds as a “potential occupational carcinogen” (Ex. 4-12). The Environmental Protection Agency classifies beryllium and beryllium compounds as a “probable human carcinogen” (Ex. 4-18). Recent epidemiological studies have reported excess lung cancer deaths among beryllium-exposed employees (Exs. 4-16 and 4-17). A variety of beryllium metal alloys, compounds, and ores have also been shown to cause lung cancer in rats and monkeys in inhalation and intratracheal instillation studies (Exs. 4-3 and 4-18).
In 1971, OSHA adopted, under Section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and made applicable to general industry, a national consensus standard (ANSI Z37.29-1970) for beryllium and beryllium compounds. The standard sets a PEL for beryllium and beryllium compounds at 2 μg/m
In 1975, OSHA proposed a new beryllium standard for all industries based on information that beryllium caused cancer in animal experiments (40 FR 48814 (10/17/75)). Adoption of this proposal would have lowered the 8-hour TWA exposure limit from 2 μg/m
Based upon information showing that OSHA's current PEL of 2 μg/m
In 1999, OSHA was petitioned by the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (PACE) (Ex. 1-1) and by Dr. Lee Newman and Ms. Margaret Mroz, from the National Jewish Medical Research Center (Ex. 1-2), to promulgate an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for beryllium in the workplace. In 2001, OSHA was petitioned for an ETS by Public Citizen Health Research Group and again by PACE (Ex. 1-10). OSHA denied the petitions.
The control of occupational exposures to beryllium and its compounds presents a number of complex issues. OSHA is seeking information, data, and comment that the Agency can use to address these issues. OSHA has included these questions to provide a basis for response to this general request for information. When answering specific numbered questions below, key your responses to the number of the question, explain the reasons supporting your views, and identify and provide relevant information on which you rely, including, but not limited to, data, studies and articles. However, respondents are encouraged to address any aspect of occupational exposure to beryllium that they feel is pertinent. OSHA intends to use the information it obtains to decide on a course of action regarding occupational exposures to beryllium.
(1) Where and how is beryllium currently used? Please provide any workplace or industry-specific data you have indicating the amount of beryllium used, its form, and the processes and products in which it is used. OSHA is particularly interested in identifying industries and operations whose use of beryllium is not noted here, and in identifying uses of beryllium that involve small businesses.
(2) What are the job categories in which employees are potentially exposed to beryllium in your company or industry? For each job category, please provide a description of how the exposure takes place within that job category.
(3) How many employees are exposed to beryllium, or have the potential for exposure, in each job category in your company or industry?
(4) What are the frequency, duration and levels of employee exposures to beryllium in each job category in your company or industry? Please include the analytical method and type of samples used for determining exposure levels. OSHA requests that, if possible, exposure data be personal samples with clear descriptions of the length of the sample. If this is not possible, the exposure data should indicate the form and length of the exposure.
OSHA is aware of a number of studies showing an association between adverse health effects and exposure to beryllium. The Agency is seeking the most recent and important studies that can be used to identify significant adverse health effects related to occupational beryllium exposure.
(5) Which studies should OSHA consider in assessing the potential health risks of CBD and lung cancer associated with exposure to beryllium? Please explain your rationale for recommending these studies, including potential strengths and weaknesses, such as size of the population studied, characterization of exposure, and confounding factors.
(6) Which recent studies examine the effects from dermal exposure and absorption of beryllium?
(7) Describe any studies showing adverse health effects resulting from routes of occupational beryllium exposure other than dermal contact and inhalation.
(8) Describe any studies that address the mechanisms of action of beryllium
(9) Which studies or other information should OSHA take into account in examining the role of genetic factors in the development of beryllium-related disease?
(10) Describe characteristics of beryllium aerosols (
(11) To what extent do different forms of beryllium have specific properties (
OSHA is interested in data that will assist it in developing quantitative estimates of the occupational risk of sensitization, CBD, or lung cancer based on the level, timing, and duration of exposure to beryllium. Case reports and epidemiological and animal studies on these measures, along with associated exposure data characterizing total or respirable mass, particle number, particle surface area, and dermal exposure are desired.
(12) Which studies should be used for a quantitative risk assessment for CBD and lung cancer?
(13) Which approaches (
(14) Which mathematical models are most appropriate to quantify the risk of cancer or other adverse health effects from exposure to beryllium or beryllium compounds? Describe the strengths and weaknesses of these models.
(15) Which mathematical lung deposition models are appropriate to characterize beryllium lung uptake?
(16) Describe studies the Agency should consider that relate to the dose-response behavior of beryllium, including cellular, mechanistic, and dosimetric considerations. For instance, are any adverse health effects of beryllium dependent on the time period over which exposure occurs rather than dependent on the total cumulative dose received, or are there data that suggest beryllium exhibits a threshold effect?
(17) Do short-term peak exposures play a role in causing adverse health effects, especially sensitization? If so, provide any information that addresses this role.
(18) Are there studies or other evidence on the combined effects of inhalation and dermal exposure?
(19) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has prepared a quantitative risk assessment addressing the risks for sensitization and lung cancer related to beryllium exposure in the ambient environment (Ex. 4-18). In addition, the California EPA (CalEPA) published a quantitative risk assessment addressing risks for sensitization and CBD in the ambient environment (Ex. 4-20). Should OSHA rely on these assessments to characterize the risk of sensitization, CBD, or lung cancer from occupational exposure to beryllium? Are there other assessments that the Agency should consult? For Beryllium sensitization, the two assessments relied on the same key study of beryllium ceramics plant workers by Kreiss
(20) Is initial sampling, objective data, or some other measure used to estimate beryllium exposures in your facility? Describe any programs that have been implemented for initial assessment of exposure to beryllium.
(21) Describe any follow-up or periodic exposure assessments that you conduct. How often do you conduct such follow-up or periodic exposure assessments?
(22) What type of exposure monitoring methods are available for measuring beryllium in the workplace? Provide information on any sampling and analytical methods available for determining exposure based on total or respirable mass, particle size, particle number, particle surface area, or dermal contact. Information on the precision and accuracy of the sampling method, the range and limits of detection, the method of validation of sampling and analysis, and any potential sources of chemical interference is desired.
(23) What types of engineering controls or work practices are used by your facility to reduce exposure to beryllium? Describe the effectiveness of these controls in reducing worker exposure and indicate any operations or processes in your facility for which engineering controls are not available, are ineffective, or are too costly to use. Give specific examples where engineering controls or work practices have been applied or evaluated or where engineering control programs have been implemented to ensure reliable operation of control systems.
(24) Are there other materials available that can be substituted for beryllium in your processes? Describe any technical, economic or other barriers or hindrances to substitution.
(25) Describe housekeeping practices used in your facility to control employee exposure to beryllium, including cleaning methods used (
(26) Are clean rooms, change rooms, shower areas, or separate lunchrooms used in your facility for hygiene and housekeeping in the control of beryllium exposure? Indicate the effectiveness of these measures in reducing employee exposure to beryllium, and describe the procedures followed or methods used to ensure that these areas are free from beryllium contamination.
(27) Are respirators or other types of personal protective equipment (
(28) Describe the conditions under which respirators and other personal protective equipment are used, including any criteria (
(29) Are there processes or areas where it is impracticable to use respirators or other protective equipment to protect against exposure to beryllium? Describe those situations and explain what measures are taken to protect employees.
(30) Other than reducing employee exposure to beryllium, has adoption of control measures resulted in any additional benefits? Provide specific details of the benefits.
(31) Have any technological changes within your industry influenced the frequency, duration, or magnitude of exposure to beryllium or the means by which employers attempt to control exposures? The Agency requests that commenters describe in detail any technological changes within industries that have altered methods of control. Information linking control technologies and data on exposure levels associated
(32) Is the Department of Energy Beryllium Disease Prevention Program (10 CFR part 850) a viable program for non-DOE beryllium users?
(33) What are the potential economic impacts of reducing occupational exposures to beryllium in terms of costs of controls, costs for training, benefits from reduction in the number or severity of illnesses, effects on revenue and profit, changes in worker productivity, or any other impact measure that you can to identify? Provide, if possible, explicit examples of costs that could be incurred (
(34) What changes in market conditions would result from reducing employees' exposures to beryllium? Please include in your response any changes in market structure or concentration, or effects on domestic or international shipments of beryllium-related products or services that would be expected to result from reducing occupational exposures to beryllium.
(35) What information and training is provided to your employees to reduce risks associated with occupational exposure to beryllium? OSHA seeks comment on the information and training provided or recommended for workers exposed to beryllium, including job categories included in your training program, criteria for determining which employees receive information and training, program structure, content, methods, frequency, and any procedures used to address language barriers.
(36) How do you determine the effectiveness of training? Describe methods used and any factors taken into account in examining the effectiveness of training programs.
(37) Describe any ways in which beryllium-related training could be improved.
(38) Which criteria are used, or should be used, to determine when occupational medical screening or surveillance should be provided? Describe the job categories, duties, exposure levels, or any other basis used for determining when health screening should be provided to employees.
(39) Which screening tests or procedures are used, or should be used, for early identification of adverse health effects related to beryllium exposure? Explain the basis for your position.
(40) If the BeLPT is part of your screening and surveillance program, describe its role in the program (
(41) If the BeLPT is part of your screening and surveillance program, what confirmation protocols are used for determining a worker's sensitivity (
(42) If the BeLPT is part of your screening and surveillance program, describe your experience with the test, including information regarding the sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate, false negative rate, and positive predictive value of the test, and any difficulties found with the interpretation of test results.
(43) How often should beryllium-related health screening be performed?
(44) What happens after an employee in your facility is identified as sensitized or diagnosed with beryllium-related disease? Describe the policies and procedures that are followed, including any provisions for removal from exposure and return to work.
(45) Has health screening and surveillance had any effect on the number or severity of adverse health effects associated with beryllium exposure?
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321,
(46) What is the potential direct or indirect environmental impact (for example, the effect on air and water quality, energy usage, solid waste disposal, and land use) from a reduction in employee exposure to beryllium or the use of substitutes for beryllium?
(47) Are there any situations in which reducing beryllium exposures to employees would be inconsistent with meeting environmental regulations?
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
(48) How many and what kinds of small businesses or other small entities in your industry could be affected by amending OSHA's beryllium standard? Describe any such effects.
(49) Are there special issues that make control of beryllium exposures more difficult or more costly in small firms?
(50) Are there any reasons that the benefits of reducing occupational exposure to beryllium might be less in small firms than in larger firms? With regard to potential impacts on small firms, describe specific concerns that should be addressed, and any alternatives that might serve to minimize these impacts while meeting the requirements of the OSH Act.
(51) Are there any federal regulations that might duplicate, overlap or conflict with guidance or a revised standard concerning beryllium? If so, identify which ones and explain how they would duplicate, overlap or conflict.
(52) Are there any federal programs in areas such as defense or energy that might be impacted by guidance or a revised standard concerning beryllium? If so, identify which ones and explain how they would be impacted.
This document was prepared under the direction of John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20210. It is issued pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
Postal Service.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule clarifies and strengthens requirements for postage meter manufacturers to control what a postage meter allows the licensed user to print.
The Postal Service must receive your comments on or before December 26, 2002.
Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Postage Technology Management, 1735 N. Lynn Street, Room 5011, Arlington, VA 22209-6370. You can view and copy all written comments at the same address between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Wayne Wilkerson, manager of Postage Technology Management, at 703-292-3782, or by fax at 703-292-4073.
Some postage meters and postage evidencing systems can print written or graphic matter in addition to a U.S. Postal Service-approved indicium-evidencing payment of United States postage. Written or graphic matter, other than Postal Service-approved indicia, printed by a meter or postage evidencing system, could convey a false impression that the Postal Service had approved the content of both the indicia and any additional printed matter. For this reason, the Domestic Mail Manual provides in P030.9.8 that such “printed matter may not be obscene, defamatory of any person or group, or deceptive, and it must not advocate any unlawful action.” When 39 CFR 501.23(d) was adopted, meter stamps and other printed matter were printed with printing plates engraved for customers by the approved postage meter manufacturers. Accordingly, the responsibility for complying with the regulation clearly rested upon the approved meter manufacturer, and failure to comply with a postal meter regulation could result, under 39 CFR 501.5, in the suspension or revocation of a manufacturer's approval to distribute postage meters. Manufacturers are now distributing Postal Service-approved postage meters and postage evidencing systems that employ digital printing technology. The proposed rule seeks to make clear that the approved manufacturers continue to be responsible for controlling the printing capabilities of their products in order to meet the requirements of the
We will review any public comments and will issue a final rule amending the regulations. When this proposed rule is issued as a final rule, we will revise the
Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public comments on the following proposed amendments to the
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
For the reasons set out in this document, the Postal Service is proposing to amend 39 CFR part 501 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 501 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 410, 2601, 2605; Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (Public Law 95-452, as amended); 5 U.S.C. App. 3.
2. § 501.23(d) is revised to read as follows:
Each authorized postage meter manufacturer must do the following:
(d) Control all print capabilities of the postage meter or postage evidencing system, including printing of indicia and all other matter printed by the system, by supplying only meter slogans, ad plates, or other print capabilities that meet all Postal Service requirements, including those for suitable quality and content.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Proposed rule.
Technical information or comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The comment period is ninety (90) days following the second publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation in each community.
The proposed BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Michael M. Grimm, Acting Chief, Hazards Study Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2878 or (e-mail)
FEMA proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean
This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
The Administrator for Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration certifies that this proposed rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because proposed or modified BFEs are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required to establish and maintain community eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.
This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.4 are proposed to be amended as follows:
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Advance notice of public meeting and request for suggested agenda topics.
We are issuing this notice to inform producers and users of veterinary biological products, and other interested individuals, that we will be holding our 12th public meeting to discuss regulatory and policy issues related to the manufacture, distribution, and use of veterinary biological products. We are planning the meeting agenda and are requesting suggestions for topics of general interest to producers and other interested individuals.
The public meeting will be held from Monday, March 31, through Wednesday, April 2, 2003, from 1 p.m. to approximately 5 p.m. on Monday, 8 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m. on Tuesday, and from 8:30 a.m. to approximately noon on Wednesday.
The public meeting will be held in the Scheman Building at the Iowa State Center, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
For further information on agenda topics, contact Dr. Richard E. Hill, Jr., Director, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 510 South 17th Street, Suite 104, Ames, IA 50010-8197; phone (515) 232-5785, fax (515) 232-7120, or e-mail
Since 1989, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has held 11 public meetings in Ames, IA, on veterinary biologics. The meetings provide an opportunity for the exchange of information between APHIS representatives, producers and users of veterinary biological products, and other interested individuals. APHIS is in the process of planning the agenda for the 12th such meeting, which will be held March 31 through April 2, 2003.
The agenda for the meeting is not yet complete. Topics may include, but will not be limited to: (1) Emerging diseases; (2) vaccine development; (3) current CVB activities, (4) 2002 Farm Bill; (5) animal care; and (6) international harmonization. Before finalizing the agenda, APHIS is seeking suggestions for additional meeting topics from the interested public.
We would also like to invite interested individuals to use this meeting to present their ideas and suggestions concerning the licensing, manufacturing, testing, and distribution of veterinary biologics.
Please submit suggested meeting topics and proposed presentation titles to either of the persons listed under
After the agenda is finalized, APHIS will announce the agenda topics in the
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is publishing for public comment a summary of a proposed information collection. The proposed collection is an extension of a collection currently approved for the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
Comments on this notice must be received by January 27, 2003 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments and requests for copies of this information collection to Alan Rich, Program Reports, Analysis, and Monitoring Branch, Budget Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) 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; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate, automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Alan Rich, (703) 305-2113.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is publishing for public comment notice of a proposed information collection. The proposed collection is an extension of a collection currently approved for the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, the Commodity Schools Program, and the Special Milk Program.
Comments on this notice must be received by January 27, 2003 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments and requests for copies of this information collection to Alan Rich, Program Reports, Analysis, and Monitoring Branch, Budget Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302.
All comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Alan Rich, (703) 305-2113.
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council of Environmental Quality Guidelines (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Guidelines (7 CFR Part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is being prepared for The Middle Fork of the Popo Agie Watershed, Fremont County, Wyoming.
Lincoln E. Burton, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 100 East B Street, Room 3124, Casper, Wyoming 82601, telephone: 307-261-6453.
The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project may cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Lincoln E. Burton, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is needed for this project.
The project concerns flood prevention and stream channel restoration of the Middle Fork of the Popo Agie through Lander, Wyoming to the confluence of the North Fork of the Popo Agie.
Alternatives under consideration:
1. Diversion through or around town with channel restoration.
2. Flood wall and channel restoration.
3. Upstream Storage and channel restoration.
A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared and circulated for review by agencies and the public. The Natural Resources Conservation Service invites participation and consultation of agencies and individuals that have special expertise, legal jurisdiction, or interest in the preparation of the draft environmental impact statement. Meeting will be held in Lander, Wyoming on Wednesday, January 8, 2003 at Inn at Lander Best Western, 260 Grand Avenue from 7 p.m. until 9 p.m. To determine the scope of the
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.
November 26, 2002.
Anya Naschak or Helen Kramer at (202) 482-6375 or (202) 482-0405, respectively; Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.
On September 25, 2002, in response to a request made by V&M do Brasil S.A. (V&M), the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are references to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2002).
The scope of this review includes small diameter seamless carbon and alloy standard, line and pressure pipes (seamless pipes) produced to the ASTM A-335, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of this order also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters below, regardless of specification, except glass-lined seamless pressure pipe described below.
For purposes of this review, seamless pipes are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel pipes, of circular cross- section, not more than 114.3 mm (4.5 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, manufacturing process (hot-finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, bevelled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish. These pipes are commonly known as standard pipe, line pipe or pressure pipe, depending upon the application. They may also be used in structural applications. Pipes produced in non-standard wall thicknesses are commonly referred to as tubes.
The seamless pipes subject to this review is currently classifiable under subheadings
7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
The following information further defines the scope of this review, which covers pipes meeting the physical parameters described above:
Specifications, Characteristics and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard A-106 may be used in temperatures of up to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM standard A-335 must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for A-106 and the ASME codes. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard.
Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements.
Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification.
Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A- 106, ASTM A-53 and API 5L specifications. Such triple certification of pipes is common because all pipes meeting the stringent A-106 specification necessarily meet the API 5L and ASTM A-53 specifications. Pipes meeting the API 5L specification necessarily meet the ASTM A-53 specification. However, pipes meeting the A-53 or API 5L specifications do not necessarily meet the A-106 specification. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers triple certify the pipes. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers.
The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple certified pipes is in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants and chemical plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications.
The scope of this review includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, and whether or not also certified to a
For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in A-106 applications. These specifications generally include A- 162, A-192, A-210, A-333, and A-524. When such pipes are used in a standard, line or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this review.
Specifically excluded from the scope of this review are: (1) boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to A-335, A-106, A-53 or API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line or pressure applications; (2) finished and unfinished OCTG, if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications; (3) redraw hollows for cold-drawing when used in the production of cold-drawn pipe or tube; and (4) glass-lined pressure pipes meeting the following specifications: seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel pipes, of circular cross-section, not more than 114.3 mm (4.5 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness or manufacturing process (hot-finished or cold-drawn) that (1) has been cut into lengths of six to 120 inches, (2) has had the inside bore ground to a smooth surface, (3) has had multiple layers of specially formulated corrosion resistant glass permanently baked on at temperatures of 1,440 to 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit in thicknesses from 0.032 to 0.085 inch (40 to 80 mils), and (4) has flanges or other forged stub ends welded on both ends of the pipe. The special corrosion resistant glass referred to in this definition may be glass containing by weight (1) 70 to 80 percent of an oxide of silicone, zirconium, titanium or cerium (Oxide Group RO sub2), (2) 10 to 15 percent of an oxide of sodium, potassium, or lithium (Oxide Group RO), (3) from a trace amount to 5 percent of an oxide of either aluminum, cobalt, iron, vanadium, or boron (Oxide Group R sub2 O sub3, or (4) from a trace amount to 5 percent of a fluorine compound in which fluorine replaces the oxygen in any one of the previously listed oxide groups. These glass-lined pressure pipes are commonly manufactured for use in glass-lined equipment systems for processing corrosive or reactive chemicals, including acrylates, alkanolamines, herbicides, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and solvents.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.
On August 30, 2002, V&M (a producer and exporter of subject merchandise) requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless pipe from Brazil published in the Federal Register on August 3, 1995 (60 FR 39707). On September 25, 2002, the Department published in the
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.
On June 25, 2002, the Department of Commerce (“the Department's”) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel plate in coils from the Republic of Korea.
November 26, 2002.
Brandon Farlander or Robert Bolling, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-0182 or (202) 482-3434, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“the Department's”) regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2001).
On May 6, 2002, the Department published in the
On June 19, 2002, POSCO submitted a letter to the Department stating that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (“POR”). On July 1, 2002, the Department issued POSCO its standard antidumping duty questionnaire. In response to the Department's questionnaire, POSCO again stated that neither it, nor any of its affiliates, had exports or sales in the United States of subject merchandise manufactured or produced by POSCO during the POR.
On August 21, 2002, the Department sent a no-shipment inquiry concerning SSPC from Korea and POSCO to the U.S. Customs Service (“Customs”). The purpose of this inquiry was to determine whether Customs suspended liquidation of entry summaries of SSPC from Korea manufactured and/or exported by POSCO during the POR. The Customs Service did not identify any suspended entry summaries of SSPC manufactured and/or exported by POSCO during the POR. Therefore, we have determined that there were no entries of subject merchandise produced or exported by POSCO into the customs territory of the United States during the POR.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole, or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Department concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise. In light of the fact that we have determined that the only company covered by the review did not have entries for consumption into the territory of the United States during the POR in question, we find that rescinding this review is appropriate. On October 25, 2002, we asked petitioners to submit any evidence that POSCO had entries, exports, or sales or subject merchandise during the POR.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of renewal.
In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and the General Services Administration (GSA) rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR Part 101-6, and after consultation with GSA, the Secretary of Commerce has determined that the renewal of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership National Advisory Board is in the public interest in connection with the performance of the duties imposed on the Department by law.
The Committee was first established in October 1996 to advise MEP regarding their programs, plans, and policies. In renewing the Board, the Secretary has established it for an additional two years. During the next two years, the Board plans to address center service mix standardization, eBusiness, moving toward high performance centers, training and education of field staff, MEP University, national awareness of the MEP program, international services, and others.
The Board will consist of nine members to be appointed by the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to assure a balanced membership that will represent the views and needs of customers, providers, and others involved in industrial extension throughout the United States.
The Board will function solely as an advisory body and in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Copies of the Board's revised charter will be filed with the appropriate committees of the Congress and with the Library of Congress.
Inquiries or comments may be directed to Linda Acierto, Senior Policy Advisor, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4800; telephone: 301-975-5020.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice of government owned invention available for licensing.
The invention listed below is owned in whole by the U.S. Government, as represented by the Department of Commerce. The invention is available for licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally funded research and development.
Technical and licensing information on this invention may be obtained by writing to: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Technology Partnerships, ATTN: Mary Clague; Building 820, Room 213, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Information is also available via telephone: 301-975-4188, e-mail:
NIST may enter into a Cooperative Research and
In the first example, the electric field within a microchannel is effected by putting a highly or partially conductive material inside portions of the channel. The conductive material can consist, for example, of a metal film on the channel walls. The presence of conductive material will alter the total conductivity of the microchannel, and thereby alter the electric field in the microchannel. Regions of different electric field can be created by applying different films (or no films) to different regions of the microchannel. The electric field gradients at the borders between these different regions can then be used to focus and concentrate ionic species by balancing their electrophoretic velocities with an applied bulk fluid velocity.
In the second example, the electric field gradient which is used for electrokinetic focusing is created by application of a temperature gradient. In order for this to work, the conductivity of the buffer within the microchannels must depend on temperature in a way that differs from the typical inverse proportionality with the buffer viscosity. For example, it must have an ionic strength that is temperature dependent.
Also discussed is the possibilty that any apparatus/system which can be used for electrokinetic focusing can also be used to produce streams of either concentrated or diluted analytes.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council) and its Administrative Committee will hold meetings.
The meetings will be held on December 10-12, 2002.
The meetings will be held at the Hyatt Dorado Beach Hotel, Carr. 693, Dorado, Puerto Rico.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1920; telephone: (787) 766-5926.
The Council will convene on Tuesday, December 10, 2002, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and the Administrative Committee will meet from 4:15 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The Council will reconvene on Wednesday, December 11, 2002, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Thursday, December 12, 2002, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., approximately.
The Council will hold its 110th regular public meeting to discuss the items contained in the following agenda:
Call to Order
Adoption of Agenda
Consideration of 109th Council Meeting Verbatim Transcription
Executive Director's Report
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)-Draft Environmental Impact Statement Progress Report
-EFH Designation of Species
-Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC)
-Impact on Habitat
-Mitigating Measures
-Decision Making Process
-Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
-Recommendations to States
Administrative Committee Meeting
-Advisory Panel/Scientific Statistical Committee/Habitat Advisory Panel Membership
-Budget Projection
-Personnel Retirement Issues
-Other Business
Sustainable Fisheries Act
-Status Criteria of Species
-Recovery Plan Queen Conch
-Recovery Plan Nassau Grouper
-Recovery Plan Goliath
-Bycatch
-Management Alternatives
Enforcement
-Fishing in St. Croix-Mr. Farchetti
-Federal Government
-Puerto Rico
-U.S. Virgin Islands
-U.S. Coast Guard
Administrative Committee Meeting Recommendations
Meetings Attended by Council Members and Staff
-Recognition to Caribbean Fishery Management Council by Hyperbaric Chamber Group
Next Council Meeting
The meetings are open to the public, and will be conducted in English. Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and/other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolon, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-2577, telephone: (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Notice of public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene a public meeting of the Socioeconomic Panel (SEP).
A meeting of the SEP will be held beginning at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, December 11, 2002, and will conclude at 4 p.m. on Friday, December 13, 2002.
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Tampa Airport Westshore, 2225 Lois Avenue, Tampa, FL; telephone: 813-877-6688.
Antonio B. Lamberte, Economist, telephone: 813-228-2815.
The SEP will meet to review available social and economic information on red grouper and yellowedge grouper stocks and to determine the social and economic implications of the levels of acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommended by the Council's Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel (RFSAP). The SEP may recommend to the Council total allowable catch (TAC) levels for the 2003 fishing year and certain management measures associated with achieving the TACs.
In addition, the SEP will hear presentations on bioeconomic modeling. Dr. Wade Griffin of Texas A&M University will discuss the details of his bioeconomic model and results of a bioeconomic modeling evaluation of the Texas shrimp closure. Dr. John Ward of the National Marine Fisheries Service will present his research on multi-species bioeconomic models. Dr. Lee Anderson (with Mr. Dohoon Kim) of the University of Delaware will present his bioeconomic model for red grouper and yellowedge grouper.
Composing the SEP membership are economists, sociologists, and anthropologists from various universities and state fishery agencies throughout the Gulf. They advise the Council on the social and economic implications of certain fishery management measures.
A copy of the agenda can be obtained by calling 813-228-2815. Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the SEP for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the SEP will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
The meeting is open to the public and is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (
Department of Education.
Correction notice extension of comment period.
On October 8, 2002, the Department of Education published a 30-day public comment period notice in the
Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address
Katrina Ingalls at her e-mail address
This notice provides information about a workshop to assist individuals interested in learning more about the FY 2003 programs of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE). Program staff will present program information and answer questions about FIPSE's programs. The workshop will focus primarily on the Comprehensive Program, which provides grants for innovative reform projects that hold promise as models for the resolution of important issues and problems in postsecondary education. Additional information about FIPSE's programs can be found on the Internet at the following site:
Although the Department has not yet announced in the
The technical assistance workshop will be held as follows:
The technical assistance workshop site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an 1 auxiliary aid or service to participate in the workshop (
Levenia Ishmell, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., room 8031, Washington, DC 20006-8544. Telephone: (202) 502-7668 or by e-mail:
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at either site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-888-293-6498, or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d.
Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE).
Agency information collection activities: proposed collection; comment request.
The EIA is soliciting comments on the proposed three-year extension of the OMB expiration date for Forms: NWPA-830C ‘Appendix C—Delivery Commitment Schedule’, NWPA-830G ‘Appendix G—Standard Remittance Advice for Payment of Fees (including Annex A).’
Comments must be filed by January 27, 2003. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible.
Send comments to Jim Finucane. To ensure receipt of the comments by the due date, submission by FAX (202-287-1934) or e-mail
Requests for additional information or copies of any forms and instructions should be directed to Mr. Finucane at the address listed above.
The Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275, 15 U.S.C. 761
The EIA, as part of its effort to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), provides the general public and other Federal agencies with opportunities to comment on collections of energy information conducted by or in conjunction with the EIA. Any comments received help the EIA to prepare data requests that maximize the utility of the information collected, and to assess the impact of collection requirements on the public. Also, the EIA will later seek approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of the collections under Section 3507(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Appendix C, Form NWPA-830C, ‘Delivery Commitment Schedule, (DCS)’ is designed to allow companies purchasing nuclear waste disposal services from the DOE to identify the number of assemblies, including their initial uranium loading, the range of discharge dates, and the mode of transportation, along with the year that the purchaser proposes that the DOE take delivery. This information is required at a point in time at least 63 months before expected transfer to the DOE. The DCS provides purchasers with the opportunity to inform DOE of their plans for utilizing their allocations of projected Federal Waste Management System capacity.
NWPA-830G ‘Appendix G—Standard Remittance Advice for Payment of Fees’, and ‘Annex A to Appendix G—Standard Remittance Advice for Payment of Fees’ are designed to serve as the source document for entries into DOE accounting records to transmit data from Purchasers to the DOE concerning payment of their fees for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal into the Nuclear Waste Fund. The Remittance Advice (RA) must be submitted by Purchasers who signed the Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste with the DOE.
The current proposed action is a three-year extension of two existing data collections. This is a request for comments on EIA's proposal to request this three-year extension of approval to continue collecting information with Forms NWPA-830C, the Appendix C—‘Delivery Commitment Schedule,’ and
Prospective respondents and other interested parties should comment on the actions discussed in item II. The following guidelines are provided to assist in the preparation of comments. Please indicate to which form(s) your comments apply.
A. Are the proposed collections of information necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency and does the information have practical utility? Practical utility is defined as the actual usefulness of information to or for an agency, taking into account its accuracy, adequacy, reliability, timeliness, and the agency's ability to process the information it collects.
B. What enhancements can be made to the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
A. What actions could be taken to help ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information to be collected?
B. Are the instructions and definitions clear and sufficient? If not, which instructions need clarification?
C. Can the information be submitted by the due date?
D. Public reporting burden to complete Form NWPA-830C, the estimated burden per response is 2 hours. To complete Form NWPA-830G the average time per response is five and one half hours. The data for the Form NWPA-830G is collected quarterly. The estimated burden includes the total time necessary to provide the requested information. In your opinion, how accurate is this estimate?
E. The agency estimates that the only cost to a respondent is for the time it will take to complete the collection. Will a respondent incur start-up costs for reporting, or any recurring annual costs for operation, maintenance, and purchase of services associated with the information collection?
F. What additional actions could be taken to minimize the burden of this collection of information? Such actions may involve the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
G. Does any other Federal, State, or local agency collect similar information? If so, specify the agency, the data element(s), and the methods of collection.
A. What actions could be taken to help ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information disseminated?
B. Is the information useful at the levels of detail to be collected?
C. For what purpose(s) would the information be used? Be specific.
D. Are there alternate sources for the information and are they useful? If so, what are their weaknesses and/or strengths?
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the form. They also will become a matter of public record.
Sections 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Take notice that on November 15, 2002, Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective January 1, 2003:
CIG states that these tariff sheets revise the Gas Research Institute surcharges.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. 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 proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
November 1, 2002.
On September 16, 2002, the city of Holyoke Gas & Electric Department (HG&E) filed, with the Commission, a
The purposes of the conference are to learn more about the post-licensing issues that have been the subject of on-going discussions since license issuance in 1999, as well as discuss any related procedural matters and steps. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian Tribes, and interested parties are invited to attend the conference.
For further information, please contact Allan Creamer at (202) 502-8365, or via e-mail at
Take notice that on November 15, 2002, Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. (Iroquois) tendered for filing Third Revised Sheet No. 36; Third Revised Sheet No. 50A; Second Revised Sheet No. 50B; and Sixth Revised Sheet No. 57A, proposed to become effective November 1, 2002.
Iroquois states that these sheets were submitted in compliance with the Commission's October 31, 2002, Order on Compliance Filing issued in Docket No. RP00-411-000, et al. The tariff sheets included herewith reflect changes required by the Commission.
Iroquois states that copies of its filing were served on all jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory agencies and all parties to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. 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 proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
In the Commission's order issued on October 30, 2002,
Take notice that the technical conference will be held on Thursday, December 12, 2002, at 10:30 am, in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.
Take notice that on November 15, 2002, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Twentieth Revised Sheet No. 22, with an effective date of December 1, 2002.
Natural states that the filing is submitted pursuant to Section 21 of the General Terms and Conditions (GT&C) of its Tariff as the nineteenth limited rate filing under section 4 of the Natural Gas Act and the Rules and Regulations of the Commission promulgated thereunder. The rate adjustments filed for are designed to recover Account No. 858 stranded costs incurred by Natural under contracts for transportation capacity on other pipelines. Costs for any Account No. 858 contracts specifically excluded under section 21 are not reflected in this filing.
Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. 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 proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on November 15, 2002, Sabine Pipe Line LLC (Sabine) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet to be effective May 3, 2002:
Sabine states that this tariff sheet is being filed to comply with the directive of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's letter order pursuant to 375.307(f)(1) and (f)(3), issued September 26, 2002, in Docket No. RP00-483-001.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. 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 proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on November 15, 2002, Southern Natural Gas Company (Southern), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, Seventh Revised Sheet No. 37; and Fourth Revised Sheet No. 48, with an effective date of December 16, 2002.
Southern states that the purpose of the filing is to clarify that Southern's existing overrun charge in Section 2(d) of Southern's Rate Schedule FT and FT-NN applies to volumes from receipt points which are outside of the zone for which a shipper is paying demand charges.
Southern states that copies of the filing will be served upon its shippers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. 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 proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on November 15, 2002, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No.1, which sheets are enumerated in Appendix A attached to the filing. The proposed effective dates of such tariff sheets are indicated on Appendix A.
Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to comply with a letter order issued by the Commission on November 1, 2002 which directed Transco to file revised tariff sheets to modify certain footnotes on its gathering tariff sheet and to add a list of gathering points to Transco's FERC Gas Tariff.
Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to each of its affected customers, interested State Commissions, and other interested parties.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on November 15, 2002, Westar Energy, Inc. tendered a filing in response to a data request issued on November 1, 2002, by the Director of the Division of Tariffs and Market Development-Central, in the above-referenced docket.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on November 15, 2002, Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd. (WIC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Ninth Revised Sheet No. 4C, to become effective January 1, 2003.
WIC states that this tariff sheet revises the Gas Research Institute surcharges.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. 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 proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on November 1, 2002, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a proposed rate adjustment to its Interchange Energy Imbalances Rate under the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 839e(a)(2). BPA seeks interim approval of its proposed rate adjustment effective January 1, 2002, pursuant to Commission regulation 300.20, 18 CFR 300.20. Pursuant to Commission regulation 300.21, 18 CFR 300.21, BPA also seeks final confirmation and approval of the proposed rate.
BPA requests approval effective January 1, 2003, until such time as the rate is subsequently revised and approved. The proposed Interchange Energy Imbalances Rate is a market-indexed rate based on the Dow Jones Mid-Columbia Firm index. This rate is used to keep track of energy exchanges between BPA and the parties to the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement and is intended to cover BPA's cost of providing the interchange.
Take notice that on, November 13, 2002, Termoelectrica de Mexicali, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Applicant), located at Calle Mission de San Javier No. 10661-305;
Applicant will operate and directly own a natural gas-fired and steam-powered generating facility located west of Mexicali in Baja California, Mexico.
Take notice that on November 13, 2002, Virginia Electric and Power Company (the Dominion Virginia Power or Company) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an amended filing in this proceeding. Dominion Virginia Power requests an effective date of January 1, 2003.
Copies of the filing were served upon the Virginia State Corporation Commission, the North Carolina Utilities Commission, and all customers under the wholesale cost based tariff.
Take notice that on November 13, 2002, Virginia Electric and Power Company 2 tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a modification to the filing made in the above reference docket on November 5, 2002. The filing replaces one page of the Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement that contains an incorrect reference to a tariff.
Copies of the filing were served upon the public utility's jurisdictional customers and the Virginia State Corporation Commission.
Take notice that on November 13, 2002, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) filed a new Attachment U of its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) to deal with “Bad Debt Losses.” The NYISO has requested an effective date of January 12, 2003 for the filing.
The NYISO has served a copy of this filing upon all parties that have executed service agreements under the NYISO's Open Access Transmission Tariff or the Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff and upon the New York State Public Service Commission.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on November 14, 2002, FPL Energy New Mexico Wind, L.L.C. (the Applicant), with its principal office at 700 Universe Blvd., Juno Beach, Florida 33408, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission) an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Applicant states that it is a Delaware limited liability company engaged directly and exclusively in the business of owning and operating an up to 204 MW wind-powered generation facility located in Quay and DeBaca Counties, New Mexico. Electric energy produced by the facility will be sold at wholesale.
Take notice that on November 15, 2002, Duke Energy Fayette, L.L.C. (Duke Fayette) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission) an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to section 32 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, as amended, and part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Duke Fayette is a Delaware limited liability company that states it will be engaged directly and exclusively in the business of operating all or part of one or more eligible facilities to be located in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. The eligible facilities will consist of an approximately 620 MW natural gas-fired, combined cycle electric generation plant and related facilities. The output of the eligible facilities will be sold at wholesale.
Take notice that on November 15, 2002, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) tendered for filing proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT), FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, and Agreement of the Transmission Facilities Owners To Organize The Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 (Midwest ISO Agreement) in compliance with the Commission's Order in Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc., 101
The Midwest ISO has requested waiver of the requirements set forth in 18 CFR 385.2010. The Midwest ISO has electronically served a copy of this filing upon all Midwest ISO Members, Member representatives of Transmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee participants, Policy Subcommittee participants, as well as all state commissions within the region. In addition, the filing has been electronically posted on the Midwest ISO's Web site at
Take notice that on November 14, 2002, Phoenix Energy Associates, L.L.C. (Phoenix Energy), tendered for filing their Rate Schedule FERC No. 1, under which Phoenix Energy will engage in wholesale electric power and energy transactions as a marketer.
Take notice that on November 14, 2002, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL Electric) and PPL Susquehanna, L.L.C. (PPL Susquehanna) filed with the Commission a notice of cancellation of an Interconnection Agreement to which they are parties designated as FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 171 and filed on December 7, 1999, and tendered a replacement Interconnection Agreement designated as PJM Service Agreement No. 816.
The Interconnection Agreement is being cancelled, and contemporaneously refiled, in order to implement a revision to Exhibit A and to comport with the Commission's current policy whereby Interconnection Agreements are filed as service agreements under the Open Access Transmission Tariff of the relevant Independent System Operator, here PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. PPL Electric and PPL Susquehanna request the same effective date for cancellation of the Interconnection Agreement and for the amended Interconnection Agreement and request waivers as necessary to permit effective dates for both as of the date of filing.
Take notice that on November 14, 2002, Geysers Power Company, L.L.C., tendered for filing updated rate schedule sheets for calendar year 2003 for its Reliability Must-Run service agreements with the California Independent System Operator (ISO), designated as Rate Schedules FERC Nos. 4 and 5. Copies of the filing have been served upon the ISO and Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Take notice that on November 15, 2002, Duke Energy Fayette, L.L.C. (Duke Fayette) tendered for filing pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act its proposed FERC Electric Tariff No. 1.
Duke Fayette seeks authority to sell energy and capacity, as well as ancillary services, at market-based rates, together with certain waivers and preapprovals. Duke Fayette also seeks authority to sell, assign, or transfer transmission rights that it may acquire in the course of its marketing activities. Duke Fayette seeks an effective date 60 days from the date of filing of its proposed rate tariff.
Take notice that on November 15, 2002, PacifiCorp tendered for filing in accordance with 18 CFR 35 of the Commission's rules and regulations, notice of cancellation of Rate Schedule No. 428 between PUD No. 1 of Clark County, WA and PacifiCorp.
Copies of this filing were supplied to PUD No. 1 of Clark County, WA, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission and the Public Utility Commission of Oregon.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding.
The Commission staff is consulting with the Alabama and Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer
The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission, the SHPOs, and the Council, would satisfy the Commission's Section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the licenses until the licenses expire or are terminated (36 CFR 800.13[e]). The Commission's responsibilities pursuant to section 106 for the above projects would be fulfilled through the programmatic agreement, which the Commission proposes to draft in consultation with certain parties listed below. The executed programmatic agreement would be incorporated into any Orders issuing licenses.
Alabama Power Company, as licensee for Project Nos. 2146, 82, and 618, and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Chickasaw Nation, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, and the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs have expressed an interest in this preceding and are invited to participate in consultations to develop the programmatic agreement.
For purposes of commenting on the programmatic agreement, we propose to restrict the service list for the aforementioned projects as follows: Dr. Laura Henley Dean, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, The Old Post Office Building, Suite 803, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned proceedings may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may request that a restricted service list not be established, by filing a motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. In a request for inclusion, please identify the reason(s) why there is an interest to be included. Also please identify any concerns about Historic Properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties. If Historic Properties are to be identified within the motion, please use a separate page, and label it NON-PUBLIC Information.
An original and 8 copies of any such motion must be filed with Magalie R. Salas, the Secretary of the Commission (888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426) and must be served on each person whose name appears on the official service list. If no such motions are filed, the restricted service list will be effective at the end of the 15 day period. Otherwise, a further notice will be issued ruling on any motion or motions filed within the 15 day period.
Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding.
The Commission staff is consulting with the Alabama State Historic Preservation Officer (hereinafter, SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (hereinafter, Council) pursuant to the Council's regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. Section 470 f), to prepare and execute a programmatic agreement for managing properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places at Project No. 2165-015.
The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission, the SHPO, and the Council, would satisfy the Commission's Section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the license until the license expires or is terminated (36 CFR 800.13[e]). The Commission's responsibilities pursuant to Section 106 for the Black Warrior River Project would be fulfilled through the programmatic agreement, which the Commission proposes to draft in consultation with Alabama Power Company, the licensee for Project No. 2165; the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians; the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians; the Chickasaw Nation, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians; the U. S. Forest Service; the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers; and the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. The executed programmatic agreement would be incorporated into any Order issuing a license.
For purposes of commenting on the programmatic agreement, we propose to add the following person to the restricted service list for the aforementioned project to represent the interests of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers: Ernie Seckinger, CESAM-PD-EI, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, P.O. Box 2288, Mobile, AL 36628-0001.
Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned proceeding may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may request that a restricted service list not be established,
An original and 8 copies of any such motion must be filed with Magalie R. Salas, the Secretary of the Commission (888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426) and must be served on each person whose name appears on the official service list. If no such motions are filed, the restricted service list will be effective at the end of the 15 day period. Otherwise, a further notice will be issued ruling on any motion or motions filed within the 15 day period.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of public meeting.
Under section 10(a)(2) of Public Law 92-423, “The Federal Advisory Committee Act,” notice is hereby given of the forthcoming meeting of the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) Classification Process Work Group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC), established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 300f
The next two meetings of the NDWAC CCL Work Group will be held on the following dates: December 16-17, 2002 (9 a.m.-5 p.m. EDT on December 16, and 8 a.m.-3:30 p.m. EDT on December 17); and February 5-6, 2003 (9 a.m.-5 p.m. EDT on February 5, and 8 a.m.-3:30 p.m. EDT on February 6).
The December meeting of the NDWAC CCL Work Group will be held at the National League of Cities, 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The February meeting of the CCL Work Group will be held at RESOLVE Inc., 1255 23rd Street, NW., Suite 275, Washington, DC.
For more information on the location and times of these meetings, or general background information please contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (phone: 800-426-4791 or (703) 285-1093; e-mail:
The CCL serves as the primary source of priority contaminants for research and regulatory evaluations for the Agency's drinking water program. The list is comprised of both chemical and microbial contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems, and may have adverse health effects, and which at the time of publication are not subject to any proposed or promulgated National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA has formed a CCL Classification Process Work Group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) to help the Agency in developing a new risk based priority setting process based upon the recommendations made by the National Research Council (NRC) in its 2001 report.
The work group is comprised of 21 recognized technical experts representing an array of backgrounds and perspectives who are as impartial and objective as possible. The work group is charged with discussing, evaluating, and providing advice on methodologies, activities, and analysis needed to implement the NRC recommendations on an expanded approach for the CCL listing process. This may include advice on developing and identifying: (1) Overall implementation strategy, (2) prototype classification methodology, classification attributes and criteria that should to be used, (3) pilot projects to validate new classification approaches, (4) demonstration studies that explore the feasibility of the VFAR (Virulance-Factor Activity Relationships) approach, (5) risk communication issues, and (6) additional issues not addressed in the NRC report.
The first meeting of the work group was held on September 18-19, 2002. The meeting objectives were to: gain understanding of the NRC recommendations from the invited members of the NRC panel; identify questions, issues and technical expertise needed to fulfill its charge; and plan next steps. At the conclusion of the first meeting, the work group identified four activity areas for small group discussions and formed committees to address each area (4-6 members/committee). The four committees are: committee on characterization of the universe of contaminants, committee on classification systems, committee on VFAR, and committee on developing guiding principles for the work group. Each committee is expected to hold several conference calls for group discussions in between the plenary meetings. EPA will provide technical materials and RESOLVE will arrange a conference call for each committee.
The meetings are open to the public for observation purposes only. Statements from the public will be taken at the close of each meeting. EPA is not soliciting written comments and is not planning to formally respond to comments.
The session will be held at the Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202, on Wednesday, December 4, 2002, from 9:30 am to 12 pm. The Sheraton Crystal City Hotel main telephone number is: (703) 486-1111. The session is open to members of the public. However, due to limited space, participation will be on a first-come basis. Therefore, members of the public are requested to register in advance. Members of the public who cannot attend in person are encouraged to submit written comments. For further information concerning this session, including procedures both for registration and submitting written comments to the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office, please see below.
Since being established in 1978, the SAB has doubled in size (from five to ten standing committees) and in membership (from some 50 members to more than 110 members and 380 expert consultants). To supplement its standing and chartered committees, the Board forms numerous
Although the mission of the Board and its overall size have increased substantially in the last 25 years, both the structure of the Board and the procedures by which the SAB conducts reviews have remained essentially the same. Accordingly, there is a crucial need to evaluate the current structure, organization and composition of the Board to ascertain whether improvements in these areas can enhance the Board's ability to carry out its critical mission even more effectively and efficiently. The SAB's Executive Committee, under the leadership of its Chair, Dr. William Glaze, has recently established the Reorganization Sub-Committee for this purpose.
1. Overall, how well has EPA's Science Advisory Board fulfilled its mission—and what are some ways in which it could improve?
2. What type of SAB structure and substructures are needed to fulfill the SAB roles and be flexible enough to meet future needs of EPA?
Other public input relevant to the matters of SAB reorganization and structural changes will also be discussed, and accepted at, this December 4, 2002, session.
Further information concerning the EPA Science Advisory Board, including its structure, function, and composition, may be found on the EPA SAB Web site at:
Federal Housing Finance Board.
Notice of public hearing.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) will hold the following public hearing:
Only directors and executives of Federal Home Loan Banks may present testimony in person. Other parties will be permitted to submit written testimony only.
Those seeking to testify in person must submit written statements in electronic form no later than 2:00 p.m. EST, Friday, November 29, 2002. In addition, fifty (50) copies of your statement must be delivered to the Finance Board office prior to the hearing.
Banks and others submitting only written views must submit them in electronic form no later than 2:00 p.m. EST Monday, December 2, 2002 and must also deliver fifty (50) copies to the hearing location before the start of the hearing.
Send testimony to Elaine L. Baker, Secretary to the Board, by electronic mail to
Thomas D. Casey, Chief Counsel to the Chairman, 202-408-2957 or Elaine L. Baker, Secretary to the Board, 202-408-2837.
Notice is hereby given that on November 18, 2002, the Association of Bi-State Motor Carriers, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition seeking an investigation under section 11(c) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (“Shipping Act”) of certain activities in the New York/New Jersey Port District.
The Petitioner asks the Commission to determine whether the truck detention practices and tariff regulations of the marine terminal operator (“MTO”) members of the New York Terminal Conference (“NYTC”)
Petitioner asserts that the foregoing results in its members being responsible for the excessive cost of doing business at the Port, both in terms of lost time and financial losses. In this regard, Petitioner states that the excessive delay caused to trucks awaiting access to containers and equipment causes inordinate delay in the delivery of cargo and that these costs are passed along to the shipping public or absorbed by trucking companies.
Petitioner asks the Commission to investigate these practices under section 11(c) of the Shipping Act. If violations are found, Petitioner asks the Commission to order NYTC to modify its tariff to: include a reasonable calculation that captures “queue waiting time;” and remove the excessive free time provisions and establish reasonable provisions that address the specific concerns set forth in the Petition such as, roadability issues and exclusions that exempt time spent due to lack of equipment or maintenance and repair. Petitioner also seeks an order directing NYTC to cease and desist from its practices of tendering defective equipment.
The Petition was filed under Rule 69 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure, 46 CFR 502.69, and states that it was served on the parties named therein. The parties named in the Petition are entitled to file a reply pursuant 46 CFR 502.69 and 502.74. In order for the Commission to make a thorough evaluation of the Petition, the Commission is also inviting interested persons to submit their comments on the Petition.
Copies of the Petition are available at the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, 800 N. Capitol Street, NW., Room 1046, by telephone request at 202-523-5725, or through e-mail request directed to
Parties participating in this proceeding may elect to receive service of the Commission's issuances in this proceeding through e-mail in lieu of service by U.S. mail. A party opting for electronic service shall advise the Office of the Secretary in writing and provide
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 11, 2002.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 21, 2002.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
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 December 20, 2002.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 20, 2002.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
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 December 23, 2002.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 21, 2002.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 20, 2002.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 20, 2002.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 23, 2002.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 21, 2002.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Notice.
The FTC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) information collection requirements contained in four regulations enforced by the Commission. The FTC is seeking public comments on the proposal to extend through December 31, 2005 the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in the regulations. That clearance expires on December 31, 2002.
Comments must be filed by December 26, 2002.
Send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, Washington, DC 20503, ATTN.: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission (comments in electronic form should be sent to
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Carole Reynolds, Attorney, Division of Financial Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3230.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. On August 20, 2002, the FTC sought comment on the information collection requirements associated with the regulations discussed below. See 67 FR 53936.
The Commission received one comment pertaining to certain aspects of regulatory burden affecting Regulations B, E, and Z that the commenter believed understated applicable burden.
If a comment contains nonpublic information, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “confidential.” Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form (in ASCII format, Wordperfect, or Microsoft Word) as part of or as an attachment to email messages directed to the following email box:
The four regulations covered by this notice are:
(1) Regulations promulgated under The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. (“ECOA”) (“Regulation B”) (Control Number: 3084-0087);
(2) Regulations promulgated under The Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. (“EFTA”) (“Regulation E”) (Control Number: 3084-0085);
(3) Regulations promulgated under The Consumer Leasing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1667 et seq., (“CLA”), (“Regulation M”), Control Number: 3084-0086);
(4) Regulations promulgated under The Truth-In-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. (“TILA”) (“Regulation Z”) (Control Number: 3084-0088).
Each of these four rules impose certain PRA recordkeeping and disclosure requirements associated with providing credit or with other financial transactions. All of these rules require covered entities to keep certain records. Staff believes that these entities would likely retain these records in the normal course of business even absent the recordkeeping requirement in the rules. There is, however, some burden associated with ensuring that covered entities do not prematurely dispose of relevant records during the period of time required by the applicable rule.
Disclosure requirements involve both set-up and monitoring costs as well as certain transaction-specific costs. “Set-up” burden, incurred by new entrants only, includes identifying the applicable disclosure requirements, determining compliance obligations, and designing and developing compliance systems and procedures. “Monitoring” burden, incurred by all covered entities, includes reviewing revisions to regulatory requirements, revising compliance systems and procedures as necessary, and monitoring the ongoing operation of systems and procedures to ensure continued compliance. “Transaction-related” burden refers to the effort associated with providing the various required disclosures in individual transactions. While this burden varies with the number of transactions, the figures shown for transaction-related burden in the tables that follow are estimated averages.
The actual range of compliance burden experienced by covered entities, and reflected in those averages, varies widely. Depending on the extent to which covered entities have developed computer-based systems and procedures for providing the required disclosures (and/or the extent which such entities utilize electronic transactions, communications, and/or electronic recordkeeping), and the efficacy of those systems and procedures, some entities may have little burden, while others may incur a higher burden.
Calculating the burden associated with the four regulations' disclosure requirements is very difficult because of the highly diverse group of affected entities. The “respondents” included in the following burden calculations consist of credit and lease advertisers, creditors, financial institutions, service providers, certain government agencies and others involved in delivering electronic fund transfers (EFTs) of government benefits, and lessors. The burden estimates represent staff's best assessment, based on its knowledge and expertise relating to the financial services industry. To derive these estimates, staff considered the wide variations in covered entities': (1) Size and location; (2) credit or lease products offered, extended, or advertised, and their particular terms; (3) types of EFTs used; (4) types and occurrences of adverse actions; (5) types of appraisal reports utilized; and (6) computer systems and electronic features of compliance operations.
In some instances, where covered entities may make certain required disclosures in the ordinary course of business, the Regulation imposes no PRA burden. In addition, as noted above, some entities use computer-based and/or electronic means of providing the required disclosures, while others rely on methods requiring more manual effort.
The estimated PRA burden associated with these rules, attributable to the Commission, is somewhat less today than in the past. Staff believes that as computer-based and/or electronic procedures rise, and as quality control procedures are increasingly integrated into business operating systems, financial services entities also increase compliance efficiency.
The cost estimates shown below relate solely to labor costs. The applicable PRA requirements impose minimal capital or other non-labor costs, as affected entities generally have the necessary equipment for other business purposes. Similarly, staff estimates that compliance with these rules entails minimal printing and copying costs beyond that associated with documenting financial transactions in the ordinary course of business. The burden estimates shown below include the time necessary to train staff to be in compliance with the regulations.
The following paragraphs discuss each of these rules, their particular PRA requirements, and staff's best estimates of the related hour and cost burdens.
The ECOA prohibits discrimination in the extension of credit. Regulation B, 12 CFR 202, promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, establishes both recordkeeping and disclosure requirements to assist consumers in understanding their rights under the ECOA and to assist in detecting unlawful discrimination. The FTC enforces the ECOA as to all creditors except those that are subject to the regulatory authority of another federal agency (such as federally chartered or insured depository institutions).
Regulation B applies to retailers, mortgage lenders, mortgage brokers, finance companies, Internet businesses, and others. Below is staff's best estimate of burden applicable to this highly broad spectrum of covered entities.
The EFTA requires accurate disclosure of the ocsts, terms, and rights relating to EFT services to consumers. Regulation E, 12 CFR 205, promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, establishes both recordkeeping and disclosure requirements applicable to entities providing EFT services to consumers. The FTC enforces the EFTA as to all entities providing EFT services except those that are subject to the regulatory authority of another federal agency (such as federally chartered or insured depository institutions).
Staff calculated labor costs by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. The hourly rates used below ($50 for managerial or professional time, $20 for skilled technical time, and $10 for clerical time) are averages.
The CLA requires accurate disclosure of the costs and terms of leases to consumers. Regulation M, 12 CFR 213, promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, establishes disclosure requirements that assist consumers in comparison shopping and in understanding the terms of leases and recordkeeping requirements that assist enforcement of the CLA. The FTC enforces the CLA as to all lessors and advertisers except those that are subject to the regulatory authority of another federal agency (such as federally chartered or insured depository institutions).
Staff calculated labor costs by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. The hourly rates used below ($50 for managerial or professional time, $20 for skilled technical time, and $10 for clerical time) are averages.
The TILA was enacted to foster comparison credit shopping and informed credit decision making by requiring accurate disclosure of the costs and terms of credit to consumers. Regulation Z, 12 CFR 226, promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, establishes both recordkeeping and disclosure requirements to assist consumers and the enforcement of the TILA. The FTC enforces the TILA as to all creditors and advertisers except those that are subject to the regulatory authority of another federal agency (such as federally chartered or insured depository institutions).
Staff calculated labor costs by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. The hourly rates used below ($50 for managerial or professional time, $20 for skilled technical time, and $10 for clerical time) are averages.
Administration on Aging, HHS.
Announcement of awards made by the Administration on Aging in Fiscal Year 2002 consistent with Fiscal Year 2002 Appropriations Act reports.
The Administration on Aging announces that it made twenty-nine (29) awards in FY 2002 consistent with the terms of Senate Report 107-84 and House Report 107-116 that accompany the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2002 (Pub. L. 107-116), as follows: Adult Day Care of Northern Shenandoah Valley (VA), $148,050, September 1, 2002, to August 31, 2003; Allegheny County Homestead Apartments LIFE Center (PA), $296,100, September 30, 2002, to September 29, 2003; Alzheimer's Family Day Center (VA), $246,750, August 1, 2002, to December 31, 2003; Area Agency on Aging of Southeast Arkansas Inc. (AR) $493,500, September 1, 2002, to January 31, 2004; Area Agency on Aging of Southwest Arkansas (AR), $227,997, September 1, 2002, to August 31, 2003; Charlotte-Mecklenburg Department of Social Services (NC), $927,973, September 30, 2002, to February 28, 2004; Civic Ventures (CA), $789,600, September 1, 2002, to January 31, 2004; Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups (WI), $134,232, September 1, 2002, to August 31, 2003; Comprehensive Housing Assistance, Inc. (MD), $987,000, August 1, 2002, to July 31, 2003; Council of Senior Centers and Services NYC (NY), $74,025, July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2003; County of Wayne (MI), $781,229, September 1, 2002, to September 2003; DuPage County Human Services Department (IL), $98,700, September 1, 2002, to January 31, 2004; Garrett County Area Agency on Aging (MD), $24,675, August 1, 2002, to July 31, 2003; Guadelupe Community Center (CA), $434,119, September 30, 2002, to September 29, 2003; Institute for Music and Neurologic Function (NY), $493,500, August 1, 2002, to July 31, 2003; INTEGRIS (OK), $98,700, September 30, 2002, to September 29, 2003; Iowa Department of Elder Affairs (IA), $1,480,500, September 1, 2002, to August 31, 2003; Iowa State University, (IA), $197,400, September 30, 2002, to September 29, 2003; Jewish Association on Aging, (PA), $197,400, August 1, 2002, to July 31, 2003; Jewish Federation of Great Philadelphia (PA), $196,300, August 1, 2002, to July 31, 2003; Jewish Federation of St. Louis (MO), $1,263,360; August 1, 2002, to July 31, 2003; La Crosse Area Hmong Mutual Assistance Association, Inc. (WI), $125,349, September 30, 2002, to September 29, 2003; Promoting the National Family Caregiver Support Program (VA), $99,750, February 1, 2002, to January 31, 2003; Senior Community Centers of San Diego (CA), $88,830; September 30, 2002, to September 29, 2003; Senior Specialists Agency on Aging of West Central Arkansas (AR), $449,085; September 1, 2002, to August 31, 2003; The Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland (OH), $987,000; August 1, 2002, to July 31, 2003; The Motion Picture and Television Fund (CA), $98,700; September 1, 2002, to August 31, 2003; Tri-County Community Action Program (NH), $49,350; September 30, 2002, to September 29, 2003; Westchester County Department of Senior Programs and Services (NY), $19,740, August 1, 2002, to July 31, 2003.
This program is authorized under Section 301(a) and 317(C) of the Public Health Service Act, [42 U.S.C. Section 241 and 247b-4, as amended]. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.184.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2003 funds for a cooperative agreement program for operation of a National Information and Resource Center on Physical Activity for Persons with Disabilities. This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus areas of Disability and Secondary Conditions and Physical Activity and Fitness.
The purpose of this program is to provide information, technical assistance, and consultation on physical activity, exercise, and health promotion practices targeting persons with
Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with the following performance goal for the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD): monitor, characterize, and improve the health status of Americans with disabilities.
Applications may be submitted by public and private nonprofit organizations and by governments and their agencies; this includes, but is not limited to, universities, colleges, technical schools, research institutions, hospitals, community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, and State and local governments or their bona fide agents, including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, federally recognized Indian tribal governments, Indian tribes, or Indian tribal organizations.
Title 2 of the United States Code section 1611 states that an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant or loan.
Approximately $750,000 is available in FY 2003 to fund one award. It is expected that the award will begin on or about April 1, 2003, and will be made for a 12 month budget period within a project period of up to five years. Funding estimates may change.
Continuation awards within an approved project period will be made on the basis of satisfactory progress as evidenced by required reports and the availability of funds.
Grant funds may be used to support personnel services, supplies, equipment, travel, subcontracts, and other services consistent with the approved scope of work.
Project funds may not be used to supplant other available applicant or collaborating agency funds, for construction, for purchase of facilities or space, or for patient care. Project funds may not be used for group, program, or individualized support such as wheelchairs, sport/ recreational and fitness equipment, assistive technology, and medical appliances unless specifically approved by the funding agency.
Matching funds are not required for this program.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities listed under 1. Recipient Activities, and CDC will be responsible for the activities listed under 2. CDC Activities.
a. Collect and compile information regarding physical activity and exercise for persons with disabilities on a national, regional, and state/local basis. Provide this information to a broad range of requesters, including: Individuals, media, researchers, disability service organizations, community groups, service providers, legislative and governing bodies, and the public.
b. Serve as a leading national organization that sustains a capacity and competency to serve a nationwide constituency on physical activity, exercise, and fitness for persons with a wide range of disabilities and their support networks, including caregivers.
c. Identify, enumerate, and characterize the nature of requests and inquiries from persons with disabilities, caregivers, providers, and organizations seeking information on physical activity and exercise.
d. Provide guidance for initiating and maintaining physical activity among persons with disabilities. Impart information regarding the benefits and recommended amounts of physical activity to individuals and to those populations served by requesting organizations.
e. Provide technical assistance and consultation in the design, conduct, and evaluation of health promotion and community-directed physical activity and exercise programs in targeted populations of persons with disabilities.
f. Organize and conduct symposia and conferences to publicize and promote the benefits of physical activity and fitness for national organizations and constituent groups.
g. Provide information regarding innovative and acceptable physical activity facilities (
h. Provide information regarding innovative and acceptable policies that promote physical activity among people with disabilities through accessible and suitable dissemination formats and instruments.
a. Provide technical consultation on current available and emerging research, literature, epidemiological, and physical activity information in the United States.
b. Serve as a conduit for accessing other data sets and for referrals to information resources that would be of value to the information gathering/dissemination and technical assistance activities of the recipient.
c. Assist in the planning and organizing of conferences and workshops related to project activities regarding physical activity, exercise, and fitness for persons with disabilities.
d. Assist in the development and dissemination of physical activity materials and information to other CDC grantees to maximize use among those populations served.
e. Assist in the transfer of information and methods already developed in the project to other disability-related entities and programs, including environmental measures that can serve to facilitate access to physical activity programs in the community setting.
f. Assist with the identification of physical activity policies, best practices, and model programs for people with disabilities.
A letter of intent (LOI) is requested for this program. The LOI should identify the program announcement number and the proposed project director. It should describe the scope of the proposed project and denote those activities and collaborations already in place to fully meet the requirements of the announcement. The LOI will be used to determine the level of interest in the announcement, and to assist CDC in planning the application review process.
The Program Announcement title and number must appear in the application.
The narrative should consist of, at a minimum, a Plan, Objectives, Evaluation, and Budget.
Applicants must submit a separate typed abstract of their proposal consisting of no more than two single-spaced pages. Applicants should also include a table of contents for the project narrative and related attachments.
On or before December 23, 2002, submit the LOI to the Senior Project Officer identified in Section “J. Where to Obtain Additional Information” of this announcement.
Submit the original and two copies of PHS-5161-1 (OMB Number 0920-0428). Forms can be found at the following Internet address:
If you do not have access to the Internet, or if you have difficulty accessing the forms on-line, you may contact the CDC Procurement and Grants Office Technical Information Management Section (PGO-TIM) at 770-488-2700. Application forms can be mailed to you.
The application must be received by 4 p.m. Eastern Time, January 16, 2003. Submit the application to: Technical Information Management Section—PA 03016, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, MS-E13, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-4146.
Forms may not be submitted electronically.
A postcard will be mailed by PGO-TIM, notifying you that CDC has received your application.
Letters of intent and applications will be considered as meeting the deadline if they are received before 4 p.m. Eastern Time on the deadline date. Applicants sending applications by the United States Postal Service or commercial delivery services must ensure that the carrier will be able to guarantee delivery of the application by the closing date and time. If an application is received after closing due to (1) carrier error, when the carrier accepted the package with a guarantee for delivery by the closing date and time, or (2) significant weather delays or natural disasters, CDC will upon receipt of proper documentation, consider the application as having been received by the deadline.
Applications which do not meet the above criteria will not be eligible for competition and will be returned. Applicants will be notified of their failure to meet the submission requirements.
Applicants are required to provide measures of effectiveness that will demonstrate the accomplishment of the various identified objectives of the cooperative agreement.
Measures of effectiveness must relate to the performance goal stated in section “B. Purpose” of this announcement. Measures must be objective and quantitative and must measure the intended outcome. These measures of effectiveness shall be submitted with the application and shall be an element of evaluation.
Each application will be evaluated individually against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC. It is suggested that applications be organized to be compatible with the evaluation scoring criteria, as that is the process by which the review committee will assess the quality of the applications.
1. Operational Approach (30 Points). This includes:
a. The methods to be employed to sustain an effective information resources system and communications network.
b. The approach to: continue to gather information on the determinants (facilitators and barriers) to physical activity and exercise; assess the perceptions and experiences of persons with disabilities and their families regarding physical activity; formulate a strategy to enable and motivate persons with disabilities to engage in physical activity, exercise, and recreational programs; and continue to promote and publish guidelines and recommendations for sustaining such activities over the long-term.
c. The methods by which the applicant has and will further develop and disseminate educational materials on facts, benefits, programs, policies, and motivational tools based on their value for promoting physical activity in persons with disabilities across the nation in all age ranges and literacy levels during medical treatment, rehabilitation, and in the home and community settings.
d. The approach in place and proposed to expand the construction of a centralized listing of programs, events, and service providers to be disseminated to requesters for personal, organizational, and constituency use.
e. The accounts of the expansion of resource development and communications capacity for employing information technology to reach key targeted groups including impairment-specific populations; children; adolescents; older citizens; women; minorities; lower socio-economic strata; professionals/clinicians, fitness/allied health providers and educators/trainers; persons with varying fitness levels; and changing levels (persons with improving or regressing physical conditioning) in order to best translate information into physical activity and exercise programs and protocols for persons with disabilities.
f. The description of how the applicant has and will continue to develop and implement appropriate readability levels, cultural sensitivity, and fully accessible formats in all communication and program activities.
g. The methods by which the applicant has and will provide technical assistance, information, and consultation to participants and supporting organizations across the nation regarding the design, conduct, and evaluation of programs to introduce and sustain physical activity and exercise in persons with disabilities.
h. The degree to which the applicant presents evidence of work to date in addressing issues related to the barriers and facilitators (
i. The extent to which the applicant adequately addresses the CDC policy requirements regarding the inclusion of women, ethnic, and racial groups in
(1) The proposed plan for the inclusion of both sexes and racial and ethnic minority populations for appropriate representation.
(2) The proposed justification when representation is limited or absent.
(3) A statement as to whether the design of the study is adequate to measure differences when warranted.
(4) A statement as to whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants include the process of establishing partnerships with community(ies) and recognition of mutual benefits.
2. Capacity to Expand and Operate the Center (25 Points). This includes:
a. Documentation that the organizational mission includes providing resources and best practices in physical activity and health promotion to prevent secondary conditions to persons with disabilities, advocacy and disability service organizations, and entities providing physical activity programs in the community. This should be demonstrated by evidence of established and effective partnerships and information bases that complement this mission through constituencies across demographic groups of people with a wide range of disabling conditions.
b. Documentation that the applicant entity has in place recreational and physical activity or exercise modules that allow individuals with disabilities and practitioners to customize programs according to the individual's own disabling condition and unique needs. This should be demonstrated through presentation of evidence of the existence of such modules.
3. Project Goals and Objectives (20 Points). This includes:
a. The extent to which the management work plan for conducting the project is effective including the process (approach and methods) by which the applicant will meet established goals and objectives.
b. The quality of the presentation of specific goals, objectives and timelines, and how they will be accomplished (with detailed performance expectations for the first year by calendar month or quarter, and a work plan outline for the second and third years of the proposed five year project period).
c. The extent to which the applicant provides a clear vision and description of the achievements and technical innovations it will implement over time that will mark its resource capacity, national outreach, and impact by the close of the project period.
d. The description of the major tasks and responsibilities for key positions including the applicant organization and identified contractual/consultant personnel (include an organization chart and denote the relationship of this project within the applicant organization).
e. The methods by which the applicant has and will seek out, utilize, and benefit from input by persons with disabilities and their families, and from organizations representing the disability and physical activity communities in planning for project.
f. The description of remaining unmet needs and gaps (barriers and constraints) as they relate to advancing a coordinated and comprehensive information system on physical activity and exercise among persons with disabilities, and how this project would move toward elimination of those barriers through the proposed work plan.
4. Organizational Capacity (15 Points). This includes:
a. The capability of the applicant to conduct the project, taking into account its institutional experience, evidence of leadership, and current activities in the field for those activities required.
b. The ability of the applicant to ensure sustained timely access to necessary data and educational materials related to physical activity, denoting the sources for such data and materials.
c. The capacity of the applicant to document evidence of effective ongoing collaborations and linkages with the disability and physical activity fields, professional groups, service providers, fitness facilities, governmental agencies, and community organizations to meet all requirements of the project, including documented letters of support and commitment from those collaborating entities. These organizations include, but are not limited to: major disability advocacy and voluntary entities; organizations promoting use of parks, trails, and outdoor recreation; rehabilitation, fitness, and sports facilities and organizations; and other national information and resource centers such as the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Resource Center, the National Limb Loss Information Center, the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Center, and the American Association on Health and Disability.
d. The capacity of the applicant to gather and assess necessary demographic and functional outcome information regarding sub-group patterns for engaging in physical activity and the benefits to be derived, including the kinds and sources of information to be accessed, analyzed, and publicized, the staff/organizations charged with its control, and how that data would be used.
5. Evaluation (10 points). The extent to which the applicant fully and adequately describes how it will demonstrate its effectiveness in meeting all objectives in the evaluation of its work plan; including staff performance, organizational outreach and collaborations; and all informational, referral, communications, and technical assistance activities.
6. Budget Justification—Not Scored. This criteria includes the adequacy of the budget justification and its relationship to program operations, collaborations, and services. Each line item of the budget must be justified in a narrative with special attention given to contractual requests including the responsibilities of consultants, percentage time equivalents, hourly or daily rates, etc. This section will also be evaluated on the adequacy of facilities to conduct the project. The budget narrative does not count against the maximum page limit for the full application.
7. Human Subjects—Not Scored.
This includes the extent to which the application adequately addresses the requirements of Title 45 CFR Part 46 for the protection of human subjects. If the proposed project involves research on human participants, assurance and evidence must be provided that the project will be subject to initial and continuous reviews by an appropriate institutional review board. Does the applicant adequately address the requirements of 45 CFR 46 for the protection of human subjects?
Provide CDC with original plus two copies of:
1. Interim progress reports, no less than 90 days before the end of the budget period. The progress report will serve as your non-competing continuation application and must include the following elements:
a. Current budget period activities and objectives
b. Current budget period financial progress
c. New budget period proposed activities and objectives
d. Detailed line-item budget and justification
e. Report on estimated unobligated funds
f. Additional requested information
2. Financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period
3. Final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in Section “J. Where to Obtain Additional Information” of this announcement.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see attachment I of the announcement as posted on the CDC Web site.
Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program.
This and other CDC announcements, the necessary applications, and associated forms can be found on the CDC Web site, Internet address:
For general questions about this announcement, contact: Technical Information Management Section, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone: 770-488-2700.
For business management and budget assistance, contact: Sheryl Heard, Grants Management Specialist, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta, Georgia, 30341-4146, Telephone (770) 488-272, E-mail address:
For program technical assistance, contact: Joseph B. Smith, Senior Project Officer, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental, Disabilities, Disability and Health Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 4770 Buford Highway (Mailstop F-35), Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone (770)488-7082, E-mail address:
Administration for Native Americans ACF, DHHS.
Announcement of availability of competitive financial assistance for improving the capability of Indian Tribal governments to regulate environmental quality.
The Administration for Native Americans (ANA) announces the anticipated availability of fiscal year 2003 funds for Environmental Regulatory Enhancement projects. Financial assistance provided by ANA is designed to assist applicants in planning, developing and implementing projects which will improve the capability of eligible applicants to regulate environmental quality pursuant to Federal and Tribal environmental laws.
The printed
The closing date for this announcement is February 28, 2003.
This notice announces the anticipated availability of the fiscal year 2003 funds for the Environmental Regulatory Enhancement Program, authorized under Section 803(d) of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2991b.
The availability of funds for this competitive area is contingent upon sufficient final Congressional appropriations. Proposed projects will be reviewed on a competitive basis against the specific evaluation criteria presented in this announcement.
Information regarding ANA's policy, goals, application requirements, review criteria and closing date for this competitive area are included in this announcement.
This program announcement consists of three parts.
Provides general information about ANA's policies and goals for this competitive area. This section contains information pertaining to all applicants.
Describes the competitive area, Environmental Regulatory Enhancement, under which ANA is requesting applications. The following sections provide information to be used to develop an application:
Provides important information and guidance that applies to this competitive area and must be taken into account in developing an application.
The Administration for Native Americans believes that responsibility for achieving environmental regulatory enhancement rests with the governing bodies of Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages, and with the leadership of Native American groups.
Environmental regulatory enhancement includes but is not limited to: the planning, development, and application of laws; training; monitoring
Progress toward the goal of environmental regulatory enhancement would also include but is not limited to: the strengthening of tribal environmental laws, providing for the training and education of those employees responsible for ensuring compliance with and enforcement of these laws, environmental assessments, development and use of environmental laboratories and other facilities; and the development of tribal court systems and programs to conduct compliance and enforcement functions.
ANA supports these activities on a government-to-government basis in a way that recognizes tribal sovereignty and is consistent with tribal culture. Applicants must comply with the following administrative policies:
• A current Indian Environmental Regulatory Enhancement grantee whose grant project period extends beyond September 30, 2003 or which has requested an extension of the grant project beyond that date, will not be funded under this announcement.
• Applicants must describe a locally determined strategy to carry out a proposed project with fundable objectives and activities.
• Local long-range planning must consider the maximum use of all available resources, describe how the resources will be directed to development opportunities, and present a strategy for overcoming the local issues that hinder movement toward self-sufficiency in the community.
• An application from a federally recognized Tribe, Alaska Native Village or Native American organization must be from the governing body of the Tribe or organization.
• ANA will not accept applications from tribal components which are tribally-authorized divisions of a larger tribe, unless the application includes a Tribal resolution which clearly demonstrates the Tribe's support of the project and the Tribe's understanding that the other applicant's project supplants the Tribe's authority to submit an application under that specific competitive area both for the current competition and for the duration of the approved grant period, should the application be funded.
• If a federally recognized Tribe or Alaska Native village chooses not to apply, it may support another applicant's project (
• ANA will only accept one application which serves or impacts a reservation, Tribe, or Native American community.
• Non-Profit Status: Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit proof of its non-profit status in its application at the time of submission. The non-profit agency can accomplish this by providing a copy of the listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code or by providing a copy of the currently valid IRS tax exemption certificate, or by providing a copy of the articles of incorporation bearing the seal of the Federally recognized Tribe or State in which the corporation or association is domiciled.
• If the applicant, other than a tribe or an Alaska Native Village government, is proposing a project benefiting Native Americans or Alaska Natives, or both, it must provide assurance that the majority of its duly elected or appointed board of directors is representative of the community to be served.
• Matching/Cost Sharing: Grantees must provide at least 20 percent of the total approved cost of the project. The total approved cost of the project is the sum of the ACF share and the non-Federal share. The non-Federal share may be met by cash or in-kind contributions, although applicants are encouraged to meet their match requirements though cash contributions. Therefore, a project requesting $100,000 in Federal fund (based on an award of $100,000 per budget period) must provide a match of at least $25,000 (20% total approved project cost). Grantees will be held accountable for commitments of non-Federal resources even if over the amount of the required match. Failure to provide the amount will result in disallowance of Federal match. An itemized budget detailing the applicant's non-Federal share, and its source(s), must be included in the application.
• A request for a waiver of the non-Federal share requirement may be submitted in accordance with 45 CFR 1336.50(b)(3) of the Native American Program Regulations.
This competitive area funds environmental regulatory enhancement projects. Approximately $3 million in financial assistance is anticipated to be available for these projects. ANA expects to award approximately 35 grants under this competitive area. The funding level for a budget period of 12 months will be up to $250,000. An applicant may propose project periods of between 12 and 36 months.
Despite an increasing environmental responsibility and growing awareness of environmental issues on Indian lands, there has been a lack of resources available to tribes to develop tribal environmental programs that are responsive to tribal needs. In many cases, the lack of resources has resulted in a delay in action on the part of the tribes.
In 1990, Congress added Section 803(d) to the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to address critical issues identified by tribes before congressional committees, some of which included: The need for assistance to train professional staff to monitor and enforce tribal environmental programs; the lack of adequate data for tribes to develop environmental statutes and establish quality environmental standards; and the lack of resources to conduct studies to identify sources of pollution and determine the impact on existing environmental quality.
The Native American Program's Act of 1974 was amended to strengthen tribal governments through building capacity in order to identify, plan, develop, and implement environmental programs in a manner that is consistent with tribal culture. Ultimate success in this program will be realized when the applicant's desired level of environmental quality is acquired and maintained.
Financial assistance provided by ANA is available for developmental projects designed to assist tribes in advancing their capacity and capability to plan for and:
• Develop or enhance the tribal environmental regulatory infrastructure required to support a tribal environmental program, and to regulate
• Develop regulations, ordinances and laws to protect the environment;
• Develop the technical and program capacity to carry out a comprehensive tribal environmental program and perform essential environmental program functions;
• Promote environmental training and education of tribal employees;
• Develop technical and program capability to meet tribal and Federal regulatory requirements;
• Develop technical and program capability to monitor compliance and enforcement of tribal environmental regulations, ordinances, and laws; and
• Ensure that tribal court system enforcement requirements are developed in concert with and in support of the tribe's comprehensive environmental program.
The following organizations are eligible to apply under this competitive area:
• Federally recognized Indian tribes;
• Incorporated non-federally and State recognized Indian tribes;
• Alaska Native villages as defined in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and/or nonprofit village consortia;
• Nonprofit Alaska Native Regional Corporations/Associations with village specific projects;
• Other tribal or village organizations or consortia of Indian tribes; and
• Tribal governing bodies (IRA or traditional Councils) as recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The following organizations are not eligible to apply under Section 803(d) of the Native Americans Programs Act of 1974 and the ANA regulations at 45 CFR 1336.33(a)(4). These organizations have been excluded from eligibility because they are neither Tribes nor Tribal organizations, which customarily act on the behalf of tribes in environmental matters.
• Urban Indian Centers;
• Incorporated nonprofit multi-purpose community-based Indian organizations;
• Public and nonprofit private agencies serving: Native Hawaiians, peoples from Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands;
• Incorporated nonprofit Alaska Native multi-purpose community based organizations; and
• National or regional incorporated nonprofit Native American organizations with Native American community-specific objectives.
Grantees must provide at least 20 percent of the total approved cost of the project. The total approved cost of the project is defined as the sum of the Federal request and the non-Federal share. The non-Federal share may be met by cash or in-kind contributions, although applicants are encouraged to meet their match requirements through cash contributions. For example, a project requesting $100,000 in Federal funds must provide a non-federal share match of at least $25,000 (20 percent of the total approved project cost or 25 percent of the Federal request).
Failure to provide the non-federal share amount stated in the proposal will result in disallowance of an equivalent portion of the funds awarded to the grantee.
As per 45 CFR Part 74.2, in-kind contributions are defined as the value of non-cash contributions provided by non-Federal third parties. Third party in-kind contributions may be in the form of real property, equipment, supplies and other expendable property, and the value of goods and services directly benefiting and specifically identifiable to the project or program.(See 45 CFR Part 92)
In addition, an applicant may provide matching funds from other Federal funding sources where legislation authorizes use of funds for match and provided the source relates to the ANA project. Under 45 CFR 74.23(a)(5) use of funds under another Federal Program for non-Federal match must be authorized by statute.
The evaluation criteria are closely related to each other and are considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application. Points are awarded only to applications that are responsive to this competitive area and these criteria. Proposed projects will be reviewed on a competitive basis using the following evaluation criteria:
(a) The application describes the long-range goals and strategy, including:
• How specific environmental regulatory enhancement long-range goal(s) relate to the proposed project and strategy;
• How the community intends to achieve these goals;
• The applicant's specific environmental regulatory needs; and
• A clearly delineated strategy to improve the capability of the governing body of a tribe to regulate environmental quality through enhancing local capacity to perform necessary regulatory functions.
Description and documentation of the long-term goals and strategy may by met in several ways.
• The application identifies and documents pre-existing and planned involvement and support of the community in the planning process and implementation of the proposed project.
• The type of community you serve and nature of the proposal will influence the type of documentation necessary. For example, a Tribe may choose to address this requirement by submitting a resolution stating that community involvement has occurred in the project planning or may determine that additional community support work is necessary.
• Similarly, a tribal organization may submit resolutions supporting the project proposal from each of its member tribes, as well as a resolution from the applicant organization.
• Other examples of documentation include: Community surveys; minutes of community meetings; questionnaires; tribal presentations; and/or discussion/position papers.
Supporting documentation, including letters of support, if available, or other specific testimonies from concerned interests other than the applicant should be included to demonstrate support for the feasibility of the project.
In discussing the goals, strategy, and needs being addressed in the application, include sufficient background and/or history of the community concerning these issues and/or progress to date, as well as the size of the population to be served. This material will assist the reviewers in determining the appropriateness and potential benefits of the proposed project.
(b) Available resources (other than ANA and the non-Federal share) which will assist, and be coordinated with the project are described. Non-ANA resources should be leveraged to strengthen and broaden the impact of the proposed project in the community.
• These other available resources may be human, natural or financial, and may include other Federal and non-Federal resources. Applicant statements that additional funding will be sought from other specific sources are not considered a binding commitment of outside resources.
• Project designs should explain how those parts of projects which ANA does not fund will be financed through other sources. For example, ANA does not fund construction. A commitment from another Federal agency or foundation
• Applicants must show the relationship of non-ANA funded activities to those objectives and activities that are funded with ANA grant funds.
• In the proposal, the applicant should describe any specific financial circumstances that may impact on the project, such as any monetary or land settlements made to the applicant, and any restrictions on the use of those settlements. When the applicant appears to have other resources to support the proposed project and chooses not to use them, the applicant should explain why it is seeking ANA funds and not using these resources for the project.
(a) Organizational capabilities are described in the application.
• The management structure of the applicant is explained.
• Evidence of the applicant's ability to manage a project of the scope proposed is well documented. The application clearly shows the successful management of projects of similar scope by the organization, and/or by the individuals designated to manage or consult on the project. The tribe itself may not have experience to meet this requirement, but the proposed staff and consultants should have the required qualifications and experience.
• The application should clearly describe any previous or current activities of the applicant organization or proposed staff and/or consultants in support of environmental regulatory enhancement.
• The administrative structure of the applicant is explained. Where the proposed ANA project will fit within the current organization is described.
• A project-staffing pattern is presented.
(b) Position descriptions and/or resumes of project personnel, including those of consultants, are presented.
• The position descriptions and/or resumes relate specifically to the staff proposed in the Project Approach and in the proposed Budget of the application.
• Position descriptions very clearly describe each position, and the duties that clearly relate to the personnel staffing pattern required to achieve the project objectives.
• Resumes indicate that the proposed staff is qualified to carry out the project activities. Resumes must be included if individuals have been identified for positions in the application.
Either the position descriptions or the resumes contain the qualifications and/or specialized skills necessary for overall quality management of the project.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to give preference to Native Americans in hiring staff and subcontracting services under an approved ANA grant.
The application provides a narrative describing the overall approach and operation of the proposed project throughout entire project period.
(a) Objective and Activities: The application proposes specific project Objective Work Plans (OWPs) with activities that relate to each specific objective. The OWP includes project objectives and activities for each budget period proposed.
The OWP demonstrates that each of the project objectives and its activities:
• Supports the community's strategy for environmental regulatory enhancement;
• Clearly relates to the community's long-range environmental goals;
• Can be accomplished with the available or expected resources during the proposed project period;
• Indicates when the objective, and major activities under each objective, will be accomplished;
• Specifies who will conduct the activities under each objective; and
• Supports a project that will be completed, self-sustaining, or financed by other than ANA funds at the end of the project period. All projects funded by ANA must be completed, self-sustaining, or supported with other than ANA funds at the end of the project period. “Completed” means that the project ANA funded is finished, and the desired result(s) have been attained. “Self-sustaining” means that a project will continue without outside resources. “Supported by other than ANA funds” means that the project will continue beyond the ANA project period, but will be supported by funds other than ANA's; and is measurable and/or quantifiable in terms of outcomes.
The OWP should be of sufficient detail to become a monthly staff guide for project responsibilities. Applicants are encouraged to follow the recommended ANA application kit format; however, it is not a requirement. The relevant information included in an Objective Work Plan should indicate what is to be achieved, how, by whom, when and with indicators of evaluation.
(b) Completion of the proposed objectives will result in specific, measurable outcomes.
• The application shows how the expected outcomes will help the community meet its long-range environmental goals.
• The specific information provided in the narrative and Objective Work Plans on expected outcomes for each objective is the standard upon which its achievement can be evaluated at the end of each budget year.
Detailed Federal and non-federal share line item budgets and detailed budget justifications are provided for each budget period requested. The budget narrative provides information that:
• Aligns with the budget categories in Section B of the Budget Information on the Standard Form 424-A.
• Cites the source of the applicant's non-Federal share.
• Explains the coordination and organized delivery of any non-ANA resources proposed for the project.
• Includes and justifies sufficient cost and other necessary details to facilitate the determination of allowable costs and the relevance of these costs to the proposed project.
• Requests funds that are appropriate and necessary for the scope of the proposed project.
• Includes sufficient funds for principal representatives from the applicant organization to travel to one post-award grant training and technical assistance conference. This travel and training should occur as soon as practical.
• For business development projects, the proposal demonstrates that the expected return on the funds used to develop the project provides a reasonable operating income and return within a future specified period.
• Where implemented, includes an employee fringe benefit budget that provides grant-funded employees with a retirement plan in addition to Social Security. The applicant is encouraged to provide a retirement plan fringe benefit of up to five (5) percent of grant funded employees-salaries. ANA supports a retirement plan as a necessary, reasonable and allowable cost in accordance with OMB rules. Recommended features for an acceptable retirement fringe benefit plan are:
• The plan exists for the exclusive benefit of the participants; funds are to be used for retirement and certain other pre-retirement needs, not for the organization's needs.
• The plan must have a vesting schedule that does not exceed the initial budget period of the ANA grant.
Other retirement proposals may be submitted for review and approval during grant award negotiations. Alternate proposals may include the use of Individual Retirement Accounts, Money Purchase Pension Plans, Defined Benefit Pension Plans, Combination Plans,
• If an applicant plans to charge or otherwise seek credit for indirect costs in its ANA application, a current copy of its Indirect Cost Agreement must be included in the application.
The closing date for submission of applications under this competitive area is February 28, 2003.
ANA Applicant Help Desk, Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Native Americans, Aerospace Center—901 D Street SW., Washington, DC 20447, (877) 922-9262 (toll free).
Funding areas in this program announcement are based on the following definitions:
• Multi-purpose Community-based Native American Organization: Is an association and/or corporation whose charter specifies that the community designates the Board of Directors and/or officers of the organization through an elective procedure and that the organization functions in several different areas of concern to the members of the local Native American community. These areas are specified in the by-laws and/or policies adopted by the organization. They may include, but need not be limited to, economic, artistic, cultural, and recreational activities, and the delivery of human services such as health care, daycare, counseling, education, and training.
• Multi-year Project: Is a project on a single theme that requires more than 12 months to complete and affords the applicant an opportunity to develop and address more complex and in-depth strategies than can be completed in one year. A multi-year project cannot be a series of unrelated objectives with activities presented in chronological order over a two or three year period.
• Budget Period: Is the interval of time (usually 12 months) into which the project period is divided for budgetary and funding purposes.
• Environmental Regulatory Enhancement: Includes (but is not limited to) the planning, development, and application of laws, training, monitoring, and enforcement procedures, tribal courts, environmental laboratories and other facilities, and associated regulatory activities to strengthen the tribal government's capacity to enhance the quality of reservation life as measured by the reduction of pollutants in the air, water, soil, food and materials encountered by inhabitants of tribes and villages.
• Real Property: Means land, including land improvements, structures and appurtenances thereto, excluding movable machinery and equipment.
• Construction: Is the term, which specifies a project, supported through a discretionary grant or a cooperative agreement, to support the initial building of a facility.
• Core Administration: Is funding for staff salaries for those functions which support the organization as a whole, or for purposes unrelated to the actual management or implementation of work conducted under an ANA approved project. However, functions and activities that are clearly project related are eligible for grant funding. For example, the management and administrative functions necessary to carry out an ANA approved project are not considered core administration and are, therefore, eligible costs. Additionally, ANA will fund the salaries of approved staff for time actually and reasonably spent to implement a funded ANA project.
• Equipment: Is tangible, non-expendable personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit.
• Renovation or Alteration: May not exceed the lesser of $150,000 or 25% of the total direct costs approved for the entire budget period. The work required to change the interior arrangements or other physical characteristics of an existing facility or installed equipment so that it may be more effectively used for the project. Alteration and renovation may include work referred to as improvements, conversion rehabilitation, remodeling or modernization, but is distinguished from construction and large-scale permanent improvements.
The Administration for Native Americans does not fund:
• Projects that operate indefinitely or require ANA funding on a recurring basis.
• Projects in which a grantee would provide training and/or technical assistance (T/TA) to other tribes or Native American organizations which are otherwise eligible to apply to ANA (third party T/TA). However, the purchase of T/TA by a grantee for its own use or for its members' use (as in the case of a consortium), where T/TA is necessary to carry out project objectives, is acceptable. In addition, T/TA is an allowable activity for environmental regulatory enhancement projects submitted under Competitive Area 3.
• ANA will not fund the purchase of real property.
• ANA will not fund construction.
• Objectives or activities for the support of core administration of an organization.
• Costs of fund raising, including financial campaigns, endowment drives, solicitation of gifts and bequests, and similar expenses incurred solely to raise capital or obtain contributions are unallowable under a grant award. However, even though these costs are unallowable for purposes of computing charges to Federal awards, they must be treated as direct costs for purposes of determining indirect cost rates and be allocated their share of the organization's indirect costs if they represent activities which (1) include the salaries of personnel, (2) occupy space, and (3) benefit from the organization's indirect costs.
• Projects or activities that generally will not meet the purposes of this announcement are discussed further in Part III, Section G, General Guidance to Applicants, below.
This announcement is inviting applications for project periods up to three years. Awards, on a competitive basis, will be for a one-year budget period, although project periods may be for three years. Applications for continuation grants funded under these awards beyond the one-year budget period but within the three year project period will be entertained in subsequent years on a noncompetitive basis, subject to availability of funds, satisfactory progress of the grantee and a determination that continued funding would be in the best interest of the government.
Therefore, this program announcement does not apply to current ANA grantees with multi-year projects that apply for continuation funding for their second or third year budget periods.
This program is not covered by Executive Order 12372 or 45 CFR part 100.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to request a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier or U.S. Postal Service as proof of timely mailing. ACF cannot accommodate transmission of applications by fax or through other electronic media. Therefore, applications transmitted to ACF electronically will not be accepted regardless of date or time of receipt. Videotapes and cassette tapes may not be included as part of a grant application for panel review.
No additional material will be accepted, or added to an application, unless it is postmarked by the deadline date.
Number of Copies: Each application should include one signed original and two additional copies of the grant application, including all attachments.
(a) By Mail. Applications must be mailed on or before the specific closing date of this ANA competitive area to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Grants Management, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Mail Stop: Aerospace Center—8th Floor West, Washington, DC 20447-0002, Attention: Lois B. Hodge, ANA No. 93581-2003.
(b) By Hand Delivery. Applications may be hand delivered. Applications are accepted between the hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. They are either received on or before the deadline date or postmarked on or before the established closing date at: Administration for Children and Families, Office of Grants Management, ACF Mail Room, Second Floor, Aerospace Center, 901 D Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024, Attention: Lois B. Hodge, ANA No. 93581-2003.
The ANA Commissioner determines the final action to be taken on each grant application received under this program announcement. The Commissioner's funding decision is based on a review panel's analysis of the application, recommendation and comments of ANA staff, State and Federal agencies having grant performance related information, and other parties. The commissioner makes grant awards consistent with the purpose of the Act, all relevant statutory and regulatory requirements, this program announcement, and the availability of funds. The Administration for Native Americans funds projects that demonstrate the strongest prospects for addressing the stated purposes of this program announcement.
(a) Incomplete applications and applications that do not conform to this announcement will not be accepted for review. ANA will notify applicants in writing of any such determination. An incomplete application is one that is:
• Missing the Application for Federal Assistance form (SF 424).
• Does not have an authorized signature on the SF 424. The application's SF 424 must be signed by a representative authorized (1) to act for the applicant tribe or organization, and (2) to assume the applicant's obligations under the terms and conditions of the grant award, including Native American Program statutory and regulatory requirements.
• Does not include proof of non-profit status, if applicable.
(b) Complete applications that conform to all the requirements of this program announcement are subjected to a competitive review and evaluation process (discussed in section G below). Independent review panels consisting of reviewers familiar with American Indian Tribes and Native American communities and organizations, and environmental issues, as appropriate, evaluate each application using the published criteria in each funding competitive area. As a result of the review, a normalized numerical score will be assigned to each application. A normalized score reflects the average score from the reviewers, adjusted to reflect the average score from the panels.
Successful applicants are notified through an official Financial Assistance Award (FAA) document. The FAA will state the amount of Federal funds awarded, the purpose of the grant, the terms and conditions of the grant award, the effective date of the award, the project period, the budget period, and the amount of the non-ACF matching share requirement.
The Administration for Native Americans will accept only one application per competitive area from any one applicant. If an eligible applicant sends in two applications for the same competitive area, the one with the earlier postmark will be accepted for review unless the applicant withdraws the earlier application.
Eligible applications submitted by the closing date and verified by the postmark will undergo a pre-review screening to determine that:
• The applicant is eligible in accordance with the Eligible Applicants Section of this announcement; and
• The application is signed and submitted by the deadline explained in section G, Application Due Date.
• The application narrative, forms and materials submitted are adequate to allow the review panel to undertake an in depth evaluation and the project described is an allowable type. (All required materials and forms are listed in the Grant Application Checklist in the Application Kit).
Applicants whose applications are subjected to the pre-review described above and which are found ineligible for funding under the program will be notified of their appeal right under Section 810 of the Native American Programs Act of 1974, as amended. ANA will inform applicants whose applications are not submitted by the required date, unsigned, or in some other way incomplete that their applications are being rejected as incomplete or late.
Applications which pass the pre-review will be evaluated and rated by an independent review panel on the basis of the specific evaluation criteria listed in Part II. These criteria are used to evaluate the quality of a proposed project, and to determine the likelihood of its success.
Applications will not be ranked based on general financial need.
ANA staff cannot respond to requests for information regarding funding decisions prior to the official notification to the applicants.
After the Commissioner has made decisions on all applications, unsuccessful applicants are notified in writing within 30 days. The notification will be accompanied by a critique including recommendations for improving the application.
Applicants who are initially excluded from competitive evaluation because of ineligibility may appeal an ANA decision of applicant ineligibility. Likewise, applicants may also appeal an ANA decision that an applicant has proposed activities are ineligible for funding consideration. The regulations governing the appeals process can be
Application Kit (OMB# 0980-0204, expires April 30, 2003). The application kit contains the necessary forms and instructions to apply for a grant under this program announcement. Application kits may be obtained from ANA training and technical assistance providers. We strongly encourage that applicants follow the review criterion order and the Objective Work Plan format as outlined in the ANA application kit to develop an application. The Kit provides required forms, practical information and helpful suggestions and is an aid to help applicants prepare an ANA application.
Training and Technical Assistance (T/TA): ANA employs contractors to provide short-term training and technical assistance to eligible applicants. T/TA is available under these contracts for a wide range of needs; however, the contractors are not authorized to write applications. The T/TA is provided at no cost. To obtain an application kit and/or, training and technical assistance, applicants are encouraged to contact the appropriate T/TA provider within the appropriate service area. To locate the T/TA provider currently serving the region you are located in, you may call the ANA Applicant Help Desk at 1-877-922-9262 or visit the ANA website at:
The following information is provided to assist applicants in developing a competitive application.
• Applications, which were not funded under a previous closing date and revised for resubmission, should make reference to the changes, or reasons for not making changes, in their current application.
• An application with an original signature and two additional copies are required.
• The Cover Page (included in the Kit) should be the first page of an application, followed by the one-page abstract.
• The applicant should specify the entire project period length on the first page of the SF424, Block 13, not the length of the first budget period. Should the application propose one length of project period and the SF 424 specify a conflicting length of project period, ANA will consider the project period specified on the Form 424 as the request. ANA may negotiate a reduction of the project period.
• Line 15a of the Standard Form 424 must specify the Federal funds requested for the first Budget Period only, not the entire project period.
• Applicants are encouraged to have someone other than the author apply the evaluation criteria in the program announcement and score the application prior to its submission, in order to gain a better sense of the application's quality and potential competitiveness in the ANA review process.
• For purposes of developing an application, applicants should plan for a project start date approximately 120 days after the closing date under which the application is submitted.
• The Administration for Native Americans will not fund essentially identical projects serving the same constituency.
• If other Federal funding sources could support a project, the applicant should fully explain its reasons for not pursuing other Federal funds for the project.
• The Objective Work Plan proposed should be of sufficient detail to become a monthly staff guide for project responsibilities if the applicant is funded.
• If a profit-making venture is being proposed, profits must be reinvested in the business in order to decrease or eliminate ANA's future financial participation. Such revenue must be reported as general program income. A decision will be made at the time of grant award regarding appropriate use of program income. (
• Applicants for multi-year projects must justify the entire timeframe of the project (
• The Administration for Native Americans will critically evaluate applications in which the acquisition of equipment is a major component of the Federal share of the budget. Equipment is tangible, non-expendable personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit. During negotiation, ANA may delete such expenditures from the budget of an otherwise approved application, if not fully justified by the applicant and deemed not appropriate to the needs of the project.
• Applicants are encouraged to request a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier or U.S. Postal Service as proof of a timely mailing.
• The application's Form 424 must be signed by the applicant's representative authorized to act with full authority on behalf of the applicant.
• The Administration for Native Americans recommends that the pages of the application be numbered sequentially and that a table of contents is provided. Simple tabbing of the sections of the application is also helpful.
• Applicants may propose a 17-month budget and project period. However, the budget period for the first year of a multi-year project may only be 12 months.
Projects or activities that generally will not meet the purposes of this announcement:
• Projects that request funds for feasibility studies, business plans, marketing plans or written materials, such as manuals, that are not an essential part of the applicant's long-range development plan. As an objective of a larger project, business plans are allowable. ANA expects written evidence of the solid investment of time and consideration on the part of the applicant with regard to the development of business plans. Business plans should be developed based on market analysis and feasibility studies regarding the potential success to the business prior to the submission of the application.
• Core administration functions, or other activities, which essentially support only the applicant's on-going administrative functions.
• Project goals, which are not responsive to this competitive area.
• Proposals from consortia of tribes that are not specific with regard to support from, and roles of, member tribes. ANA expects an application from a consortium to have goals and objectives that will create positive impacts and outcomes in the communities of its members.
• Proposals from consortia of tribes should have individual objectives, which are related to the larger goal of the proposed project. Project objectives may be tailored to each consortium member, but within the context of a common goal for the consortium. ANA will not fund duplicate activities proposed by a consortium and its member tribes.
• Projects that will not be completed, self-sustaining, or supported by other than ANA funds, at the end of the project period.
• ANA will not fund investment capital for purchase or takeover of an existing business, for purchase or acquisition of a franchise, or for purchase of stock or other similar investment instruments.
• Renovation or alteration of project facilities, unless it is essential for the project.
• Projects originated and designed by consultants whom provide a major role for themselves in the proposed project and are not members of the applicant organization, tribe or village.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, the Department is required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval any reporting and record keeping requirements in regulations including program announcements. This program announcement does not contain information collection requirements beyond those approved for ANA grant applications under the Program Narrative Statement by OMB approval number 0980-0204.
The closing date for submission of applications is February 28, 2003. Mailed applications postmarked after the closing date will be classified as late.
1. Deadline: Mailed applications shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are either received on or before the deadline date or sent on or before the deadline date and received by ACF in time for the independent review to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Grants Management, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Mail Stop: Aerospace Center 8th Floor West, Washington, DC 20447-0002, Attention: Lois B. Hodge.
Applicants must ensure that a legibly dated U.S. Postal Services postmark or a legibly dated, machine produced postmark of a commercial mail service is affixed to the envelope/package containing the application(s). To be acceptable as a proof of timely mailing, a postmark from a commercial mail service must include the logo/emblem of the commercial mail service company from the applicant. Private metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing. (Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed.)
Applicants handcarried by applicants, applicant couriers, or by other representatives of the applicant shall be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., EST, at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Grants Management, ACF Mail Room, Second Floor, Aerospace Center, 901 D Street SW, Washington, DC 20024, between Monday and Friday (excluding Federal holidays). The address must appear on the envelope/package containing the application with the note “Attention: Lois B. Hodge, Grants Officer”. (Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not always deliver as agreed.)
ACF cannot accommodate transmission of applications by fax or through other electronic media. Therefore, applications transmitted to ACF electronically will not be accepted regardless of date or time of submission and time receipt. Applications and related materials postmarked after the closing date will be classified as late. No additional material will be accepted, or added to an application, unless it is postmarked by the deadline date.
2. Late Applications: Applications, which do not meet the Deadline criteria above, are considered late applications. ACF shall notify each late applicant that its application will not be considered in the current competition.
3. Extension of Deadlines: The Administration for Children and Families may extend an application deadline for applicants affected by acts of God such as floods and hurricanes, or when there is a widespread disruption of the mails. A determination to extend or waive deadline requirements rests with the Chief Grants Management Officer. J. Standard Language Concerning the Certifications, Assurances, and Disclosure Required for Non-Construction Programs.
Applicants requesting financial assistance for non-construction projects must file the Standard Form 424B, “Assurances: Non-Construction Programs”. Applicants must sign and return the Standard Form 424B with their applications.
Applicants must provide a certification regarding lobbying when applying for an award in excess of $100,000. Applicants must sign and return the certification with their applications. Applicants must disclose lobbying activities on the Standard Form LLL when applying for an award in excess of $100,000. Applicants who have used non-Federal funds for lobbying activities in connection with receiving assistance under this announcement shall complete a disclosure form to report lobbying. Applicants must sign and return the disclosure form, if applicable, with their applications.
Applicants must make the appropriate certification of their compliance with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988. By signing and submitting the application, the applicant is providing the certification and need not mail back the certification with the applications.
Applicants must make the appropriate certification that they are not presently debarred, suspended, or otherwise ineligible for an award. By signing and submitting the application, the applicant is providing the certification and need not mail back the certification with the applications.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration is announcing that the proposed collection of information entitled “Focus Groups as Used by the Food and Drug Administration” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Mark L. Pincus, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1471.
In the
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 Linda A. Smallwood or Pearline K. Muckelvene at 301-827-1281 at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry (
Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the final guidance to the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Submit written comments on the final guidance to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. See the
Henry E. Ekperigin, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-222), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0174, e-mail: hekperig@cvm.fda.gov.
In April 1991, FDA publicly discussed its intention to adopt a policy requiring feeds and feed ingredients to be
In an effort to achieve more consistency, FDA developed a draft guidance entitled “Utility Studies for Anti-
The purpose of this final guidance is to support consistent evaluation of anti-
This final guidance explains the recommended experimental process in detail and references other FDA documents that pertain to general experimental practices and procedures recommended by FDA. The guidance provides details concerning recommended testing methods.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The final guidance represents the agency's current thinking on anti-
There are nine or fewer respondents to the information collection described in this guidance and therefore no burden analysis is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
This final guidance document describes standards upon which studies to establish the utility of anti-
Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of funding availability for Community Collaborations to Prevent Youth Violence and Promote Youth Development (short title: Youth Violence Prevention Grants).
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) announces the availability of FY 2003 funds for grants for the following activity. This notice is not a complete description of the activity; potential applicants
The actual amount available for the award may vary depending on unanticipated program requirements and actual SAMHSA appropriations. This program is being announced prior to the annual appropriation for FY 2003 for SAMHSA's programs. Applications are invited based on the assumption that sufficient funds will be appropriated for FY 2003 to permit funding of Community Collaborations to Prevent Youth Violence and Promote Youth
The PHS 5161-1 application form and the full text of the grant announcement are also available electronically via SAMHSA's World Wide Web home page:
When requesting an application kit, the applicant must specify the particular announcement number for which detailed information is desired. All information necessary to apply, including where to submit applications and application deadline instructions, are included in the application kit.
•
•
•
Availability of Funds: It is expected that approximately $4 million will be available to award grants in the following categories:
•
•
•
Grants in groups I and II will be funded at a maximum of $150,000 per year in total costs (direct and indirect) for 2 years; grants in group III will be funded at a maximum of $200,000 per year in total costs (direct and indirect) for 2 years. Applications with proposed budgets that request a level of SAMHSA funding support in excess of the amounts listed above will not be reviewed.
For questions on budget, completion of items on forms, and administrative issues, contact: Steve Hudak, Division of Grants Management, OPS/SAMHSA, Rockwall II, 6th floor, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. (301) 443-9666. E-Mail:
Community-based nongovernmental service providers who are not transmitting their applications through the State must submit a PHSIS to the head(s) of the appropriate State and local health agencies in the area(s) to be affected not later than the pertinent receipt date for applications. This PHSIS consists of the following information:
a. A copy of the face page of the application (Standard form 424).
b. A summary of the project (PHSIS), not to exceed one page, which provides:
(1) A description of the population to be served.
(2) A summary of the services to be provided.
(3) A description of the coordination planned with the appropriate State or local health agencies.
State and local governments and Indian Tribal Authority applicants are not subject to the Public Health System Reporting Requirements. Application guidance materials will specify if a particular FY 2003 activity is subject to the Public Health System Reporting Requirements.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., L'Enfant Plaza Building, Room 8003, Washington, DC 20410 or
Michael McCullough, Director, Office of Multifamily Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1142 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments for members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval number (2502-0493) and should be sent to: Lauren Wittenberg, OMB Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Fax number
Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, Southwest, Washington, DC 20410; e-mail
The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.
This Notice also lists the following information:
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice of revocation and redelegation of authority.
In this notice, the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing-Deputy Federal Housing Commissioner advise the public that they have redelegated authority to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Finance and Budget all responsibilities related to the sale of Secretary-held single family and multifamily mortgages.
August 20, 2002.
Sandy Allison, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Finance and Budget, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 9110, Washington, DC 20410, phone (202) 708-2601. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may call HUD's TTY number at (202) 708-1455 or the Federal Information Relay Service's TTY number at (800) 877-8339. Other than the “800” number, the telephone numbers listed are not toll-free.
In the past, the Assistant Secretary for Housing has redelegated asset sale related authority to Office of Housing Deputy Assistant Secretaries in several offices. Prior to August 20, 2002, authority to sell single-family housing mortgages was redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing programs, and authority to sell Secretary-held multifamily mortgages was redelegated to the Office of Housing-FHA Comptroller.
Authority to sell Secretary-held mortgages is distinguishable from authority to sell HUD-owned properties and does not include authority to execute mortgage workouts.
Recently, the Office of Finance and Budget (FAB) was established within the Office of Housing, and the Office of the Housing-FHA Comptroller was made a component office under FAB. FAB is charged with overseeing and administering all financial and budget programs for the Office of Housing. Accordingly, on August 20, 2002 the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner determined that responsibilities related to sales of Secretary-held mortgages appropriately belong within FAB and signed this redelegation to permit FAB to carry out this responsibility. All prior redelegations, to other offices, were revoked.
Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing-Deputy Federal Housing Commissioner redelegate and revoke authority as follows:
Sec. 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(d)).
December 2, 2002-11-15, 9 a.m.-12 noon.
The Hotel Princess Zona Rosa Av. las Magnolias y Blvd del Hipodromo, San Salvador, El Salvador, Tel: (503) 298-4545.
Open session.
• Approval of the Minutes of the June 3, 2002 Meeting of the Board of Directors and Advisory Council.
• President's Report.
• Presentation on Corporate Foundation Network.
• Advisory Council.
• Board Nominations and Confirmations.
Carolyn Karr, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, (703) 306-4350.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Commission determination not to close any part of the hearing to the public.
The Commission has determined to deny the request of respondents Glencore Ltd. and Xstrata South Africa (Proprietary) Limited (“G&X”) to conduct a portion of its hearing in the above-captioned investigation scheduled for November 22, 2002,
Irene H. Chen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202-205-3112. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.
The Commission believes it should conduct its business in public in all but the most unusual circumstances. The Commission has determined that, in light of the nature of this investigation, it will be able to assess adequately all arguments raised by G&X without resorting to the extraordinary measure of an in camera hearing. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that the public interest would be best served by a hearing that is entirely open to the public. See 19 CFR 201.36(c)(1).
This notice is provided pursuant to Commission Rule 201.35(b) (19 CFR 201.35(b)).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation and scheduling of public hearing.
November 20, 2002.
Following receipt of a request on November 7, 2002, from the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the Commission instituted investigation Nos. TA-131-2 and TA-2104-3, U.S-Southern African Customs Union Free Trade Agreement: Advice Concerning the Probable Economic Effect, under section 131 of the Tariff Act of 1974 and section 2104(b)(2) of the Trade Act of 2002.
Information specific to this investigation may be obtained from Joanna Bonarriva, Co-Project Leader (202-205-3312;
As requested by the USTR pursuant to section 131 of the Trade Act of 1974, in its report the Commission will provide advice of the probable economic effect of providing duty-free treatment for imports of products of SACU countries on (i) industries in the United States producing like or directly competitive products, and (ii) consumers. The import analysis will consider each article in chapters 1 through 97 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States for which tariffs will remain after the United States fully implements its Uruguay Round tariff commitments. The import advice will be based on the 2002 Harmonized Tariff System nomenclature and 2001 trade data. The advice with respect to the removal of U.S. duties on imports from
In addition, pursuant to section 2104(b)(2) of the Trade Act of 2002, the Commission will provide advice as to the probable economic effect of eliminating tariffs on imports of certain agricultural products of SACU countries (a list of products was provided by USTR) on (i) industries in the United States producing like or directly competitive products and (ii) the U.S. economy as a whole.
The Commission expects to provide its report to USTR by April 7, 2003.
A public hearing in connection with the investigation will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC, beginning at 9:30 a.m. on January 28, 2003. All persons shall have the right to appear, by counsel or in person, to present information and to be heard. Requests to appear at the public hearing should be filed with the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, no later than 5:15 p.m., January 14, 2003. Any prehearing briefs (original and 14 copies) should be filed not later than 5:15 p.m., January 16, 2003; the deadline for filing post-hearing briefs or statements is 5:15 p.m., February 4, 2003. In the event that, as of the close of business on January 14, 2003, no witnesses are scheduled to appear at the hearing, the hearing will be canceled. Any person interested in attending the hearing as an observer or non-participant may call the Secretary of the Commission (202-205-1806) after January 14, 2003, for information concerning whether the hearing will be held.
In lieu of or in addition to participating in the hearing, interested parties are invited to submit written statements (original and 14 copies) concerning the matters to be addressed by the Commission in its report on this investigation. Commercial or financial information that a submitter desires the Commission to treat as confidential must be submitted on separate sheets of paper, each clearly marked “Confidential Business Information” at the top. All submissions requesting confidential treatment must conform with the requirements of section 201.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.6). All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be made available in the Office of the Secretary to the Commission for inspection by interested parties. The Commission may include such confidential business information in the report it sends to the USTR. To be assured of consideration by the Commission, written statements relating to the Commission's report should be submitted to the Commission at the earliest practical date and should be received no later than the close of business on February 4, 2003. All submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means. 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 (
SACU, Africa, tariffs and imports.
International Trade Commission.
December 13, 2002, at 2 p.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agenda for future meetings: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification list.
4. Inv. No. 731-TA-1021 (Preliminary)(Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from China)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination to the Secretary of Commerce on or before December 16, 2002; Commissioners' opinions are currently scheduled to be transmitted to the Secretary of Commerce on or before December 23, 2002.)
5. Inv. No. 701-TA-431 (Preliminary)(DRAMs and DRAM Modules from Korea)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination to the Secretary of Commerce on or before December 16, 2002; Commissioners' opinions are currently scheduled to be transmitted to the Secretary of Commerce on or before December 23, 2002.)
6. Outstanding action jackets: none.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until January 27, 2003.
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instruments or additional information, please contact Robert Watkins, (202) 514-3447, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 810 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531.
Written comments and suggestions from the pubic and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function 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,
Overview of this information:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Mrs. Brenda E. Dryer, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Information Management and Security Staff, Justice Management Division, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC. 20530, or via facsimile at (202) 514-1590.
30-day notice of information collection under review: extension of a currently approved collection; Equal Employment Opportunity Plan Certification and Short Form.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-7285.
Request written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(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 agencies 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,
Overview of This Information Collection
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Mrs. Brenda E. Dyer, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Information Management and Security Staff, Justice Management Division, Suite 1600, Patrick Henry Building, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.
The NSF management officials having responsibility for the Business and Operations Advisory Committee (#9556) have determined that renewing this group for another year is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Director, National Science Foundation by 42 U.S.C. 1861
For more information contact Susanne Bolton at (703) 292-7488.
The Florida Power and Light Company,
The facility consists of two pressurized water reactors located in St. Lucie County, Florida.
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 54 addresses the various requirements for renewal of operating licenses for nuclear power plants. Section 54.21(b) of 10 CFR specifies:
Each year following submittal of the license renewal application and at least 3 months before scheduled completion of the NRC review, an amendment to the renewal application must be submitted that identifies any change to the CLB [current licensing basis] of the facility that materially affects the contents of the license renewal application, including the FSAR [final safety analysis report] supplement.
In accordance with 10 CFR 54.15, which references 10 CFR 50.12, the NRC staff, upon its own initiative, developed an exemption to 10 CFR 54.21(b) for St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2. At the time that 10 CFR part 54 was issued, the staff expected that its review of a license renewal application (LRA) could take three or more years. The NRC staff completed its reviews of recent LRAs in less than 20 months. The exemption would allow FPL to submit one LRA amendment during the staff's review of the application, instead of two amendments.
The NRC staff anticipates completing its review of the St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2, LRA and issuing a safety evaluation report (SER) by July 3, 2003. This exemption would permit FPL to forgo submitting an annual LRA amendment provided it submits a single LRA amendment for St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2, at least three months before this scheduled completion date.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.15, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 54, in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.12, when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present.
The requirements for exemption are discussed below:
The Commission's basis for requiring applicants to submit amendments to LRAs is contained in section 54.21(b) and is discussed in the 1991 Statements of Consideration for part 54 (56 FR 64954). The Commission established the requirement to ensure that the effects of changes to the renewal applicant's CLB is evaluated during the review of its renewal application. The exemption is consistent with the Commission's intent for the NRC staff, during its review of the application, to evaluate changes to the CLB of the facility that materially affects the contents of the LRA, including the FSAR supplement.
The exemption seeks only schedular relief regarding the timing and number of amendment submittals, and not substantive relief from the requirements of parts 50, 51, or 54. FPL must still submit an LRA amendment for St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2, as required by 10 CFR part 54. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that granting this schedular exemption will not represent an undue risk to public health and safety and is consistent with the common defense and security.
An exemption will not be granted unless special circumstances are present as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2). Specifically, section 50.12(a)(2)(ii) states that a special circumstance exists when “Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances * * * is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule * * *” In initially promulgating section 54.21(b) in 1991, the Commission stated that the purpose of submitting LRA amendments is “To ensure that the effect of changes to a license renewal applicant's existing licensing basis is evaluated during the review of a renewal application, renewal applicants will be required to update the renewal application (including the integrated plant assessment) annually;” (56 FR 64954). The Commission indicated that the changes to the CLB that could affect the results of the license renewal processes, such as, scoping, screening, and aging management reviews should be evaluated during the NRC review of the LRA. As set forth below, the applicant's submittal of a single LRA amendment would allow the NRC staff to review and document the licensing changes in its safety evaluation report (SER) for St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2. Accordingly, under the exemption, the NRC staff will have the opportunity to review the recent changes to the CLB that could affect the results of license renewal processes.
The applicant submitted its LRA for St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2, to the NRC on November 29, 2001. The NRC staff is scheduled to complete its review and the SER by July 3, 2003. In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 54.21(b), an applicant must submit a yearly LRA amendment by November 29, 2002, and a second amendment before April 3, 2003, which is three months before the NRC staff is
The SER with open items, which is scheduled to be issued by February 7, 2003, will identify proposed licensee commitments that change the CLB and are acceptable to the NRC. The applicant will be able to include these changes in an amendment that is submitted after the SER with open items is issued. The NRC staff can then review these changes and revise the SER, accordingly. Hence, submittal of a single amendment after the SER with open items is issued would be beneficial to the NRC staff and the licensee.
Therefore, submittal of two LRA amendments to satisfy the intent of section 54.21(b) and the application of the regulation, in this case, is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. The NRC staff finds that the exemption meets the requirement in Section 50.12(a)(2)(ii) that special circumstances exist to grant the exemption.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 54.15 and 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. The exemption allows the applicant to forgo submitting the annual LRA amendment provided it submits an LRA amendment at least three months before the scheduled completion of the NRC's review. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants FPL the proposed exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 54.21(b) for St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2, based on the circumstances described herein.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (67 FR 69254).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeks qualified candidates for the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste. Submit resumeès to: Ms. Sherry Meador, Administrative Assistant, ACRS/ACNW, Mail Stop T2E-26, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or e-mail address
The Commission established the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) to provide independent technical review of and advice on matters related to the management of nuclear waste, including all aspects of nuclear waste disposal facilities, as directed by the Commission. The ACNW undertakes independent studies and reviews related to disposal, storage, and transportation of both high- and low-level radioactive waste including interim storage of spent nuclear fuel; materials safety; and facilities decommissioning. This encompasses activities related to rulemakings, associated regulatory guides, and technical positions developed to support and clarify NRC's nuclear materials and radioactive waste regulations. Committee members are selected from a variety of engineering and scientific disciplines, such as risk assessment, chemistry, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, materials sciences, and the earth sciences. At this time, candidates are being sought who have 15-20 years of experience, including graduate level education, in the management and disposal of radioactive waste. Committee members serve a 4-year term with the possibility of reappointment for a total service of 8 years.
Criteria used to evaluate candidates include education and experience, demonstrated skills in nuclear waste management matters, and the ability to solve complex technical problems. The Commission, in selecting its Committee members, considers the need for a specific expertise to accomplish the work expected to be before the ACNW. For this position, the expertise must be directly related to the area of radioactive waste disposal, site remediation and closure activities, nuclear fuel reprocessing, chemistry, chemical exchange processes, and nuclear fuel cycle. Consistent with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Commission seeks candidates with diverse backgrounds, so that the membership on the Committee will be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and functions to be performed by the Committee.
Candidates for ACNW appointments may be involved in or have financial interests related to NRC-regulated aspects of the nuclear industry. Because conflict-of-interest considerations may restrict the participation of a candidate in ACNW activities, the degree and nature of any such restriction on an individual's activities as a member will be considered in the selection process. Each qualified candidate's financial interests must be reconciled with applicable Federal and NRC rules and regulations prior to final appointment. This might require divestiture of securities or discontinuance of certain contracts or grants. Information regarding these restrictions will be provided upon request.
A resumé describing the educational and professional background of the candidate, including any special accomplishments and professional references should be provided. Candidates should provide their current address, telephone number, and e-mail address. All candidates will receive careful consideration. Appointment will be made without regard to such factors as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, or disabilities. Candidates must be citizens of the United States and be able to devote approximately 70-100 days per year to Committee business. Applications will be accepted until January 17, 2003.
Weeks of November 25, December 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, 2002.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 9, 2002.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 23, 2002.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 30, 2002.
* The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: R. Michelle Schroll (301) 415-1662.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to
Pursuant to Public Law 97-415, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. Public Law 97-415 revised section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), to require the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, under a new provision of section 189 of the Act. This provision grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from November 1, 2002, through November 14, 2002. The last biweekly notice was published on November 12, 2002 (67 FR 68727).
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received before action is taken. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
By December 26, 2002, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that petitions for leave to intervene and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for a hearing 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 based upon a balancing of factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Arizona Public Service Company (APS) proposes to modify Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Technical Specifications for Unit 1 to define the SG tube inspection scope. The PVNGS Unit 1 specific analysis takes into account the reinforcing effect the tubesheet has on the external surface of an expanded SG tube. Tube-bundle integrity will not be adversely affected by the implementation of the revised tube inspection scope. SG tube burst or collapse cannot occur within the confines of the tubesheet; therefore, the tube burst and collapse criteria of NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121 (Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes) are inherently met. Any degradation below the TEA (Tube Engagement Area) length is shown by analyses and test results to be acceptable, thereby precluding an event with consequences similar to a postulated tube rupture event.
Tube burst is precluded for cracks within the tubesheet by the constraint provided by the tubesheet. Thus, structural integrity is maintained by the tubesheet constraint. However, a 360-degree circumferential crack or many axially oriented cracks could permit severing of the tube and tube pullout from the tubesheet under the axial forces on the tube from primary to secondary pressure differentials. Testing was performed to define the length of non-degraded tubing that is sufficient to compensate for the axial forces on the tube and thus prevent pullout. This proposed amendment would encompass that length of non-degraded tubing for inspection.
In conclusion, incorporation of the revised inspection scope into PVNGS Unit 1 Technical Specifications maintains existing design limits and therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Tube-bundle integrity is expected to be maintained during all plant conditions upon implementation of the proposed tube inspection scope. Use of this scope does not introduce a new mechanism that would result in a different kind of accident from those previously analyzed. Even with the limiting circumstances of a complete circumferential separation of a tube occurring below the TEA length, SG tube pullout is precluded and leakage is predicted to be maintained within the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report limits during all plant conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Upon implementation of the revised inspection scope, operation with potential cracking below the Inspection Extent length in the explansion region of the SG tubing meets the margin of safety as defined by RG 1.121 and RG 1.83 (Inservice Inspection of Pressurized Water Reactor Steam Generator Tubes) and the requirements of General Design Criteria 14, 15, 31, and 32 of 10 CFR (part) 50. Accordingly, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above evaluation, APS concludes that the proposed amendment presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
The above amendment was previously noticed in the
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications does not result in the alteration of the design, material, or construction standards that were applicable prior to the change. The same Refueling Interlocks instrumentation is used, and the control rod removal error and fuel assembly insertion error assumptions in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) chapter 15 analysis remain unchanged. The proposed additional Required Actions provide an equivalent level of assurance that fuel will not be loaded into a core cell with a control rod withdrawn as does the current TS Required Action. The proposed change will not result in the modification of any system interface that would increase the likelihood of an accident since these events are independent of the proposed change. The proposed amendment will not change, degrade, or prevent actions, or alter any assumptions previously made in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
This change in the TS requirements does not alter the performance of the Refueling Equipment Interlocks. The change does not involve a change in plant design or to the analyzed condition of the reactor core during
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
As discussed in the Bases for the affected TS requirements, inadvertent criticality is prevented during the loading of fuel provided all control rods are fully inserted. The refueling interlocks function to support the refueling procedures by preventing control rod withdrawal during fuel movement, and the inadvertent loading of fuel when a control rod is withdrawn. The proposed change will allow the refueling interlocks to be inoperable and fuel movement to continue, only if a control rod withdrawal block is in effect and all control rods are verified to be fully inserted. These proposed Required Actions provide an equivalent level of protection as the refueling interlocks by preventing a configuration which could lead to an inadvertent criticality event. The refueling procedures will continue to be supported by the proposed Required Actions because control rods cannot be withdrawn and as a result, fuel cannot be inadvertently loaded when a control rod is withdrawn. Plant and system response to an initiating event will remain in compliance within the assumptions of the safety analyses, and therefore, the margin of safety is not affected. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
This license amendment proposes an alternative test for performing the CREF system surveillance associated with measuring the Control Room Envelope (CRE) unfiltered inleakage. The CREF system provides a configuration for mitigating radiological consequences of accidents; however, it does not involve the initiation of any previously analyzed accident. Therefore, the proposed change cannot increase the probability of any previously evaluated accident.
The CREF system provides a radiologically controlled environment from which the plant can be safely operated following a radiological accident. Design basis accident analyses conclude that radiological consequences are within the regulatory acceptance criteria. The current Technical Specifications (TS) surveillance (SR 3.7.3.6) measures inleakage from four sections of CREF system duct work outside the CRE that are at negative pressure during accident conditions. The proposed Tracer Gas test provides a measurement of CRE inleakage from all potential sources including the four sections of duct work. The use of Tracer Gas testing in accordance with the methods described in American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard E741 has been accepted by both the NRC and the industry. Measuring the CRE inleakage using Tracer Gas testing has no effect on the CREF system function. The results of Tracer Gas testing will be assessed in accordance with regulatory guidance and industry guidance and compliance with 10 CFR [part] 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion (GDC)-19 will be demonstrated. Therefore, the proposed change does not significantly increase the radiological consequences of any previously evaluated accident. Based on the above, the proposed change does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not alter the design function or operation of the system involved. The CREF system will still provide protection to control room occupants in case of a significant radioactive release. The revised TS surveillance requirements provide an alternative test method that has been widely accepted for the measurement of CRE unfiltered inleakage. The proposed change does not introduce any new modes of plant or CREF system operation and does not involve physical modifications to the plant. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the potential for a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. The (proposed) change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed change to the Fermi 2 TS surveillance requirements does not affect the radiological release from a design basis accident nor the postulated dose to the control room occupants as a result of the accident. The alternate surveillance test requirements provide an acceptable approach for the measurement of CRE inleakage. Safety margins and analytical conservatisms are included in the analyses to ensure that all postulated event scenarios are bounded. The proposed TS requirements continue to ensure that the radiological consequences at the control room are below the corresponding regulatory guidelines and that compliance with GDC-19 is not affected. Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The following discussion is a summary of the evaluation of the changes contained in this proposed amendment against the 10 CFR 50.92(c) requirements to demonstrate that all three standards are satisfied. A no significant hazards consideration is indicated if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. No component modification, system realignment, or change in operating procedure will occur which could affect the probability of any accident or transient. The revised cold leg elbow tap flow coefficients will not change the probability of actuation of any Engineered Safeguards Feature or other device. The actual Unit 2 RCS [reactor coolant system] flow rate will not change. Therefore, the consequences of previously analyzed accidents will not change as a result of the revised flow coefficients.
The proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. No component modification or system realignment will occur which could create the possibility of a new event not previously considered. No change to any methods of plant operation will be required. The elbow taps are already in place, and are presently being used to monitor flow for Reactor Protection System purposes. They will not initiate any new events.
The proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The removal of some of the excess flow margin, which was introduced by the hot leg streaming flow penalties in later calorimetrics, will allow additional operating margin between the indicated flow and the Technical Specification minimum measured flow limit. The proposed changes in the cold leg elbow tap flow coefficients will continue to be conservative with respect to the analytical model flow predictions, since the proposed coefficients will continue to contain some hot leg streaming penalties from the calorimetric determined coefficients used in the average.
An increase in the RCS flow indication of approximately 1.0% will increase the margin to a reactor trip on low flow but will not adversely affect the plant response to low flow transients. Current UFSAR [updated final safety analysis report] chapter 15 transients that would be expected to cause a reactor trip on the RCS low flow trip setpoint are Partial Loss of Reactor Coolant Flow, Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Seizure and [RCP] Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft break transients. Three reactor trip functions provide protection for these transients, RCS low flow reactor trip, RCP undervoltage reactor trip and RCP underfrequency reactor trip. The transient analyses of these events assume the reactor is tripped on the low flow reactor trip setpoint. This is conservative and produces a more severe transient response since a reactor trip on undervoltage or underfrequency would normally be expected to trip the reactor sooner and therefore reduce the severity of these transients.
The RCS low flow reactor trip is currently set at 91% of the Technical Specification minimum measured flow of 390,000 gpm. The setpoint will not be revised as a result of this change, which means the transients relying on this function will behave in the same manner with the reactor trips occurring at essentially the same conditions as previously analyzed. Therefore, any small increase in the reactor trip margin gained by the small increase in the indicated RCS flow will not adversely affect the plant response during these low flow events.
Based upon the preceding discussion, Duke Energy has concluded that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to the Seabrook Station Technical Specifications (TS) 3.9.4.a, and TS 3.9.4.b do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed. The proposed changes will modify the conditions of containment closure during core alterations or during the movement of irradiated fuel within the containment. Specifically, the proposed changes will permit the new containment outage door to stay open during core alterations or during the movement of irradiated fuel within the containment.
Postulated accidents that could result in a release of radioactive material through the open hatch include a fuel handling accident that results in breaching of the fuel rod cladding, and a loss of residual heat removal (RHR) cooling event that leads to core boiling. The radiological consequences of a design basis fuel handling accident in containment have been evaluated assuming that the containment is open to the outside atmosphere. The calculated offsite and control room doses resulting from a fuel handling accident are less than the criteria specified in USNRC [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission] NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan,” section 15.7.4 “Radiological Consequence of Fuel Handling Accident,” and 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, “General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” GDC [General Design Criteria]-19, “Control Room.”
The consequence of a loss of Residual Heat Removal (RHR) is the potential for release of radioactivity outside of containment. Closing containment penetrations is the mitigating action for that consequence. TS 3.9.8.1 and 3.9.8.2 require that corrective actions be taken immediately to restore the RHR cooling as soon as possible if RHR loop requirements are not met (by having one RHR loop operable and in operation). In addition, plant operators are required by the TS to close all containment penetrations providing direct access from the containment atmosphere to the outside environment within 4 hours. Since the most limiting time to boil in this condition (during core alterations or movement of irradiated fuel with at least 23 feet of water above the vessel flange) is approximately 8.3 hours, the risk associated with the potential for the coolant to boil and subsequently cause a release of radioactive gas to the containment atmosphere (if RHR cooling was not restored) is minimal.
The proposed changes to TS 3.9.4.b will add a note pertaining to the personnel hatch airlock within the equipment hatch. The purpose of this note is to provide
Therefore, it is concluded that these proposed [changes] to TS 3.9.4.a and TS 3.9.4.b do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to the Seabrook Station Technical Specifications (TS) 3.9.4.a and 3.9.4.b do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. The proposed changes will permit the equipment hatch to be open during core alterations and movement of irradiated fuel within the containment building when the containment outage door is installed. The installation of the door does involve a minor change in the present method used to isolate containment penetrations for containment closure. However, the present fuel handling analysis, which is the most limiting event, assumes that the containment is open to the outside atmosphere and the entire airborne radioactivity is instantaneously released to the outside environment. This analysis results in [offsite] doses that are within the guideline values specified in USNRC NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan,” section 15.7.4 “Radiological Consequence of Fuel Handling Accident,” and 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, “General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” GDC-19, “Control Room.” Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in [a] margin of safety.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in [a] margin of safety. The proposed change to TS 3.9.4.a will permit the equipment hatch to be open during core alterations and/or during the movement of irradiated fuel assemblies within containment when the containment outage door is installed and closed or capable of being closed. During movement of irradiated fuel assemblies within containment, the most severe radiological consequences result from a fuel handling accident. The calculated offsite and control room operator calculated doses are within the acceptance criteria of USNRC NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan,” section 15.7.4 “Radiological Consequence of Fuel Handling Accident,” and 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, “General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” GDC-19, “Control Room.” Therefore, the proposed changes to TS 3.9.4 do not result in a reduction in [a] margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis, and based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change to TS 3/4.9.3 does not result in a condition where the design, material, and construction standards that were applicable prior to the proposed change are altered. The probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated for Seabrook Station is not altered by the proposed amendment to the technical specifications (TSs). The accidents remain the same as currently analyzed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) as a result of the proposed change to the decay time. The accidents impacted by the new decay time have been reanalyzed and the applicable design limits have not been exceeded. The control room and offsite dose consequences for fuel handling accidents have been reevaluated and continue to meet acceptance limits.
Therefore based on the above discussion, it is concluded that the proposed revision to TS 3/4.9.3 does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change to the decay time will not create a new accident scenario. The analyses impacted by the revised decay time have been evaluated. The new analysis of the fuel handling accident and spent fuel pool cooling system performance demonstrates that the applicable acceptance criteria continues to be met. The proposed change will not alter the way any structure, system or component functions, and will not significantly alter the manner in which the plant is operated. There will be no significant adverse effect on plant operation or accident mitigation equipment.
Since no new failure modes are created by the proposed revision to TS 3/4.9.3 the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any that was previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The fuel handling accident in the fuel building and containment has been reanalyzed for a decay time of 80 hours. The spent fuel pool cooling performance has also been evaluated for the revised decay time. These analyses demonstrate that acceptance criteria are still met for the revised decay time as described herein. The results of the revised analysis show that the resulting offsite doses (based on a decay time period of 80 hours are comparable to the original doses (100-hour decay time period) and well within (< 25%) the limiting values of 10 CFR part 100. Control room doses are also well within the limit of General Design Criteria 19 to 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A. Therefore it is concluded that the proposed decay time still provides sufficient margin to dose consequences from fuel handling and to spent fuel pool temperature limits.
Thus, it is concluded that the proposed revision to TS 3/4.9.3 does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis, and based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes (1) to eliminate the Power Range Neutron Flux High Negative Rate Trip Function, (2) not lowering the Power Range Neutron Flux High Setpoint to the same setpoints as that of the Power Range Neutron Flux Low Setpoint and Intermediate Range reactor trip setpoint prior to conducting Physics Testing, (3) extension of the surveillance interval for performing the ACOT and TADOT [Trip Actuating Device Operational Test] for the above described Reactor Trip System (RTS) Functional Units, (4) elimination of the Special Test Exception allowing performance of Physics Testing under no flow conditions, and (5) the other editorial and Bases changes to support the aforementioned changes do not increase the probability or consequences of reactor core damage accidents resulting from events previously analyzed. The safety functions of other safety related systems and components, which are related to mitigation of these events, have not been altered. All other RTS and Engineered Safety Features Actuation Systems (ESFAS) protection functions are not affected by the proposed changes. Favorable plant-specific historical data as well as industry practice support the proposed change to extend the surveillance intervals for performance of the applicable ACOT or TADOT on the aforementioned instrumentation channels. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, configuration of the facility, or the manner in which it is operated. The proposed changes do not adversely alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, or components to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the acceptance limits assumed in the Seabrook Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
Removal of the negative rate trip does not change the probability of a rod drop accident since it does not alter the physical function or characteristic of the rod control system. Changing surveillance intervals for calibrations does not change the probability of an initiating event since historical performance demonstrates that the instrumentation settings will be within the assumed tolerance at the longer interval. Since the effects of the negative rate trip are not considered in the rod drop accident analysis, therefore removal of the trip will not result in an increase in the consequences of the rod drop accident. Changes in surveillance frequencies do not change the essential character of accident progression, thus there is no increase in the consequences.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. [The proposed changes do not] create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not adversely alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated. No credit is taken in Seabrook Station's safety analyses that is reliant on the Power Range Neutron Flux High Negative Rate Trip Function. Extending the aforementioned surveillance intervals and not lowering the Power Range Neutron Flux High Setpoint prior to physics testing do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. There are no changes to the source term or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences in the Seabrook Station UFSAR. The proposed changes have no adverse impact on component or system interactions. The proposed changes will not adversely degrade the ability of systems, structures and components important to safety to perform their safety function nor change the response of any system, structure or component important to safety as described in the UFSAR. The proposed changes do not change the level of programmatic and procedural details of assuring operation of the facility in a safe manner. Since there are no changes to the design assumptions, conditions, configuration of the facility, or the manner in which the plant is operated and surveilled, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.
3. [The proposed changes do not] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
There is no adverse impact on equipment design or operation and there are no changes being made to the Technical Specification required safety limits or safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety. Elimination of the Power Range Neutron Flux High Negative Rate Trip Function will not cause DNB [Departure from Nucleate Boiling] limits to be exceeded since this function is not credited in Seabrook Station's safety analysis. Eliminating the practice of lowering the Power Range Neutron Flux High Setpoint prior to physics testing does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety since there is adequate redundancy of nuclear instrumentation channels to prevent core damage from a positive reactivity excursion. The proposed changes to extend certain surveillance intervals do not reduce the reliability of the aforementioned trip functions to operate as designed nor reduce the level of programmatic or procedural controls associated with the aforementioned surveillance requirements. The negative rate trip function could, and has, caused an inadvertent reactor trip. Removal of this function will not reduce any perceived “defense-in-depth” since the design of the core limits rod worth such that DNB is acceptable during a rod drop event. Additionally, since WCAP-11394-P-A has demonstrated that the negative rate trip is not considered in the safety analysis margin, removal of the NFRT is not considered a “significant reduction in margin[.] “ The other changes are editorial/administrative in nature which support the key changes as mentioned above and by their nature do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes as described in this License Amendment Request do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis, and based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The proposed change relaxes the time allowed to perform a missed surveillance. The time between surveillances is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The equipment being tested is still required to be operable and capable of performing the accident mitigation functions assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected. Any reduction in confidence that a standby system might fail to perform its safety function due to a missed surveillance is small and would not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an increase in consequences beyond those estimated by existing analyses. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by the missed surveillance will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. A missed surveillance will not, in and of itself, introduce new failure modes or effects and any increased chance that a standby system might fail to perform its safety function due to a missed surveillance would not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident beyond those previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by the missed surveillance will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The extended time allowed to perform a missed surveillance does not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety. As supported by the historical data, the likely outcome of any surveillance is verification that the LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation] is met. Failure to perform a surveillance within the prescribed frequency does not cause equipment to become inoperable. The only effect of the additional time allowed to perform a missed surveillance on the margin of safety is the extension of the time until inoperable equipment is discovered to be inoperable by the missed surveillance. However, given the rare occurrence of inoperable equipment, and the rare occurrence of a missed surveillance, a missed surveillance on inoperable equipment would be very unlikely. This must be balanced against the real risk of manipulating the plant equipment or condition to perform the missed surveillance. In addition, parallel trains and alternate equipment are typically available to perform the safety function of the equipment not tested. Thus, there is confidence that the equipment can perform its assumed safety function. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration for the proposed administrative changes, which is presented below:
SCE&G has reviewed the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination (NSHCD) published in the
The exception is that the published NSHCD does not specifically address the incorporation of a Bases Control Program, as one is already incorporated into the ITS NUREGs. Therefore, a NSHCD is presented for the proposed inclusion of a Bases Control Program into the VCSNS TS.
In accordance with the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, SCE&G has evaluated these proposed Technical Specification changes and determined they do not represent a significant hazards consideration. The following is provided to support this conclusion.
1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change provides an addition to the Administrative Section of TS to comply with the requirements of the
A bases control program will not provide for a significant increase in probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated as there are no changes in hardware or software for the plant and no changes in any operating procedure. The incorporation of a Bases control program into the Administrative Section of TS will help to assure that all assumptions in the plant accident analysis for initial conditions, redundancy, and independence are maintained. This change will assure that any and all future revisions to the Bases section of TS will be consistently controlled in a manner acceptable to both the industry and the NRC.
Therefore, this change provides for no significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change has no impact on the operation of the plant or changes to plant configuration. Only the manner in which VCSNS processes and distributes a TS Bases change will be revised and the controls will be similar to the majority of the industry. The NRC has approved the methodology used in the Bases control program, located in section 5.5 of the Westinghouse Standardized Technical Specifications, NUREG 1431, revision 2.
Therefore, there is no possibility of this change creating a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
This change provided for a standardized methodology, acceptable to the NRC, to assure consistent guidance for Bases changes is provided and the process is controlled under a TS administrative program. No impact to any plant hardware or safety analysis will occur from this proposed change. Therefore, there is no significant reduction in any margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change implements a [an] integrated surveillance program that has been evaluated by the NRC staff as meeting the requirements of paragraph III.C of Appendix H to 10 CFR 50. Consequently, the change does not significantly increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The change provides the same assurance of RPV integrity. The change will not cause the reactor pressure vessel or interfacing systems to be operated outside their design or testing limits. Also, the change will not alter any assumptions previously made in evaluating the radiological consequences of accidents. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change revises the BFN Units 2 and 3 licensing basis to reflect participation in the BWRVIP ISP. The proposed change does not involve a modification of the design of plant structures, systems, or components. The change will not impact the manner in which the plant is operated as plant operating and testing procedures will not be affected by the change. The change will not degrade the reliability of structures, systems, or components important to safety as equipment protection features will not be deleted or modified, equipment redundancy or independence will not be reduced, supporting system performance will not be increased, and increased or more severe testing of equipment will not be imposed. No new accident types or failure modes will be introduced as a result of this proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from that previously evaluated.
3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change has been evaluated as providing an acceptable alternative to the plant specific RPV material surveillance program and meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix H for RPV material surveillance.
Appendix G to 10 CFR 50 describes the conditions that require pressure temperature (P/T) limits and provides the general bases for these limits. Until the results from the Integrated Surveillance Program become available, RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.99, revision 2 will be used to predict the amount of neutron irradiation damage. The use of operating limits based on these criteria, as defined by applicable regulations, codes, and standards, provide reasonable assurance that nonductile or rapidly propagating failure will not occur. The P/T limits are not derived from Design Basis Accident (DBA) analyses. They are prescribed during normal operation to avoid encountering pressure, temperature, and temperature rate of change conditions that might cause undetected flaws to propagate and cause nonductile failure of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB). Since the P/T limits are not derived from any DBA, there are no acceptance limits related to the P/T limits. Rather, the P/T limits are acceptance limits themselves since they preclude operation in an unanalyzed condition.
The proposed change will not affect any safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions of operation. The proposed change does not represent a change in initial conditions, or in a system response time, or in any other parameter affecting the course of an accident analysis supporting the Bases of any Technical Specification. Further, the proposed change does not involve a revision to P/T limits but rather a revision to the surveillance capsule withdrawal schedule for the second surveillance capsule. The current P/T limits were established based on adjusted reference temperatures for RPV beltline materials calculated in accordance with RG 1.99, revision 2. P/T limits will continue to be revised, as necessary, for changes in adjusted reference temperature due to changes in fluence when two or more credible surveillance data sets become available. When two or more credible surveillance data sets become available, P/T limits will be revised as prescribed by RG 1.99, revision 2 or other NRC approved guidance. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Overall protection system performance [for the proposed changes] will remain within the bounds of the previously performed accident analyses since there are no hardware changes. The design of the SG water level sensing equipment and the coincidence logic in the Solid State Protection System will be unaffected. The only physical change to the RTS and ESFAS instrumentation is the increased actuation setpoints in the NAL
The probability and consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the FSAR [Callaway Final Safety Analysis Report] are not adversely affected because the changes to the RTS and ESFAS trip setpoints assure the conservative response of the affected trip functions, consistent with the safety analysis and licensing basis.
The proposed changes will not affect the probability of any event initiators. There will be no degradation in the performance of, or an increase in the number of challenges imposed on, safety-related equipment assumed to function during an accident situation. There will be no change to normal plant operating parameters or accident mitigation performance.
The proposed changes will not alter any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological consequence evaluations in the FSAR.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
There are no hardware changes, other than increased bistable setpoints in the adjustable bistable comparator cards that have already been implemented, nor are there any changes in the method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety function. This amendment will not affect the normal method of plant operation or change any operating parameters. The LCO Applicability exception for the SG Water Level Low-Low (Normal Containment Environment) channels recognizes the functional design of the system that enables the SG Water Level Low-Low (Adverse Containment Environment) channels with a higher water level trip setpoint whenever the Containment Pressure—Environmental Allowance Modifier channels in the same protection sets are tripped. No performance requirements or response time limits will be affected.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this amendment. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of this amendment.
This amendment does not alter the performance of the 7300 Process Protection System, Nuclear Instrumentation System, or Solid State Protection System used in the plant protection systems.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes do not eliminate any RTS surveillance or alter the frequency of surveillances required by the Technical Specifications. The nominal Trip Setpoints specified in the Technical Specification Bases have already been increased in the conservative direction. The safety analysis limits assumed in the transient and accident analyses are unchanged. None of the acceptance criteria for any accident analysis are changed.
There will be no effect on the manner in which safety limits or limiting safety system settings are determined nor will there be any effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. There will be no impact on the overpower limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) limits, heat flux hot channel factor (F
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Overall protection system performance [for the proposed change] will remain within the bounds of the previously performed accident analyses since there are no permanent hardware changes. The design of the RTS [reactor trip system] instrumentation will be unaffected; only the manner in which the system is connected for short duration physics testing is being changed to allow the temporary bypass of one power range channel. The reactor protection system will continue to function in a manner consistent with the plant design basis since a sufficient number of power range channels will remain OPERABLE to assure the capability of protective functions, even with a postulated single failure. [The number of required channels for certain functions in Table 3.3.1-1 is only being reduced from 4 to 3 channels.] All design, material, and construction standards that were applicable prior to the request are maintained.
The proposed change will allow the temporary bypass of one power range neutron flux channel during the performance of low power physics testing in MODE 2. This results in a temporary change to the coincidence logic from one-out-of-three under the current TS (with a trip imposed on the channel used for physics testing) to two-out-of-three under the proposed TS (the channel used for physics testing would be in a bypassed state). However, this two-out-of-three coincidence logic still supports [the] required protection and control system applications, while reducing plant susceptibility to a spurious reactor trip.
The proposed change will not affect the probability of any event initiators. There will be no change to normal plant operating parameters or accident mitigation performance.
The proposed change will not alter any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological consequence evaluations in the FSAR [Callaway Final Safety Analysis Report].
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
There are no permanent hardware changes nor are there any changes in the method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety function. This change will not affect the normal method of power operation or change any operating parameters. No performance requirements will be affected.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this amendment. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of this amendment.
The proposed amendment does not alter the design or performance of the 7300 Process Protection System, Nuclear
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
There will be no effect on the manner in which safety limits or limiting safety system settings are determined nor will there be any effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. There will be no impact on the overpower limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) limits, heat flux hot channel factor (F
The proposed change does not eliminate any RTS surveillance or alter the Frequency of surveillances required by the Technical Specifications. The nominal RTS and Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) trip setpoints (TS Bases Tables B 3.3.1-1 and B 3.3.2-1), RTS and ESFAS allowable values (TS Tables 3.3.1-1 and 3.3.2-1), and the safety analysis limits assumed in the transient and accident analyses [(FSAR Table 15.0-4)] are unchanged. None of the acceptance criteria for any accident analysis is changed. The potential reduction in the frequency of spurious reactor trips would effectively increase the margin of safety or, at a minium, be risk-neutral.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site,
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 5, 2002.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 1, 2002.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 7, 2002.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 12, 2002.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The supplement dated October 23, 2002, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 4, 2002.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The supplements dated August 15 and October 18, 2002, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not change the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The January 25, 2002, and August 15, 2002, Supplements did not affect the original proposed no significant hazards determination, or expand the scope of the request as noticed in the
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 4, 2002.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The staff's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 13, 2002.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The letters dated June 28, July 1, July 24, August 29, and October 11, 2002, provided clarifying information and did not expand the application beyond the scope of the notice or affect the applicability of the Commission's generic no significant hazards consideration determination pursuant to 10 CFR 2.1315.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 25, 2002.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 7, 2002.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 5, 2002.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 7, 2002.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The August 30, 2002, supplemental letter provided additional information that clarified the application, did not change the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 6, 2002.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of request for extension of OMB approval.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of the collection of information under Part 4043 of its regulations relating to Notice of Failure to Make Required Contributions (OMB control number 1212-0041; expires January 31, 2003). This notice informs the public of the PBGC's request and solicits public comment on the collection of information.
Comments should be submitted by December 26, 2002.
Comments should be mailed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Washington, DC 20503.
Copies of the request for extension (including the collection of information) may be obtained without charge by writing to the PBGC's Communications and Public Affairs Department, suite 240, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, or by visiting that office or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.) The regulations, forms, and instructions relating to the notice of failure to make required contributions may be accessed on the PBGC's Web site at
James L. Beller, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, 202-326-4024. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.)
Section 302(f) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and section 412(n) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (“Code”) impose a lien in favor of an underfunded single-employer plan that is covered by the termination insurance program if (1) any person fails to make a required payment when due, and (2) the unpaid balance of that payment (including interest), when added to the aggregate unpaid balance of all preceding payments for which payment was not made when due (including interest), exceeds $1 million. (For this purpose, a plan is underfunded if its funded current liability percentage is less than 100 percent.) The lien is upon all property and rights to property belonging to the person or persons who are liable for required contributions (
Only the PBGC (or, at its direction, the plan's contributing sponsor or a member of the same controlled group) may perfect and enforce this lien. Therefore, ERISA and the Code require persons committing payment failures to notify the PBGC within 10 days of the due date whenever there is a failure to make a required payment and the total of the unpaid balances (including interest) exceeds $1 million.
PBGC Form 200, Notice of Failure to Make Required Contributions, and related filing instructions, implement the statutory notification requirement. Submission of Form 200 is required by 29 CFR § 4043.81.
The collection of information under the regulation has been approved through January 31, 2003, by OMB under control number 1212-0041. The PBGC is requesting that OMB extend approval for another three years. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
The PBGC estimates that it will receive 30 Form 200 filings per year under this collection of information. The PBGC further estimates that the average annual burden of this collection of information is 64.5 hours and $12,900.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice of amendment of the Department of Agriculture demonstration project plan.
The Department of Agriculture, with the approval of OPM, is requesting to modify its demonstration project coverage. This action provides for changes in the final project plan published March 9, 1990, to include temporary appointments along with its current coverage of permanent and term appointments. By amending the project plan to include temporary appointments, the need to have two separate examining systems will be eliminated, thus avoiding administrative inefficiencies and ineffectiveness as well as meeting the President's Management Agenda of being more citizen-centered by reducing confusion among applicants.
This modification is effective upon publication of this notice.
On March 9, 1990, the Office of Personnel Management published a notice to demonstrate an alternative personnel management system at the Department of Agriculture. The project was originally conceived to test an alternative to the traditional recruiting and hiring system in an anticipated tight labor market. On March 8, 1996, a
One of the project innovations is to test a candidate assessment method which uses categorical groupings instead of numeric scores. The demonstration authority replaces the traditional system of examining applicants and ranking candidates. Instead, the candidates will be assigned to one of two groups—quality or eligible—based on job-related evaluation criteria. To be placed in the quality group, a candidate's background must show: Above average educational achievement; or, quality experience which is defined as experience clearly above and beyond the qualification standard requirements, and which is directly related to the work of the position to be filled; or, evidence of having ability to do the work of the position. Candidates who do not meet the quality group criteria but who meet basic qualification requirements will be assigned to the eligible group. Within each group, preference eligibles will be listed ahead of nonpreference eligibles. In addition, for positions other than scientific and professional at GS-9 and above, preference eligibles with a compensable service-connected disability of 10 percent or more who meet basic eligibility requirements will be listed at the top of the quality group.
Selection will be made from among candidates in the quality group. When there is an inadequate number of candidates in the quality group all qualified candidates will be listed as a single group.
This project plan which appeared in the
12:30 p.m., Monday, December 9, 2002; 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, December 10, 2002.
Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., in the Benjamin Franklin Room.
December 9-12:30 p.m. (Closed); December 10-8:30 a.m. (Open)
1. Audit and Finance Committee Report and Review of Year-End Financial Statements.
2. Financial Performance.
3. Proposed Filing with Postal Rate Commission for Parcel Return Service.
4. Capital Investment for Ventilation and Filtration System for Mail Processing Equipment.
5. Strategic Planning.
6. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.
1. Minutes of the Previous Meeting, November 4-5, 2002.
2. Remarks of the Postmaster General and CEO.
3. Fiscal Year 2002 Audited Financial Statements.
4. Postal Service Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report.
5. Final Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriation Request.
6. Capital Investments.
a. Flats Recognition Improvement Program.
b. Flats Feeder Enhancement Program.
c. Rockefeller Center Station, New York, Lease Renewal.
7. Click-N-Ship.
8. Tentative Agenda for the January 6-7, 2003, meeting in Washington, DC.
William T. Johnstone, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.
The Securities and Exchange Commission gives notice that Algoma Steel Inc. has filed an application under Section 304(d) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939. Algoma Steel asks the Commission to exempt from the certificate or opinion delivery requirements of Section 314(d) of the 1939 Act certain provisions of an indenture dated January 29, 2002, as supplemented by indentures dated January 29, 2002 and September 9, 2002, between Algoma Steel and Wilmington Trust Company. The indentures relate to 11% Secured Notes due 2009 and 1% Convertible Secured Notes due 2030.
Section 304(d) of the 1939 Act, in part, authorizes the Commission to exempt conditionally or unconditionally any indenture from one or more provisions of the 1939 Act. The Commission may provide an exemption under section 304(d) if it finds that the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the 1939 Act.
Section 314(d) requires the obligor to furnish to the indenture trustee certificates or opinions of fair value upon any release of collateral from the lien of the indenture. The application requests an exemption from section 314(d) for specified dispositions of collateral that are made in Algoma Steel's ordinary course of business.
In its application, Algoma Steel alleges that:
1. The indenture permits Algoma Steel to dispose of collateral in the ordinary course of its business;
2. Algoma Steel will deliver to the trustee annual audited financial statements; and
3. Algoma Steel will deliver to the trustee a semi-annual certificate stating that all dispositions of collateral during the relevant six-month period occurred in Algoma Steel's ordinary course of business and that all the proceeds were used as permitted by the indenture.
Any interested persons should look to the application for a more detailed statement of the asserted matters of fact and law. The application is on file in the Commission's Public Reference Section, File Number 22-28638, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.
The Commission also gives notice that any interested persons may request in writing that a hearing be held on this matter. Interested persons must submit those requests to the Commission no later than December 19, 2002. Interested persons must include the following in their request for a hearing on this matter:
The interested person should address this request for a hearing to: Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. At any time after December 19, 2002, the Commission may issue an order granting the application, unless the Commission orders a hearing.
For the Commission, by the Division of Corporation Finance, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that the following filing(s) has/have been made with the Commission pursuant to provisions of the Act and rules promulgated under the Act. All interested persons are referred to the application(s) and/or declaration(s) for complete statements of the proposed transaction(s) summarized below. The application(s) and/or declaration(s) and any amendment(s) is/are available for public inspection through the Commission's Branch of Public Reference.
Interested persons wishing to comment or request a hearing on the application(s) and/or declaration(s) should submit their views in writing by December 13, 2002, to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549-0609, and serve a copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or declarant(s) at the address(es) specified below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the request. Any request for hearing should identify specifically the issues of facts or law that are disputed. A person who so requests will be notified of any hearing, if ordered, and will receive a copy of any notice or order issued in the matter. After December 13, 2002, the application(s) and/or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, may be granted and/or permitted to become effective.
Northeast Utilities (“NU”), 174 Brush Hill Avenue, West Springfield, Massachusetts 01090-0010, a registered holding company, NU's wholly-owned nonutility subsidiary, NU Enterprises, Inc. (“NUEI”), and Northeast Utilities Service Company, both located at 107 Selden Street, Berlin, Connecticut 06037, (collectively, the “Applicants”) have filed a post effective amendment to their application-declaration under section 12(b) and rules 45 and 54 under the Act.
By order dated November 12, 1998 (HCAR No. 26939) (“Prior Order”), the Commission authorized NU and NUEI to, among other things, issue guarantees or provide similar forms of credit support or enhancements (collectively, “Guarantees”) to, or for the benefit of NUEI, NUEI's nonutility subsidiaries, or NU's other to-be-formed direct or indirect energy-related companies, as defined in rule 58 of the Act. The Commission, through subsequent orders in this file, authorized an increase in this Guarantee authority to $500 million and the extension of the date through which Guarantees may be provided through December 31, 2002, under the terms and conditions of the Prior Order. Applicants request in this filing to maintain the Guarantee authority at $500 million and to extend the date through which the Guarantees may be provided through September 30, 2003, under the terms and conditions of the Prior Order.
American Electric Power Company Inc. (“AEP”), Central and South West Corporation (“CSW”), both registered holding companies under the Act, 1
(a)
(b)
(c)
Subsidiaries may also include direct or indirect subsidiaries that AEP may form under sections 32, 33 or 34 of the Act or rule 58 under the Act. All of AEP's direct and indirect Subsidiaries, other than Public Utility Subsidiaries, are referred to as nonutility subsidiaries (“Nonutility Subsidiaries”). All subsidiaries and AEP and CSW are sometimes referred to collectively as the “Companies.”
The Application seeks authority for various financing transactions (“Financing Plan”) as described below. In summary, the Application seeks the following authorizations and approvals of the Commission for the period ending March 31, 2006 (“Authorization Period”):
(i) SWEPCO and Wheeling request authorization to issue long-term debt in amounts not to exceed $350 million and $40 million, respectively;
(ii) AEP and its Public Utility Subsidiaries request aggregate short-term financing in the amount of $7.2 billion outstanding;
(iii) CPL, Columbus, Ohio and West Texas seek interim authority until restructuring is implemented to issue short- and long-term debt in an amount not to exceed $3.9 billion;
(iv) Subsidiaries seek authorization to organize financing entities for certain types of financings described more fully below;
(v) Applicants seek authority to make tender offers for their securities and to repurchase their own securities from affiliates;
(vi) AEP and certain Subsidiaries that are participants in the system utility money pool request the continuation of the money pool through the Authorization Period;
(vii) AEP and certain Nonutility Subsidiaries request authority to form and continue a nonutility money pool on substantially the same terms and conditions as the utility money pool;
(viii) AEP and its Subsidiaries request authority to issue guarantees and other forms of credit support in an aggregate amount not to exceed $900 million outstanding at any one time as more fully described below; and
(ix) AEP and its Nonutility Subsidiaries request authorization for the Nonutility Subsidiaries to pay dividends out of capital or unearned surplus to the fullest extent allowed by law.
By order dated December 30, 1997 (HCAR No. 35-26811), CSW and its electric public utility subsidiary companies, CPL, PSO, SWEPCO, WTU and Central and South West Services Inc., were authorized to engage in various financing and related transactions through December 31, 2002. By order dated June 14, 2000 (HCAR No. 35-27186), AEP was authorized to acquire by merger all of the outstanding common stock of CSW; and AEP, its operating subsidiaries and certain other subsidiaries were added to the CSW money pool. By order dated October 26, 2001 (HCAR No. 35-27457), the money pool authority was extended to December 31, 2002, and certain sublimits related to restructuring of the AEP system were established.
AEP, American Electric Power Services Company (“AEPSC”), CSW, CPL, Columbus, Ohio, SWEPCO and West Texas have pending before this Commission an application (“Restructuring Application”), for which the Commission issued a notice on June 14, 2002 (HCAR No. 27450). The application seeks authority to restructure their operations to comply with deregulation statutes in Texas and Ohio that will result in the separation of the generation and energy delivery functions of CPL, Columbus, Ohio, and West Texas. The authority sought in the Restructuring Application includes the issuance of short- and long-term debt by the new generation, distribution and transmission entities and guarantees relating to these new entities. It is possible that an order in this matter will
The Applicants request authority to engage in financing transactions without further Commission approval for which the specific terms and conditions are not currently known but will engage in these transactions subject to the following conditions concerning the financial condition of the Applicants: (a) The effective cost of money on long-term debt borrowings issued will not exceed the greater of (i) 450 basis points over comparable term U.S. Treasury securities or (ii) a gross spread over U.S. Treasury securities which is consistent with similar securities of comparable credit quality and maturities issued by other companies, (b) the maturity of indebtedness will not exceed 50 years, (c) the underwriting fees, commissions, or other similar expenses paid in connection with the issue, sale or distribution of a security will not exceed 5% of the principal or total amount of the financing, (d) all debt issued by AEP will be unsecured, (e) except in accordance with a further order of the Commission, the Applicants will not publicly issue any long-term debt unless the securities are rated at the time of issuance at the investment grade level as established by at least one “nationally recognized statistical rating organization,” as that term is used in paragraphs (c)(2)(vi)(E), (F) and (H) of rule 15c3-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
AEP states that it will maintain during the authorization period for itself and for all Public Utility Subsidiaries common equity of 30% of consolidated capital (including short-term debt); however, CPL requests that it be permitted to maintain a common equity ratio of 25% for so long as securitization bonds are outstanding.
The proceeds from the sale of securities in external financing transactions by the Applicants will be added to their respective treasuries and subsequently used principally for general corporate purposes including: (i) The financing, in part, of capital expenditures; (ii) the financing of working capital requirements; (iii) the acquisition, retirement or redemption of securities previously issued by AEP or its Subsidiaries without the need for prior Commission approval; and (iv) other lawful purposes, including direct or indirect investment in energy related companies as defined in rule 58 (“Rule 58 Companies”), other subsidiaries approved by the Commission, exempt wholesale generators (“EWGs”), and foreign utility companies (“FUCOs”).
Applicants request approval for the following aggregate amounts of outstanding external financing during the Authorization Period (not including refinancing of outstanding securities):
(i) Long-term debt limits: SWEPCO, $350,000,000; Wheeling, $40,000,000.
(ii) Short-term borrowing limits through the Money Pool or external borrowings, or borrowings from AEP, as follows: Appalachian, $600,000,000; Indiana, $500,000,000; Kentucky, $200,000,000; Generating, $125,000,000; Kingsport, $40,000,000; PSO, $300,000,000; SWEPCO, $350,000,000; Wheeling, $40,000,000. In addition, AEP requests authority for short-term borrowings sufficient to fund the Utility Money Pool and the Nonutility Money Pool as well as its own requirements in an amount not to exceed $7,200,000,000.
(iii) Interim limits: If the Restructuring Order referred to above is not obtained by December 31, 2002, the companies affected by restructuring will need interim authority to issue debt, including both long and short-term debt, both on the external market or from the Utility Money Pool, until restructuring is implemented as described in SEC File 70-9785. The companies involved in the restructuring request the following authority to issue debt if the Restructuring Order is not issued by the end of 2002: CPL, $1,400,000,000; Columbus, $800,000,000; Ohio, $1,200,000,000; West Texas, $500,000,000.
All external financing will be at rates or prices and under conditions based upon, or otherwise determined, by competitive capital markets. The Applicants request authority to sell securities covered by this Application in any of the following ways: (i) Through underwriters or dealers; (ii) directly to a limited number of purchasers or to a single purchaser, or (iii) through agents or dealers. If underwriters are used in the sale of the securities, the securities will be acquired by the underwriters for their own account and may be resold from time to time in one or more transactions, including negotiated transactions, at a fixed public offering price or at varying prices determined at the time of sale. The securities may be offered to the public either through underwriting syndicates (which may be represented by managing underwriters) or directly by one or more underwriters acting alone. The securities may be sold directly by AEP or a Subsidiary or through agents designated from time to time. If dealers are used in the sale of any securities, the securities will be sold to the dealers as principal. Any dealer may then resell such securities to the public at varying prices to be determined by the dealer at the time of resale.
If debt securities are being sold, they may be sold in connection with “delayed delivery contracts” which permit the underwriters to locate buyers who will agree to buy the debt at the same price but at a later date than the date of the closing of the sale to the underwriters. Debt securities may also be sold through the use of medium-term notes and similar programs, including transactions covered by rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933. Pollution control revenue bonds may be sold either currently or in forward refundings where the price of the securities is established currently for delivery at a future date.
AEP requests flexibility in the types of short-term debt by which it borrows externally to take advantage of new products being offered in the market for short-term securities, including but not limited to, the extendible commercial notes program currently being offered by certain commercial paper dealers and new products to provide alternate backup liquidity for commercial paper and short-term notes.
AEP and the Subsidiaries would, in connection with any tender offer, retain one or more investment banking firms experienced in such matters to act as tender agent and dealer-manager. The dealer-manager will act as the agent in disseminating the tender offer and receiving responses to it. As a dealer-manager, the investment banking firm will not itself become obligated to purchase or sell any of the Outstanding Securities. The dealer-manager's fee will be determined following negotiation and investigation of fees in similar transactions and will include reasonable out-of-pocket expenses and attorney's fees. It is expected that the Applicants will be required, as is customary, to indemnify the dealer-manager for certain liabilities. The Applicants may also retain a depositary to hold the tendered Outstanding Securities pending the purchase of them or an information agent to assist in the tender offer. AEP and the Public Utility Subsidiaries also seek authority to repurchase their own securities issued to affiliates.
Interest rate hedging transactions with respect to existing indebtedness (“Interest Rate Hedges”), subject to certain limitations and restrictions, would be entered into in order to reduce or manage interest rate cost or risk. Interest Rate Hedges would only be entered into with counterparties (“Approved Counterparties”) whose senior debt ratings, or whose parent companies’ senior debt ratings, as published by Standard and Poor's Ratings Group, are equal to or greater than BBB, or an equivalent rating from Moody's Investors' Service or Fitch Investor Service. Interest Rate Hedges will involve the use of financial instruments and derivatives commonly used in today's capital markets, such as interest rate swaps, options, caps, collars, floors, and structured notes (
Interest rate hedging transactions with respect to anticipated debt offerings (the “Anticipatory Hedges”) and subject to certain limitations and restrictions would only be entered into with Approved Counterparties, and would be utilized to fix and/or limit the interest rate risk associated with any new issuance through (i) a forward sale of exchange-traded U.S. Treasury futures contracts, U.S. Treasury obligations and/or a forward swap (each a “Forward Sale”); (ii) the purchase of put options on U.S. Treasury obligations (a “Put
By order dated December 30, 1976 (HCAR No. 19829), and in subsequent orders (HCAR No. 26697 (March 28, 1997), HCAR No. 24855 (April 5, 1989), HCAR No. 26254 (March 21, 1995), and HCAR No. 26854 (April 3, 1998)), the Commission authorized Central and South West Corporation (“CSW”), a Delaware corporation and a registered holding company under the Act and a wholly owned subsidiary of AEP, to establish and utilize a system Money Pool to coordinate short-term borrowings for CSW, its electric subsidiary companies and Central and South West Services Inc. By order dated June 14, 2000 (HCAR No. 27186), the Commission authorized AEP to continue the Money Pool and to add its Utility Subsidiaries as well as Nonutility Participants In the Utility Money Pool as Participants in the AEP System Money Pool and established borrowing limits for all Participants. By Order dated October 26, 2001 (HCAR No. 35-27457), AEP was authorized to increase its external borrowing from $5 billion to $6.910 billion through December 31, 2002, through the issuance and sale of short-term notes and commercial paper.
All short-term borrowing needs of the Participants may be met by funds in the Money Pool to the extent funds are available. Each Participant shall have the right to borrow from the Money Pool from time to time, subject to the availability of funds and the limitations and conditions set forth in orders of this Commission; provided, however, that the aggregate amount of all loans requested by any Participant shall not exceed the applicable borrowing limits set forth in orders of the Commission and other regulatory authorities and agreements binding upon a Participant. No Participant shall be obligated to borrow from the Money Pool if lower cost funds can be obtained from its own external borrowing. AEP will not borrow funds from the Money Pool or any Participant.
AEPSC, a subsidiary service company, acts as administrative agent of the Money Pool. Each Participant and AEP determine the amount of funds it has available for contribution to the Money Pool. The determination of whether a Participant or AEP at any time has surplus funds, or shall lend surplus funds to the Money Pool, will be made by a Participant's treasurer or by a designee of the Participant in his or her sole discretion on the basis of cash flow projections and other relevant factors. Each Participant may withdraw any of its funds at any time upon notice to AEPSC. Each Participant may borrow from the Money Pool to the extent of its Borrowing Limits for short-term debt.
The Money Pool is composed from time to time of funds from the following sources: (i) Surplus funds of AEP; (ii) surplus funds of any of the Participants; or (iii) short-term borrowings by AEP. AEPSC administers the Money Pool by matching up, to the extent possible, short-term cash surpluses and loan requirements of AEP and the various Participants. Participants' requests for short-term loans are met first from surplus funds of other Participants which are available to the Money Pool and then from AEP corporate funds to the extent available. To the extent that Participant contributions of surplus funds to the Money Pool are insufficient to meet Participant requests for short-term loans, borrowings are made from outside the system. Funds which are loaned from Participants into the Money Pool which are not required to satisfy borrowing needs of other Participants will be invested by AEP on behalf of the lending Participants in one or more short-term instruments.
The Money Pool makes funds available to Participants for the interim financing of their capital expenditure programs and their other working capital needs, to AEP to loan and to make capital contributions to any of the Participants, and in both instances to repay previous borrowings incurred. External borrowings by AEP will not be made unless there are no surplus funds in the treasuries of the Participants sufficient to meet borrowing needs. However, no loan will be made by AEP or any Participant if the borrowing company could borrow more cheaply directly from banks or through the sale of its own commercial paper. When more than one Participant is borrowing, each borrowing Participant will borrow
The interest rate applicable on any day to then outstanding loans through the Money Pool will be the composite weighted average daily effective cost incurred by AEP for short-term borrowings from external sources. If there are no borrowings outstanding then the rate would be the certificate of deposit yield equivalent of the 30-day Federal Reserve “A2/P2” Non Financial Commercial Paper Composite Rate (“Composite”), or if no composite is established for that day then the applicable rate will be the Composite for the next preceding day for which the Composite is established. If the Composite shall cease to exist, then the rate would be the composite which then most closely resembles the Composite and/or most closely mirrors the pricing AEP would expect if it had external borrowings.
Interest income related to external investments will be calculated daily and allocated back to lending parties on the basis of their relative contribution to the investment pool funds on that date. Each Participant receiving a loan shall repay the principal amount of the loan, together with all accrued interest, on demand and in any event not later than the expiration date of the Commission's authorization for the operation of the Money Pool. All loans made through the Money Pool may be prepaid by the borrower without premium or penalty.
AEP and the Nonutility Money Pool Participants propose to form and participate in a separate system of inter-corporate borrowings (“Nonutility Money Pool”). The Nonutility Money Pool would be established and administered in the same manner and
Applicants state that participation by a Nonutility Money Pool Participant in the Nonutility Money Pool would permit their available cash and/or short-term borrowing requirements to be matched on a daily basis with other Nonutility Money Pool Participants to minimize the need of the AEP system for external short-term borrowing. If the Nonutility Money Pool Participants are authorized to participate in the Nonutility Money Pool, funds will be loaned from the Nonutility Money Pool in the form of open account advances under the same terms and limitations as currently authorized for the Utility Money Pool. Participants in the Nonutility Money Pool will not engage in lending and borrowing transactions with Participants in the Utility Money Pool.
AEP requests authorization to enter into guarantees, obtain letters of credit, enter into support or expense agreements or otherwise provide credit support from time to time through March 31, 2006, on behalf of any of its direct or indirect Subsidiaries in amounts up to $900,000,000. AEP also requests authority to guarantee the obligations of its direct or indirect Subsidiaries as may be appropriate or necessary to enable the subsidiaries to carry on the ordinary course of their businesses. Each of the Public Utility Subsidiaries seeks authorization to enter into guarantees and other credit support with respect to obligations of each of its subsidiaries. Nonutility Subsidiaries also request authority for each Nonutility Subsidiary to provide guarantees and other forms of credit support to other Nonutility Subsidiaries. Certain of the guarantees referred to above may be in support of the obligations of Subsidiaries that are not capable of exact quantification. In such cases, AEP will determine the exposure of the instrument for purposes of measuring compliance with the total guarantee limit. The aggregate amount of the guarantees will not exceed $900 million (excluding obligations exempt under rule 45 and authorized under other Commission orders).
Section 12(c) of the Act and rule 46 under the Act generally prohibit the payment of dividends out of capital or unearned surplus, except according to an order of the Commission. AEP and the Nonutility Subsidiaries hereby request authority for the direct and indirect Nonutility Subsidiaries to pay dividends out of capital or unearned surplus to the fullest extent of the law.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Temporary order and notice of application under section 9(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”).
Applicants have received a temporary order exempting them from section 9(a) of the Act, with respect to a securities-related preliminary injunction entered on November 13, 2002, until the Commission takes final action on an application for a permanent order. Applicants also have requested a permanent order.
Alternative Investment Partners, LLC (“AIP”) and Trust Advisors, LLC (“TA”).
The application was filed on November 19, 2002.
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 December 17, 2002, 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, Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Applicants: AIP, 142 Hardscrabble Lake Drive, Chappaqua, NY 10514; TA, 1375 Kings Highway East, Ste. 400, Fairfield, CT 07663.
John L. Sullivan, Senior Counsel, at (202) 942-0681, or Michael W. Mundt, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 942-0564 (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 Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. 202-942-8090).
1. AIP is a Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). AIP serves as the investment adviser to Alpha Strategies I Fund (“Fund”), which is a series of AIP Alternative Strategies Funds, an open-end management investment company registered under the Act. TA, a Delaware limited liability company, is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act and serves as a research consultant to AIP and the Fund with respect to the selection and ongoing review of subadvisers for the Fund. Because the services provided by TA may be characterized as investment advisory services, applicants state that TA may be considered an investment adviser to the Fund under section 2(a)(20) of the Act. Asset Alliance Corporation (“AAC”), a Delaware corporation, states that it is a holding company primarily engaged in the business of owning significant interests in investment managers. AAC directly owns 50% of AIP and indirectly owns 50% of TA. AAC also indirectly owns 50% of Beacon Hill Asset Management LLC (“BHAM”).
2. On November 13, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order of Preliminary Injunction and Other Relief Against BHAM (“Preliminary Injunction”) in a matter brought by the Commission (the “Action”).
1. Section 9(a)(2) of the Act, in relevant part, prohibits a person who has been enjoined from engaging in or continuing any conduct or practice in connection with the purchase or sale of a security from acting, among other things, as an investment adviser or depositor of any registered investment company or a principal underwriter for any registered open-end investment company, registered unit investment trust, or registered face-amount certificate company. Section 9(a)(3) of the Act makes the prohibition in section 9(a)(2) applicable to a company any affiliated person of which has been disqualified under the provisions of section 9(a)(2). Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control, with the other person. Applicants state that BHAM is an affiliated person of the applicants because BHAM and the applicants are under the common control of AAC. Applicants state that, as a result of the Preliminary Injunction, applicants may be subject to the prohibitions of section 9(a).
2. Section 9(c) of the Act provides that the Commission shall grant an application for an exemption from the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) if it is established that these provisions, as applied to the applicants, are unduly or disproportionately severe or that the applicants' conduct has been such as not to make it against the public interest or the protection of investors to grant the application. Applicants have filed an application pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act seeking temporary and permanent orders exempting them from the provisions of section 9(a) of the Act that might otherwise be operative with respect to their provision of investment advisory services to the Fund as a result of the Preliminary Injunction.
3. Applicants state that the prohibitions of section 9(a) as applied to them would be unduly and disproportionately severe and that the conduct of applicants has been such as not to make it against the public interest or the protection of investors to grant the exemption from section 9(a). Applicants state that none of the current or former officers or employees of either of the applicants participated in or had any knowledge of the conduct alleged to have constituted the violations that resulted in the Action. In addition, neither applicant has been the subject of any federal or state enforcement or other administrative or judicial disciplinary proceeding, nor has either been named as a defendant in any other action relating to the securities laws. Applicants state that neither has ever previously applied for an exemption pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act.
4. Applicants state that their inability to continue providing advisory services to the Fund would result in the Fund and its shareholders facing potentially severe hardships. Additionally, applicants assert that if they were barred from providing investment advisory services to the Fund, the effect on their businesses and employees would be severe.
5. AIP and TA will distribute written materials, including an offer to meet in person to discuss the materials, to the board of directors of the Fund regarding the Action and the reasons they believe relief pursuant to section 9(c) is appropriate. AIP and TA will provide the Fund with all information concerning the Action and the exemptive application necessary for the Fund to fulfill its disclosure and other obligations under the federal securities laws.
Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
1. Any temporary exemption granted pursuant to the application shall be without prejudice to, and shall not limit the Commission's rights in any manner with respect to, any Commission investigation of, or administrative proceedings involving or against, applicants or their affiliated persons, including without limitation, the consideration by the Commission of a permanent exemption from section 9(a) of the Act requested pursuant to the application or the revocation or removal of any temporary exemptions granted under the Act in connection with the application.
The Commission has considered the matter and finds that applicants have made the necessary showing to justify granting of a temporary exemption.
Accordingly,
By the Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”)
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements.
AB Funds Trust (the “Trust”) and SBC Financial Services, Inc. (the “Adviser”).
Applicants request an order that would permit applicants to enter into and materially amend sub-advisory agreements without shareholder approval and would grant relief from certain disclosure requirements.
The application was filed on June 22, 2001, and amended on November, 8, 2002.
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 December 16, 2002, 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 who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Applicants, c/o Rodney R. Miller, Esq.,
Karen L. Goldstein, Senior Counsel, at (202) 942-0646, or Janet M. Grossnickle, Branch Chief, at (202) 942-0564 (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 Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (telephone (202) 942-8090).
1. The Trust is a Delaware business trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. The Trust is organized as a series investment company and has thirteen series (each a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”). Each Fund has its own investment objective, policies and restrictions. Four of the Funds will operate as funds of funds pursuant to section 12(d)(1)(G) under the Act (the “Blended Funds”) and will allocate their investments among the nine other series of the Trust (the “Select Funds”). Investors may also purchase shares of the Select Funds directly. The Adviser, a Texas non-profit, non-stock corporation, serves as investment adviser to the Trust, and is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”).
2. The Trust, on behalf of each Fund, has entered into an investment advisory agreement with the Adviser (“Advisory Agreement”). The Advisory Agreement has been approved by the Trust's board of trustees (the “Board”), including a majority of the trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of the Trust (“Disinterested Trustees”), as well as by each Fund's initial shareholder. Under the terms of the Advisory Agreement, the Adviser manages the investment of assets of each Fund and, subject to oversight by the Board, may delegate its investment advisory responsibilities to one or more subadvisers (“Subadvisers”). The Trust and the Adviser have entered into investment subadvisory agreements (“Subadvisory Agreements”) with Subadvisers for all but two of the Select Funds. Under the Subadvisory Agreements, each Subadviser has discretionary authority to invest a portion of a Select Fund's assets subject to supervision by the Adviser, the Fund's investment objectives, policies and restrictions, and instructions of the Board. Each of the Subadvisers is, or will be, an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration under the Advisers Act. The Trust pays the Adviser a fee computed separately for each Select Fund based on the Fund's net asset value.
3. The Adviser monitors the Funds and the Subadvisers and makes recommendations to the Board regarding allocation of assets between Subadvisers and is responsible for recommending the hiring, termination and replacement of Subadvisers. The Adviser recommends Subadvisers based on a number of factors listed in the application used to evaluate their skills in managing assets pursuant to particular investment objectives. Each Subadviser will be paid by the Select Fund at a rate that has been negotiated with each Subadviser by the Adviser and approved by the Board.
4. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to the oversight of the Board, to enter into and materially amend Subadvisory Agreements without obtaining shareholder approval. The requested relief will not extend to a Subadviser that is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Trust or the Adviser, other than by reason of serving as a Subadviser to one or more of the Funds (“Affiliated Subadviser”).
5. Applicants also request an exemption from the various disclosure provisions described below that may require each Fund to disclose fees paid to the Subadvisers. The Trust will disclose for each Fund (both as a dollar amount and as a percentage of a Select Fund's net assets): (i) The aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and Affiliated Subadvisers; and (ii) aggregate fees paid to Subadvisers other than Affiliated Subadvisers (“Aggregate Fee Disclosure”). For any Fund that employs an Affiliated Subadviser, the Fund will provide separate disclosure of any fees paid to the Affiliated Subadviser.
1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered investment company except under a written contract that has been approved by the vote of the company's outstanding voting securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class of stock in a series company affected by a matter must approve such matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end investment companies. Item 15(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires disclosure of the method and amount of the investment adviser's compensation.
3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect to an investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together, require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the advisory contract will be voted upon to include the “rate of compensation of the investment adviser,” the “aggregate amount of the investment adviser's fees,” a description of the “terms of the contract to be acted upon,” and, if a change in the advisory fee is proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the two fees.
4. Form N-SAR is the semi-annual report filed with the Commission by registered investment companies. Item 48 of Form N-SAR requires investment companies to disclose the rate schedule for fees paid to their investment advisers, including the Subadvisers.
5. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial statements required to be included as part of investment company registration statements and shareholder reports filed with the Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X require that investment companies include in their financial statements information about investment advisory fees.
6. Section 6(c) 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 provision of the Act, or from any rule thereunder, if 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. Applicants state that their requested relief meets
7. Applicants assert that the shareholders will rely on the Adviser's expertise to select one or more Subadvisers best suited to achieve a Fund's investment objectives. Applicants assert that, from the perspective of the shareholder, the role of the Subadvisers is comparable to that of individual portfolio managers employed by traditional investment advisory firms. Applicants contend that requiring shareholder approval of each Subadvisory Agreement would impose costs and unnecessary delays on the Select Funds, and may preclude the Adviser from acting promptly in a manner considered advisable by the Board. Applicants note that the Advisory Agreement will remain fully subject to section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
8. Applicants assert that some Subadvisers use a “posted” rate schedule to set their fees. Applicants state that the Adviser may not be able to negotiate below the “posted” fee rates with Subadvisers if each Subadviser's fees are required to be disclosed. Applicants submit that the nondisclosure of the individual Subadvisers' fees is in the best interest of the Select Funds and their shareholders, where the disclosure of such fees would increase costs to shareholders without an offsetting benefit to the Select Funds and their shareholders.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Before any Fund may rely on the requested order, the operation of the Fund in the manner described in the application will be approved by a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Fund, as defined in the Act, or, in the case of a Fund whose public shareholders purchased shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the sole initial shareholder before offering shares of the Fund to the public.
2. The Trust will disclose in its prospectus(es) the existence, substance and effect of any order granted pursuant to the application. In addition, each Fund relying on the requested order will hold itself out to the public as employing the management structure described in the application. The prospectus will prominently disclose that the Adviser has the ultimate responsibility (subject to oversight by the Board) to oversee the Subadvisers and to recommend their hiring, termination, and replacement.
3. At all times, a majority of the Board will be Disinterested Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional Disinterested Trustees will be at the discretion of the then existing Disinterested Trustees.
4. The Adviser and the Funds will not enter into a Subadvisory Agreement with any Affiliated Subadviser without that agreement, including the compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders of the applicable Fund.
5. When a Subadviser change is proposed for a Fund with an Affiliated Subadviser, the Board, including a majority of the Disinterested Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the Board minutes, that the change is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders and does not involve a conflict of interest from which the Adviser or the Affiliated Subadviser derives an inappropriate advantage.
6. Within 90 days of the hiring of any new Subadviser, shareholders will be furnished all information about the new Subadviser that would be contained in a proxy statement, except as modified to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure. This information will include Aggregate Fee Disclosure and any change in such disclosure caused by the addition of the new Subadviser. The Trust or the Adviser will meet this condition by providing shareholders, within 90 days of the hiring of a Subadviser, an information statement meeting the requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C and Item 22 of Schedule 14A under the Exchange Act, except as modified to permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
7. The Adviser will provide general investment advisory services to the Funds, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of each Funds' assets, and, subject to review and approval by the Board, will: (i) Set each Fund's overall investment strategies, (ii) evaluate, select and recommend Subadvisers to manage all or a part of each Fund's assets, (iii) when appropriate, allocate and reallocate each Fund's assets among multiple Subadvisers; (iv) monitor and evaluate the performance of the Subadvisers, and (v) ensure that the Subadvisers comply with each Fund's investment objectives, policies and restrictions by, among other things, implementing procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance.
8. No Trustee or officer of the Trust, or director or officer of the Adviser will own, directly or indirectly (other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by such person), any interest in a Subadviser, except for: (i) Ownership of interests in the Adviser or any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the Adviser, or (ii) ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of a publicly traded company that is either a Subadviser or an entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a Subadviser.
9. The Trust will include in its registration statement the Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
10. Independent counsel knowledgable about the Act and the duties of Disinterested Trustees will be engaged to represent the Disinterested Trustees of the Trust. The selection of such counsel will remain within the discretion of the Disinterested Trustees.
11. Shareholders of a Fund will approve any change to a Subadvisory Agreement if such change would result in an increase in the overall management and advisory fees payable by the Fund that have been approved by the shareholders of the Fund.
12. The Adviser will provide the Board, no less frequently than quarterly, with information about the Adviser's profitability on a per-Fund basis. The information will reflect the impact on profitability of the hiring or termination of any Subadviser during the applicable quarter.
13. Whenever a Subadviser is hired or terminated, the Adviser will provide the Board with information showing the expected impact on the Adviser's profitability.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”).
Notice of application for an order pursuant to Section 26(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”) approving certain substitutions of securities.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered unit investment trusts to substitute securities issued by the Scudder Variable Series II's Scudder Growth Portfolio and Scudder Blue Chip Portfolio (the “Scudder Portfolios’) for securities issued by the Janus Aspen Series’ Janus Growth Portfolio and Janus Growth and Income Portfolio, respectively (the “Janus Portfolios”), currently held by those unit investment trusts.
Kemper Investors Life Insurance Company (“KILICO”) and KILICO Variable Annuity Separate Account (the “KILICO Separate Account”). KILICO is referred to as the “Insurance Company.” The KILICO Separate Account is referred to as the “Separate Account.”
The Application was filed on February 27, 2002 and an amended Application was filed on November 13, 2002.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission 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 December 20, 2002, 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 may request notification of a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549. Applicants: c/o Debra P. Rezabek, Esq., Zurich Life, 1600 McConnor Parkway, Schaumburg, Illinois 60196. Copies to: Joseph R. Fleming, Esq., Dechert, Ten Post Office Square, South, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-4603 and Joan E. Boros, Esq., Jorden Burt LLP, Suite 400 East, 1025 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Washington, DC 20007.
Alison Toledo, Senior Counsel, or Lorna MacLeod, Branch Chief, at (202) 942-0670, Office of Insurance Products, Division of Investment Management.
The following is a summary of the application; the complete application may be obtained for a fee from the Public Reference Branch of the Commission, 450 5th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549 (tel. (202) 942-8090).
1. KILICO is an Illinois stock life insurance company. KILICO is the depositor and sponsor of the KILICO Separate Account, a separate investment account established under Illinois law.
2. KILICO is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kemper Corporation, a non-operating holding company. Kemper Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zurich Group Holding, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zurich Financial Services.
3. The KILICO Separate Account is registered with the Commission under the 1940 Act as a unit investment trust. The assets of the KILICO Separate Account support certain variable annuity contracts (collectively, “Contracts”). The variable annuity contracts issued by KILICO consist of flexible premium deferred variable annuity contracts and certificates. Two sub-accounts of the KILICO Separate Account each invests exclusively in shares representing an interest in a separate corresponding portfolio (each, a “Portfolio”) of Janus Aspen Series (the “Janus Trust”).
4. The variable annuity contracts issued by the Insurance Company are collectively referred to as the “Contracts.” All of the Contracts expressly reserve the right of the Insurance Company, subject to compliance with applicable law, to substitute shares of another open-end management investment company for shares of an open-end management investment company held by a sub-account. The prospectuses describing the Contracts contain appropriate disclosure of this right.
5. Applicants propose to substitute Shares of each Scudder Portfolio for Shares of the corresponding Janus Portfolio (the “Substitution”). Applicants assert that the Substitution will benefit Contract owners by: (a) Consolidating the assets attributable to the Scudder Portfolio and the Janus Portfolio in a single portfolio, which may simplify the Contracts and allow the Insurance Company to more efficiently oversee the functioning of the underlying Portfolios; and (b) providing Contract owners who have their Contract values currently allocated to the Janus Portfolios with a similar Portfolio that has a lower total expense ratio than the Janus Portfolio. The Insurance Company ceased offering the Janus Portfolios as investment options for the Contracts issued after April 30, 2000.
6. As demonstrated in the chart below, each Scudder Portfolio has, and will continue to have, investment objectives, investment strategies and anticipated risks that are similar in all material respects to those of the corresponding Janus Portfolio:
7. As demonstrated in the chart below, it is also expected that: (a) The investment management fees with respect to each Scudder Portfolio will be equal to or less than the investment management fees with respect to the each corresponding Janus Portfolio; and (b) the total expense ratio of each Scudder Portfolio will be less than the total expense ratio of the corresponding Janus Portfolio. The first chart below shows the investment management fees and total expenses of Shares of each Janus Portfolio and the corresponding Scudder Portfolio, on an audited basis, as of December 31, 2001. The second chart below shows the investment management fees and total expenses of Shares of each Janus Portfolio and the corresponding Scudder Portfolio, on an unaudited basis, as of June 30, 2002.
8. On or about the date of the initial filing of the Application, a supplement to the prospectus for each of the Contracts was filed with the Commission. The supplement describes the Substitution and the proposed timeframe for its completion as well as advises the Contract holders that they may transfer assets from each Janus Portfolio to another investment option available under their Contract without the imposition of any fee, charge, or other penalty that might otherwise be imposed through a date at least thirty (30) days following the date the Substitution is effected (the “Substitution Date”). The supplement was forwarded to those Contract owners who became such prior to May 1, 2000 and have either allocated Contract values to a Janus Portfolio or who maintain the ability to do so (the “Affected Contract Owners”). On or about the time the Commission approves of the amended Application, Affected Contract Owners will be sent a supplement to the relevant Contract prospectus that discloses to such Contract owners that the amended Application has been approved. Together with this disclosure, such Affected Contract Owners who have not previously received a prospectus for the Scudder Portfolios will be sent a prospectus for such Portfolios.
9. Affected Contract Owners will be sent a notice of the Substitution in the form of a Contract prospectus supplement. Confirmation of the Substitution will be mailed to Affected Contract Owners within five (5) days after the Substitution Date.
10. The significant terms of the Substitution described above include:
a. Each Scudder Portfolio will have investment objectives, investment strategies, and anticipated risks that are similar in all material respects to those of the corresponding Janus Portfolio.
b. The total expenses of each Scudder Portfolio will be the same as or less than those of the corresponding Janus Portfolio, assuming that the assets of each Scudder Portfolio do not decrease significantly from its present asset level.
c. Contract owners may transfer assets from each Scudder Portfolio or Janus Portfolio to another investment option available under their Contract without the imposition of any fee, charge, or other penalty that might otherwise be imposed from the date the initial prospectus supplement relating to the Substitution is filed with the Commission through a date at least thirty (30) days following the Substitution Date.
d. The Substitution will be effected at the net asset value of the respective shares of each Janus Portfolio and the corresponding Scudder Portfolio in conformity with Section 22(c) of the 1940 Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder, without the imposition of any transfer or similar charge by Applicants, and with no change in the amount of any Contract owner's Contract value or in the dollar value of his or her investment in such Contract.
e. Contract owners will not incur any fees or charges as a result of the Substitution, nor will their rights or KILICO's obligations under the Contracts be altered in any way. KILICO will pay or cause to be paid all costs incurred in connection with the Substitution and related filings and notices, including legal, accounting, brokerage and other fees and expenses. The Substitution will not cause the Contract fees and charges currently being paid by existing Contract owners to be greater after the Substitution than before the Substitution.
f. Because the Contract owners will, before and after the Substitution transaction, still be invested in the same Separate Account, the Substitution will not be counted as a new investment selection or free transfer in determining the limit, if any, on the total number of Portfolios that Contract owners can select or transfer into during the life of a Contract.
g. The Substitution will not alter in any way the annuity or life benefits, tax benefits or any contractual obligations of Applicants under the Contracts.
h. The Substitution will not result in any tax liability for Contract owners.
i. KILICO will not receive, for three years from the date of the Substitution, any direct or indirect benefits from the Scudder Portfolios, their adviser or underwriter, or from affiliates of the Scudder Portfolios, their adviser or underwriter, in connection with assets attributable to the Contracts affected by the Substitution, at a higher rate than it received from the Janus Portfolios, their adviser or underwriter, or from affiliates of the Janus Portfolios, their adviser or underwriter, including without limitation Rule 12b-1 fees, shareholder service or administrative or other service fees, revenue-sharing or other arrangements. KILICO represents that the Substitution it carries out and its selection of the Scudder Portfolios were not motivated by any financial consideration paid or to be paid to it or to any of its affiliates by either of the Scudder Portfolios, their adviser or underwriter, or by the affiliates of the Scudder Portfolios, their adviser or underwriter.
j. Contract owners may withdraw amounts under the Contracts or terminate their interest in a Contract, under the conditions that currently exist, including payment of any
k. Contract owners affected by the Substitution will be sent written confirmation of the Substitution that identify the substitutions made on behalf of that Contract owner within five (5) days following the Substitution Date.
1. Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act provides that it shall be unlawful for any depositor or trustee of a registered unit investment trust holding the security of a single issuer to substitute another security for such security unless the Commission shall have approved such substitution; and the Commission shall issue an order approving such substitution if the evidence establishes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and provisions of the 1940 Act. Section 26(c) protects the expectation of investors that the unit investment trust will accumulate shares of a particular issuer and is intended to insure that unnecessary or burdensome sales loads, additional reinvestment costs or other charges will not be incurred due to unapproved substitutions of securities.
2. Applicants request an order pursuant to Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act approving the Substitution. Applicants represent that the purposes, terms, and conditions of the Substitution are consistent with the protections for which Section 26(c) was designed. Applicants believe the Substitution will benefit Contract owners by: (1) Providing an underlying investment option for subaccounts invested in a Janus Portfolio that is substantially similar in all material aspects to that Janus Portfolio; and (2) providing such Contract owners with and investment option with the same or lower investment management fee and a lower expense ratio than the current investment option.
3. Contract owners who do not want their assets allocated to the Scudder Portfolios would be able to transfer assets to any one of the other sub-accounts available under their Contract without charge until thirty days after the Substitution have elapsed.
4. The Insurance Company, on behalf of itself and its Separate Account, represent that the Substitution will not result in any change in the amount of any Contract owner's Contract value or in the dollar value of his or her investment in such Contract, or the annuity or life benefits, tax benefits or any contractual obligation of the Applicants under the Contracts. Contract owners will not incur any fees, expenses or charges as a result of the proposed transactions. Furthermore, the proposed transactions will not result in any change to the Contract fees and charges currently being paid by existing Contract owners.
5. Applicants will not complete the Substitution as described in the amended Application unless all of the following conditions are met:
a. The Commission will have issued an order approving the Substitution under Section 26(c) of the 1940 Act.
b. Each Affected Contract Owner will have been mailed initial disclosure of the Substitution following the initial filing of this Application (in the form of a supplement to the applicable Contract prospectus) that will describe the terms of the Substitution Contract owners' rights in connection with them and will have been mailed a prospectus with respect to the Scudder Portfolios.
c. Applicants will have satisfied themselves, based on advice of counsel familiar with insurance laws, that the Contracts allow the substitution of Portfolios as described in this amended Application, and that the transactions can be consummated as described herein under applicable insurance laws and under the various Contracts.
d. Applicants will have complied with any regulatory requirements they believe are necessary to complete the transactions in each jurisdiction where the Contracts are qualified for sale.
Applicants assert that, for the reasons summarized above, the requested approval meets the standards set out in Section 26(c) and, therefore, the requested order approving the Substitution should be granted.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Concentrax, Inc. (“Concentrax”), because of questions regarding: the accuracy and adequacy of assertions in press releases by Concentrax, concerning, among other things, the existence, status, and description of agreements announced by Concentrax in its press releases of October 9, 2002, October 23, 2002, and October 31, 2002.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, on Friday, November 22, 2002 through 11:59 p.m. EST, on Friday, December 6, 2002.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Amex proposes to amend Amex Rules 24, “Block Transactions,” 111, “Restrictions on Registered Traders,” 175, “Specialist Prohibitions,” and 950, “Rules of General Applicability,” to develop a single comprehensive rule with respect to front-running. The Amex has submitted a Notice (“Amex Notice”), attached hereto as Exhibit A, that provides examples and interpretations of the operation of the proposed rule.
The text of the proposed rule change appears below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
Rule 24.
(b) The restrictions of paragraph (a) shall not apply to:
(i) An order entered for the purpose of participating in the purchase or sale of the particular block about which the member or employee has learned;
(ii) A situation where a Floor Official expressly invites a member to participate in a difficult market situation;
(iii) An order to reduce or liquidate a position acquired pursuant to subparagraph (i) or (ii);
(iv) A bona fide arbitrage transaction or a transaction which is part of a purchase and sale or sale and purchase of securities of companies involved in a publicly announced merger, acquisition, tender offer, etc.;
(v) A transaction to offset a transaction made in error.]
Rule 111(a) through (h) No change.
* * * Commentary
.01 and .02 No change.
.03(a) and (b) No change.
(c) [No member or member organization shall execute or cause to be executed, on the Exchange, any order for any account in which such member, member organization, or any member, allied member, or approved person in such organization or officer or employee thereof, is interested or for any discretionary account serviced by the member or member organization, in contravention of any Exchange policy against front-running of transactions that the Exchange may from time to time adopt and make known to its members.]
(d) No change.
.04 through end. No change.
Rule 175. (a) through (c) No change.
Guidelines for Specialists' Specialty Stock Option Transactions Pursuant to Rule 175 (a) through (f) No change.
(g) Prohibition Against Front-Running of Blocks
[In Information Circulars No. 82-37, No. 85-115 and No. 99-147 (dated July 6, 1982, November 29, 1985 and September 14, 1990 respectively), the Exchange advised members and member organizations that they should not trade in options or in underlying securities by taking advantage of their possession of material, non-public information concerning block transactions in these securities. The Exchange noted that it would be improper for a member or person associated with a member who has knowledge of a block transaction in any security underlying an option or of a block transaction in the option covering that security, before information concerning the block transaction has been made publicly available, to take advantage of the non-public information in his possession and execute or cause to be executed an order (1) to buy or sell an option, while in possession of non-public information concerning a block transaction in the underlying stock, or (2) to buy or sell an underlying security, while in possession of non-public information concerning a block transaction in an option covering that security, for an account in which such member or associated person has an interest or for an account with respect to which such member or associated person exercises investment discretion.] The prohibitions against front-running stated in [such Information Circulars]
(h) through (l) No change.
Rule 950 (a) through (c) No change.
(d) No change.
* * * Commentary
.01 through .03 No change.
.04
.05 No change.
(e) through end. No change.
(b) Not applicable.
(c) Not applicable.
In its filing with the Commission, the Amex 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 Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In the past, the Amex has adopted three rules and one guideline and issued no fewer than five Information Circulars expressing the prohibition against using non-public market information (“front-running”).
With some exceptions, Amex Rule 24 prohibits proprietary trades on the Amex floor in equities for two minutes after the tape print of a 10,000-share block on the Amex floor in the same equity. When the Amex adopted Amex Rule 24 in 1971, the Amex only traded equities, and Amex Rule 5, “Over-the-Counter Execution of Equity Securities Transactions,” (limiting off-Board trades) was in place. Accordingly, Amex Rule 24 is limited to trades in equity securities occurring on the Amex.
Subsequently, the Amex adopted Amex Rule 111, Commentary .03(c), which prohibits proprietary or discretionary transactions in violation of the Exchange's policies against front-running. The Exchange issued five Information Circulars to express the policy against front-running.
Paragraph (g) of the “Guidelines for Specialists' Specialty Stock Option Transactions Pursuant to Rule 175” applies the front-running prohibitions to equities specialists in connection with their option trades.
In June 2000, the Amex adopted Rule 950(d), Commentary .04, which prohibits proprietary front-running of solicited, facilitated, and/or crossed options transactions with an order to buy or sell an option of the same class, an order to buy or sell the underlying
According to the Amex, these rules and policies developed over time in response to specific needs and are not comprehensive in that they only address certain types of information, specified markets, and/or particular products. For example, Amex Rule 24 prohibits only an equity trade on the Amex that is effected with knowledge of an impending equity block trade also effected on the Amex.
In the course of preparing proposed rules to accommodate the introduction of single stock futures, the Amex realized that its current rules relating to front-running did not cover this new product, and that this served as an occasion to review more generally the Amex's rules governing front-running and related activity. As a result of this review, the Exchange determined that the Amex, its members, and the public would be better served by a front-running rule that was more comprehensive and broader conceptually than the several separate rules and interpretations that the Exchange had adopted and issued over the years.
Accordingly, the proposal has been drafted to clarify that front-running in any “securities” product in any transaction by Amex members or member organizations involving the Amex's market in any way is prohibited. The Exchange also has prepared an “Amex Notice,” attached as Exhibit A, that the Amex intends to issue to members and member organizations following Commission approval of the proposed rule change.
The Amex believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest; and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, and dealers.
The Amex believes that the proposed rule change will impose no burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 are consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Amex. All submissions should refer to file number SR-Amex-2001-85 and should be submitted by December 17, 2002.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Exchange recently received SEC approval to consolidate and update our front-running rules and policies. The text of the revised rule, Rule 111, Commentary .03(c), is attached. The revised rule (the “Rule”) is designed to cover all types of front-running. Accordingly, Rules 24 and 950(d), Commentary .04, which also dealt with front-running, have been rescinded. The Rule prohibits any front-running involving a trade executed or attempted on the Amex or executed or attempted in any other market based on market information obtained on the Amex or advanced knowledge of other material non-public information. The foundation of the Exchange's front-running prohibition is that it is a violation of just and equitable principles of trade for a person with material non-public information of the pending release of news or an imminent transaction in a security to take advantage of that information by effecting trades in that security or related securities. In the past, it has been most common to think of front-running in terms of options trades executed in front of a block trade in the underlying stock. And we expect questions about front-running will continue to arise most often in that context. However, the revised Rule encompasses the possibility that any imminent, significant transaction in a security (
Typically, only a block (
Transactions that take advantage of such information must be “purposeful”. For example, in the case of research reports, trading activity establishing, increasing, decreasing, or liquidating a position in a security in anticipation of the issuance of a research report in that security is inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade to the extent that the trading is for the purpose of profiting (or avoiding losses) from the report's anticipated impact on the market. Trading activity is “purposeful” if it is undertaken with the intent of altering a firm's position in a security to take advantage of the investor interest that is anticipated on publication of the research report. Hence, trading activity generally would not violate the Rule if it was conducted while effective information barriers (
Market information will be considered non-public until either (i) the information and any changes thereto are disclosed to the trading crowd or (ii) the information can no longer reasonably be expected to have an immediate, material and favorable impact in view of the passage of time since the information was received. Corporate information and research reports will be considered non-public until either (i) the information and any changes thereto have been disclosed to the public (via a news service or similarly widespread method of information dissemination) and a reasonable period of time has elapsed for the information to be comprehended or (ii) the information can no longer reasonably be expected to have an immediate, material and favorable impact in view of the passage of time since the information was received.
Immediate impact means that, as soon as it is released, the information (corporate news, research report, order to be executed, etc.) itself would, upon release, be expected by a reasonable market professional to have an impact on the price of any security in which a front-running transaction was effected.
Material means that the information would be considered important by a reasonable market professional in relation to the security in which a front-running transaction was effected.
Favorable means that the information will cause a price movement in the direction needed to profit from (or avoid a loss through) the front-running transaction.
For purposes of this Rule, “acquired knowledge” means both obtaining information and understanding its importance. Violation of the Rule requires the purposeful use of the information obtained by the member or associated person for personal gain, to benefit a firm account, or to “tip” another person. A member or associated person will not be presumed to have acquired knowledge of non-public information if the information is possessed by an affiliate on the other side of an effective information barrier (
The following are examples of groups of securities which are related to each other:
1. The underlying stock(s)
Listed options on that stock
Single-stock future on that stock
Any index in which the stock comprises 10% or more of the index value
Any equity-linked term notes (derivative products based on performance of the underlying stocks) such as STRIDES
Any index-linked notes (such as MITTS®) in which the underlying stock comprises 10% or more of the index value
2. An Exchange Traded Fund (“ETF'':
Component stocks comprising, at least, 10% of the NAV of the ETF or TIR
Listed option on the ETF or TIR
Listed option on component stock(s) comprising, at least, 10% of the NAV of the ETF or TIR
Futures contracts on the ETF or TIR, or single stock futures on component stock(s) comprising, at least, 10% of the NAV of the ETF or TIR
Any related index, ETF or TIR (which share, to any degree, underlying component stocks) plus all securities related to that related index, ETF or TIR
Even though “self front-running” is not a violation of the front-running Rule, that doesn't mean trades done in anticipation of additional activity in a stock or related security may not constitute manipulation or other violative activity.
After learning in any way about an imminent trade in a security about to take place on the Amex Floor that is expected to have an immediate, material and favorable impact, no member or employee of a member or member organization (“member”) may initiate or transmit or cause to be transmitted to the Floor or to any other market place an order in the same security for an account in which any member or member organization or employee thereof has a direct or indirect interest or for an account with respect to which such member or person exercises investment discretion (collectively, a “member account”) until such time as the information concerning the trade is no longer non-public. Similarly, after learning in any way about such an imminent trade in another market, no member may initiate or transmit or cause to be transmitted to the Amex Floor an order in the same security for a member account until information concerning the trade is no longer non-public. This would not, of course, preclude a legitimate, proprietary market activity (such as block facilitation) or a legitimate, proprietary market strategy.
Same concept as that described above in the section titled “In the Same Security” except this section deals with a combination of related securities.
Same concept as that described above in the section titled “In the Same Security” except this section deals with a combination of related securities.
Same concept as that described above in the section titled “In the Same Security” except this section deals with a combination of related securities.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The CSE proposes to amend its schedule of transaction fees to establish an incentive for providing liquidity on the CSE. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed additions are in italics. Proposed deletions are in brackets.
A. Trading Fees
(a)-(f) No change to text
(g) Proprietary (principal) Transactions
(1)
(2)-(4) No change to text
(h)-(r) No change to text
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 CSE proposes to establish a pilot transaction credit for liquidity providers that is paid by liquidity takers on each intra-CSE execution in Nasdaq securities. By “intra-CSE execution” the CSE means any transaction that is executed on the CSE for which the executing member on the buy-side of the transaction differs from the executing member on the sell-side of the transaction. The CSE believes that the proposed rule accomplishes two strategic objectives: (1) It resolves the issue of member-to-member access fees; and (2) it provides an incentive for members to display orders in the CSE, thereby increasing the liquidity available to investors.
The CSE currently does not permit members to charge other members for intra-CSE trades executed through CSE systems. Unlike the Nasdaq
Specifically, the CSE proposes to amend CSE Rule 11.10(g)(1) to establish a Liquidity Provider Fee for intra-CSE executions of Nasdaq securities. Currently, CSE Rule 11.10(g)(1) provides that Designated Dealers, except those acting as Preferencing Dealers or Contributing Dealers, will be charged $0.0025 per share for principal transactions, including Intermarket Trading System transactions. The $0.0025 per share charge is applied to both sides of the Dealer-to-Dealer transaction, thereby generating $0.005 per share for the CSE. The Exchange is amending this provision by adding subparagraph (B) to charge the liquidity taker,
By adding CSE Rule 11.10(g)(1)(B), the Exchange is limiting the Liquidity Provider Fee to Nasdaq securities traded on the CSE,
The Exchange believes 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 inappropriate burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received in connection with the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All submissions should refer to file number SR-CSE-2002-16 and should be submitted by December 17, 2002.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq proposes to extend a pilot amendment to NASD Rule 4120, which clarified Nasdaq's authority to initiate and continue trading halts in circumstances where Nasdaq believes that extraordinary market activity in a security listed on Nasdaq may be caused by the misuse or malfunction of an electronic quotation, communication, reporting, or execution system operated by, or linked to, Nasdaq. The purpose of this filing is to extend the pilot until May 15, 2003. Accordingly, there is no new proposed rule language. Nasdaq will implement the proposed rule change immediately.
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On May 11, 2001, Nasdaq filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to clarify Nasdaq's authority to initiate and continue trading halts in circumstances where Nasdaq believes that extraordinary market activity in a security listed on Nasdaq may be caused by the misuse or malfunction of an electronic quotation, communication, reporting, or execution system operated by, or linked to, Nasdaq.
According to Nasdaq, as a result of the decentralized and electronic nature of the market operated by Nasdaq, the price and volume of transactions in a Nasdaq-listed security may be affected by the misuse or malfunction of electronic systems, including systems that are linked to, but not operated by, Nasdaq. In circumstances where misuse or malfunction results in extraordinary market activity, Nasdaq believes that it may be appropriate to halt trading in an affected security until the system problem can be rectified. In the period during which the rule change has been in effect, Nasdaq has not had occasion to initiate a trading halt under the rule. Nevertheless, Nasdaq believes that the rule is an important component of its authority to maintain the fairness and orderly structure of the Nasdaq market. Accordingly, Nasdaq believes that the rule should remain in effect on an uninterrupted basis.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A of the Act,
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
In a letter dated July 27, 2001, Instinet Corporation (“Instinet”) commented on the proposed rule change as originally proposed and currently in effect. Nasdaq has filed a proposed rule change—SR-NASD-2001-75—to modify the rule in certain respects and to make the rule permanent.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Nasdaq has requested that the Commission waive the pre-filing notice requirement of at least five business
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All submissions should refer to file number SR-NASD-2002-159 and should be submitted by December 17, 2002.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change consists of an amendment to NYSE Rule 123D
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
Rule 123D: Openings and Halts in Trading
(1) Delayed Openings/Halts in Trading—It is the responsibility of each specialist to ensure that registered stocks open as close to the opening bell as possible, while at the same time not unduly hasty, particularly when at a price disparity from the prior close. Openings and reopenings should be timely, as well as fair and orderly, reflecting a professional assessment of market conditions at the time, and appropriate consideration of the balance of supply and demand as reflected by orders represented in the market. Specialists should, to the best of their ability, provide timely and impartial information at all phases of the opening process. Specialists should ensure adequate personnel are assigned and call upon additional clerical and relief specialist resources to assist in order management and Crowd communication, when appropriate. It is also incumbent upon specialists to seek the advice of Floor Officials when openings are delayed or when a halt in trading may be appropriate due to unusual market conditions.
Brokers should recognize the difficulty in providing accurate information in a constantly changing situation, and that significant changes are often occasioned by single orders or substantial interests delivered via DOT. Brokers should make every effort to ascertain the client's interest as early as possible and to inform the specialist so that such interest can be factored into the opening process. Brokers should communicate to clients the problems caused by delaying their interest until the last minute. Brokers should expect to have time to communicate the essential facts to their clients and to react to the changing picture. They should not expect, however, to be able to delay the opening for every last fragment of this change, and should recognize their obligation to a timely opening. Once a relatively narrow range of opening possibilities is given, the broker and his or her client should have sufficient information to enter a final order. In this regard, brokers should advise their clients against limits which are not firm, or are based solely on where the opening looked at the time the information was given. Brokers should not expect to be given endless opportunities to adjust those limits. Whenever possible the broker should have discretion within a range of the client's interest, and have the power to react to last minute changes without having to go back to the phone. This is particularly true for orders in amounts that represent a small fraction of the total opening volume, but applies to all orders. Brokers must recognize that orders or cancellations merely dropped on the counter can be lost or misplaced, and should hand the order directly to the specialist or his or her assistant and orally state the terms. Failure to do so could result in a monetary error to the broker as well as the specialist.
Floor Officials participate in the regulatory process by providing an impartial professional assessment of unusual situations, as well as advice with respect to pricing when a significant disparity in supply and demand exists. The specialist, however,
A specialist should consider the following areas of specialist performance when involved in an unusual market situation:
• An opening price change that is not in proportion to the size of an imbalance;
• Absence of an indication before a large opening price change;
• Inadequate support after a large opening price change,
• Absence of trading without good cause or Floor Official approval (or an unjustified or unreasonably delayed opening or halt in trading);
• Not obtaining appropriate Floor Official approvals for opening delays, trading halts, and wide price variations.
In addition, a Floor Official should be consulted as soon as it becomes apparent that an unusual situation exists, and a Floor Governor should be consulted if it is anticipated that the opening price may be at a significant disparity from the prior close. If an unusual situation exists, such as a large order imbalance, tape indications should be disseminated, including multiple indications if appropriate with the supervision of a Floor Official. A second Floor Official's opinion in a delayed opening is required if there is difficulty in arriving at a decision; if the size of the price change from the previous NYSE close is three points or more or represents a 10% change in price; or if the stock has not opened within 50 minutes after the opening of business or 20 minutes after an extended delayed opening time frame. All tape indications require Floor Official approval. (See Appendix—Floor Official Approval Form #3)
Exchange policy requires the dissemination of an indication in connection with any delayed opening—involving any stock which has not opened (or been quoted) by 10 a.m. In addition, the dissemination of an indication is mandatory for an opening which will result in a significant price change from the previous close:
All indications require the supervision and approval of a Floor Official. If it involves a bank or brokerage stock, a Floor Director's approval is required. If a Floor Director is unavailable, a Floor Governor's or Senior Floor Official's approval must be obtained. In addition to the mandatory criteria, specialists should use their judgment as to when it is appropriate to seek Floor Official approval for disseminating a price indication.
Mandatory indication policy applies to a foreign-listed security only if the opening price will be at a significant price change (see chart above) from its closing price in the foreign market or the current price in the foreign market.
Mandatory indications for convertible preferred stocks are only required if an indication was disseminated in the underlying common stock.
In this regard the following procedures should be followed for delayed opening and trading halt indications:
• The length of time for the dissemination of indications should be in proportion to the anticipated disparity of the opening or reopening price from the prior sale.
• The number of indications should increase in proportion to the anticipated disparity in the opening or reopening price, with increasingly definitive, “telescoped” indications when an initial narrow indication spread is impractical.
• An indication should be published immediately when trading is halted for a non-regulatory order imbalance. Such indications should be broad enough to allow flexibility, but narrow enough to convey as accurate a picture of supply and demand as possible at the time. In most cases, a final indication with a one point spread would be appropriate. Further telescoping to one-half point could result in unnecessary delay due to a change in the terms of a pivotal order. Even if an indication is not disseminated, specialists should endeavor to provide brokers with an approximate range within which they believe a stock will open.
• Tape indications before the opening should be disseminated at 9:15 a.m., if possible, but any tape indications disseminated prior to 9:30 a.m. require the approval of a Floor Director or Floor Governor, or the approval of a Floor Official if it relates to a spin-off or if trading had been halted and not resumed the prior day.
ITS Pre-Opening Applications must be followed when necessary based upon the anticipated opening price. For example, a Pre-Opening Notification must be issued if a stock is going to open more than .10 of a point from a composite last sale under $15 or more than .25 of a point from a composite last sale of $15 or higher. The spread in the Pre-Opening Application may not exceed .50 of a point if the consolidated close is under $50 or one point if the consolidated close is $50 or higher with limited exception. If a Pre-Opening Application is required on an opening or any reopening and a tape indication is also issued, the indication satisfies the Pre-Opening Application requirement if it is also sent to the ITS participants by the specialist in the form of Pre-Opening Notification. In that case, the maximum ITS spread would not apply. Three minutes must elapse from the time a Pre-Opening Application is issued, and an additional one minute if subsequent notifications are required, before a stock should open.
As with other openings, tape indications are discretionary for IPO's with the approval of a Floor Director or Floor Governor except that it is mandatory if the opening price change as measured from the offering price meets the requirements for a mandatory indication.
If an indication is disseminated after the opening bell, it must be considered a delayed opening. In addition, any stock that is not opened with a trade or reasonable quotation within 30 minutes after the opening of business must be considered a delayed opening (except for IPO's) and requires Floor Official supervision, as well as an indication. That 30-minute time frame may only be extended by a Floor Director on a Floor-wide basis.
More than one indication should be disseminated if an opening will be outside the first indication or if the first indication had a wide spread, especially if the time frame for delayed openings has been extended by the Floor Director. A reduction in time between indications can be used when multiple indications are disseminated. Generally, a minimum of 10 minutes must elapse between the first indication and a stock's opening as measured by the time the indication appears on the PDU. However, when more than one indication is disseminated, a stock may open five minutes after the last indication provided that at least 10 minutes must have elapsed from the dissemination of the first indication.
Tape indications must be disseminated with the approval of a Floor Official prior to the opening or reopening in a stock subject to a regulatory or nonregulatory halt in trading or a delayed opening. A Floor Governor should be consulted if a significant price change is anticipated.
A Floor Director or Floor Governor should be consulted in any case where there is not complete agreement among the Floor Officials participating in the discussion.
Floor Governors should keep apprised of developments when consulted, and should seek the assistance of Floor Directors, when appropriate, as soon as possible. Floor Governors should be prepared to balance the opportunity for brokers to participate in the opening with the need for timeliness, and should assist in identifying opportunities for opening the security, based upon the shifting supply and demand in conjunction with appropriate specialist participation.
Specialists should make every effort to balance timeliness with the opportunity for customer reaction and participation. Although the correct price based on information available at the time is always the goal, specialists and supervising Floor Governors should recognize customers' desires for a timely opening. When the specialist and Floor Governor agree that all participants have had a reasonable opportunity to participate, the specialist should open the stock.
Once trading has commenced, trading may only be halted with the approval of a Floor Governor or two Floor Officials. A Floor Director, or in their absence a Senior Floor Governor, should be consulted if it is felt that trading should be halted in a bank or brokerage stock due to a potential misperception regarding the company's financial viability.
Sometimes the Client Service Division is notified by a listed company in advance of publication concerning news which might have a substantial market impact. That Division will immediately notify the Floor Operations Division, which will advise a Floor Director or Floor Governor, or in their absence a Floor Official.
If Client Service Division makes a recommendation that trading should be halted in a stock pending a public announcement by the company and the Floor Director or Floor Governor disagrees, he or she should seek the opinion of another Floor Director or Floor Governor. If the Floor Directors or Floor Governors are in agreement that trading should not be halted, trading should continue. If one of the two is in agreement with the recommendation to halt trading, then trading should be halted. While the time period may vary from case-to-case as a result of the particular circumstances involved, normally if the announcement is not made within approximately 30 minutes after the delay or halt is implemented, the Exchange may commence the opening or reopening of trading in the stock. Special care is taken to ensure that material non-public information is not disclosed, even inadvertently, as a result of someone overhearing details relating to trading halts or delayed opening situations.
Stopped stock prior to a halt should be printed as “sold” with the specialist as contra and adjusted if the reopening is at a more advantageous price.
It is important that all appropriate Floor Official forms are completed.
(2) Equipment Changeover—The Exchange has established a non-regulatory trading halt condition designated as “Equipment Changeover”.
This condition may be used when trading in a particular security is temporarily inhibited due to a systems, equipment or communications facility problem or for other technical reasons.
In making a determination on whether to halt trading in a security because of an “Equipment Changeover” condition, it is important to keep in mind that once halted, trading cannot be resumed for at least 5 minutes even though, in many cases, the systems or equipment problem may be corrected in a much shorter period of time. Further, if, during the “Equipment Changeover” trading halt, a significant order imbalance (one which would result in a price change from the last sale of one point or more for stocks under $10, the lesser of 10% or three points for $10-$99.99 and five points if $100 or more—unless a Floor Governor deems circumstances warrant a lower parameter) develops or a regulatory condition occurs, the nature of the halt will be changed, notice must be disseminated and trading cannot resume until 10 minutes after the first indication after the new halt condition. This factor should be taken into consideration along with market condition factors in making a determination on whether to declare an official trading halt.
As with any other halt, an “Equipment Changeover” trading halt requires the approval of a Floor Governor or two Floor Officials. All other policies relating to non-regulatory halts would apply including price indications.
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 current policy on reopening trading after a stock has been halted during the trading day requires a minimum of 10 minutes to elapse between the first price indication and the reopening of a stock, and a minimum of 5 minutes to elapse after the last indication, when it does not overlap the prior indication, or a minimum of 5 minutes to elapse after the last indication when it overlaps the prior indication, provided in all cases that the minimum 10 minutes has elapsed since the first indication. It is proposed that these minimum time periods before reopening a stock be compressed from 10 to 5 minutes after the first indication, and to 3 minutes after the last indication, provided that the minimum 5 minutes has elapsed since the first price indication.
Over the years, in developing procedures for openings and reopenings, the Exchange has focused on providing a balance between timeliness and appropriateness of price discovery,
The NYSE believes that the basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under section 6(b)(5)
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.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSE-2002-39 and should be submitted by December 17, 2002.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to establish fees for the NYSE Broker Volume service (“Service”), a new information service that the Exchange plans to make available. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the NYSE and at the Commission.
In its filing with the Commission, the NYSE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for its proposal and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The NYSE proposes to establish fees for the Service, which provides access to the NYSE Broker Volume Database (“Database”), and permits vendors to provide subscribers with NYSE Broker Volume Reports. The Database is an electronic database of share volume information relating to trades that each participating Exchange member has entered into on the Exchange in each
NYSE Broker Volume Reports will consist of the controlled displays of data reports that a vendor will create from the information contained in the Database. While these Reports will be provided by various vendors and will be subject to each vendor's display preferences or styles, the NYSE anticipates that these Reports would provide a ranking of executed NYSE volume by participating Exchange member for each NYSE-traded issue, with total volume per issue indicated for each participating member. Of course, in these Reports, vendors will be free to also present the NYSE Broker Volume data in such manner as they may consider useful to their subscribers, such as sortable by industry, sector,
The Exchange proposes to charge $3,000 per month for access to the Database. The fee will entitle a recipient to use the information included in the database in any manner within its organization. It will also entitle a recipient to create NYSE Broker Volume Reports for distribution to subscribers. The Exchange will require each Database recipient to enter into an appropriate database-access agreement with the NYSE. That agreement will specify that a recipient that creates NYSE Broker Volume Reports for distribution to subscribers must identify distributed NYSE Broker Volume Reports as being based entirely on NYSE information. Note that there will be no restrictions on a vendor's separately displaying other markets' broker volume activity. A report that combines broker volume information from a variety of sources will also be permitted as long as the NYSE Broker Volume that is a component thereof is separately identified as such in the same display.
The Exchange proposes to charge vendors $100 per month for each subscriber device to which the vendor provides NYSE Broker Volume Reports. The Exchange will require each subscriber to execute a suitable subscriber agreement with the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to cap that monthly device charge at a maximum monthly amount of $2,500 per subscriber.
The Exchange notes that the Service directly responds to requests from professional NYSE market participants to increase the availability of NYSE broker volume information. Sell-side representatives use currently available share volume information to display their trading activity in specific Exchange-listed issues, while buy-side representatives use the data to determine which sell-side representative to select for execution of their orders. The Service will supplement existing services with a secure, controlled mechanism that will enhance the ability of these representatives to use such data and to demonstrate or observe trading patterns.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule is consistent with the provisions of section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments regarding the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) Impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSE-2002-61 and should be submitted by December 17, 2002.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before December 26, 2002. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer.
Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044.
Blackford County and the contiguous counties of Delaware, Grant, Jay and Wells in the State of Indiana constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by severe thunderstorms, high straight-line winds and tornadoes that occurred on November 10, 2002. Applications for loans for physical damage may be filed until the close of business on January 21, 2003 and for economic injury until the close of business on August 20, 2003 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations:
The interest rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 346811 and for economic injury is 9S6500.
The Small Business Administration Region IV Regulatory Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, December 3, 2002 at 9 a.m. at the Miami-Dade Community College, Wolfson Campus, ETCOTA Auditorium, Room 7128 (1st Floor), 500 NE 2nd Avenue, Miami, FL 33132, to receive comments and testimony from small business owners, small government entities, and small non-profit organizations concerning regulatory enforcement and compliance actions taken by federal agencies.
Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact Maritza Perez in writing or by fax, in order to be put on the agenda. Maritza Perez, U.S. Small Business Administration, South Florida District Office, 100 South Biscayne Blvd. 7th Floor, Miami, FL 33131, phone (305) 536-5521 x103, fax (305) 536-5058, e-mail
For more information, see our Web site at
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit object, contact Julianne Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, (telephone: 202/619-6529). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 194 meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 194: Air Traffic Management (ATM) Data Link Implementation.
The meeting will be held December 10-12, 2002, starting at 12 p.m. on December 10, and at 1 p.m. on December 12.
This meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036.
RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 833-9434; Web site
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 194 meeting. The agenda will include:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of denials.
The FMCSA announces that 534 individuals were denied exemptions from the Federal vision standard applicable to interstate truck drivers and the reasons for their denials.
Sandra Zywokarte, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, (MC-PSD), 202-366-2987, Department of Transportation, FMCSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal vision standard for a renewable 2-year period if it finds such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such an exemption. (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10))
Accordingly, FMCSA evaluated 534 individual exemption requests on their merits and made a determination that these applicants do not satisfy the criteria established to demonstrate that granting an exemption is likely to achieve an equal or greater level of safety that exists without the exemption. Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of final disposition on his/her individual exemption request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute final agency action. The list published today summarizes the agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reason for denials.
The following 213 applicants lacked sufficient recent driving experience over three years:
The following 57 applicants had no experience operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) and therefore presented no evidence from which FMCSA can conclude that granting the exemption is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption:
The following 101 applicants do not have 3 years of experience driving a CMV on public highways with the vision deficiency:
The following 40 applicants do not have 3 years recent experience driving a CMV with the vision deficiency:
The following 3 applicants, Guy Manning, Percy Martin, and Christopher Watson, do not need the exemption because they already meet the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The following 13 applicants do not qualify because they were charged with moving violation(s) in conjunction with CMV accident(s), which is a disqualifying offense under the exemption criteria:
The following 3 applicants, Clarence Downing, Clifford Foster, and Steven Marshall, had more than two CMV moving violations during a 3-year period or while the applications were pending. Each applicant is only allowed two moving citations.
One applicant, Mr. Charles Grant, does not have sufficient peripheral vision in the better eye to qualify for an exemption.
One applicant, Mr. Kent Richards, does not qualify for the exemption because he had other medical conditions making him otherwise unqualified under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).
The following 25 applicants' licenses were suspended during the 3-year period because of a moving violation. Applicants do not qualify for an exemption with a suspension during the 3-year period.
The following 6 applicants do not have verifiable proof of commercial driving experience during a 3-year period under normal highway operating conditions that would serve as an adequate predictor of future safety performance:
The following 30 applicants were involved in CMV accidents in which they contributed to the accident:
The following 8 applicants do not demonstrate the level of safety required for interstate driving based on information received on state-issued driving reports due to excessive moving/non-moving violations during the 3-year period:
The following 7 applicants do not hold licenses which allow operation of a CMV over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) for all or part of the 3-year period:
The following 14 applicants were placed in the “other” category for having multiple reasons for denial:
One applicant, Mr. Sheldon Fryar, does not qualify for an exemption because he submitted unverifiable documentation during the application process.
The following 5 applicants were disqualified because their vision had not been stable within the three-year period:
One applicant, Mr. Roy Via, was disqualified because he held two CDLs simultaneously. Mr. Via was reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles in the two States where he obtained the CDLs. Mr. Via no longer holds two CDLs.
One applicant, Mr. William Hicks, Jr., was not qualified because he did not meet the vision standard in the better eye.
Finally, 4 Canadian drivers applied for an exemption. The reciprocity agreement between the United States and Canada does not permit Canadian drivers who do not meet the medical provisions in the National Safety Code of Canada but may have a waiver issued by one of the Canadian provinces or territories to drive CMVs in the United States.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Transportation.
Notice of public workshop.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will conduct a public workshop to allow interested parties to learn details about NHTSA's current techniques for data acquisition in dynamic rollover and handling testing. Information will be provided about instrumentation, outriggers, and other procedures. Two fully instrumented vehicles will be made available for inspection.
The public workshop will be held on December 3, 2002, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
The public workshop will be held at NHTSA's Vehicle Research and Test Center, Building 60, Transportation Research Center, 10820 State Route 347, East Liberty, Ohio 43319.
This meeting will not discuss NHTSA's October 7, 2002, proposal to establish a dynamic rollover test procedure and to incorporate information obtained from that testing in consumer information on rollover (67 FR 62528). Any comments on that notice should be submitted to Docket No. NHTSA-2001-9663; Notice 2, by November 21, 2002. This meeting is intended to be a technical meeting to allow interested parties to observe in person and hear details about NHTSA's current techniques for data acquisition in dynamic rollover and handling testing. Information will be provided about instrumentation, outriggers, and other procedures. Two fully instrumented vehicles will be made available for inspection. No information will be provided about the status, projected timetable or NHTSA's tentative conclusions for the final rule on dynamic rollover testing and the presentation of rollover information to the public in the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
For security reasons, attendees must register in advance. To register, obtain directions to the Vehicle Research and Test Center, or request additional information, contact Jan Cooper at telephone (937) 666-4511 extension 208. If Ms. Cooper is not available, you may register by contacting Fred Seeberg at telephone (937) 666-4511 or Susan Weiser at telephone (937) 666-4511 extension 209.
The handouts and other information presented at the workshop will be available for public inspection in the DOT Docket in Washington, DC, within two weeks after the meeting. Copies of the materials will be available at ten cents a page upon request to DOT Docket, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. The DOT Docket is open to the public from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. The material may also be accessed electronically at
The handouts and other information presented at the workshop will also be available on NHTSA's Web site at URL
Should it be necessary to cancel the meeting due to inclement weather or any other emergencies, a decision to cancel will be made as soon as possible and posted immediately on NHTSA's Web site at URL
Jan Cooper at telephone (937) 666-4511 extension 208. If Ms. Cooper is not available, you may contact Fred Seeberg at telephone (937) 666-4511 or Susan Weiser at telephone (937) 666-4511 extension 209.
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
Notice; issuance of advisory bulletin.
RSPA is issuing this follow-up advisory bulletin to owners and operators of natural gas distribution systems to inform them of the susceptibility to premature brittle-like cracking of older plastic pipe and the voluntary efforts to collect and analyze data on plastic pipe performance. A Special Investigation Report issued by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) described how plastic pipe installed in natural gas distribution systems from the 1960s through the early 1980s may be vulnerable to brittle-like cracking resulting in gas leakage and potential hazards to the public and property. On March 11, 1999, RSPA issued two advisory bulletins on this issue. The first bulletin reminded natural gas distribution system operators of the potential poor resistance to brittle-like cracking of certain polyethylene pipe manufactured by Century Utility Products, Inc. The second bulletin advised natural gas distribution system operators of the potential vulnerability of older plastic pipe to brittle-like cracking.
This document can be viewed on the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) home page at:
Gopala K. Vinjamuri, (202) 366-4503, or by e-mail at
On April 23, 1998, NTSB issued a Special Investigation Report (NTSB/SIR-98/01),
RSPA has already issued two advisory bulletins on this issue. The first advisory bulletin, ADB-99-01, which was published in the
The phenomenon of brittle-like cracking in plastic pipe as described in the NTSB report and generally understood within the plastic pipeline industry relates to a part-through crack initiation in the pipe wall followed by stable crack growth at stress levels much lower than the stress required for yielding, resulting in a very tight slit-like openings and gas leaks. Although significant cracking may occur at points of stress concentration and near improperly designed or installed fittings, small brittle-like cracks may be difficult to detect until a significant amount of gas leaks out of the pipe, and potentially migrates into an enclosed space such as a basement. Premature brittle-like cracking requires relatively high localized stress intensification that may be a result from geometrical discontinuities, excessive bending, improper installation of fittings, and dents and gouges. Because this failure mode exhibits no evidence of gross yielding at the failure location, the term brittle-like cracking is used. This phenomenon is different from brittle fracture, in which the pipe failure causes fragmentation of the pipe.
The NTSB report suggests that the combination of more durable plastic pipe materials and more realistic strength testing has improved the reliability of estimates of the long-term hydrostatic strength of modern plastic pipe and fittings. The report also documents that older polyethylene pipe, manufactured from the 1960s through the early 1980s, may fail at lower stresses and after less time than was originally projected. NTSB alleges that
In 1998, NTSB made several recommendations to trade organizations and to RSPA on the need for a better understanding of the susceptibility of plastic pipe to brittle-like cracking. This advisory bulletin responds to one of the NTSB recommendations. It is that RSPA “[d]etermine the extent of the susceptibility to premature brittle-like cracking of older plastic piping (beyond that marketed by Century Utilities Products Inc.) that remains in use for gas service nationwide. Inform gas system operators of the findings and require them to closely monitor the performance of the older plastic piping and to identify and replace, in a timely manner, any of the piping that indicates poor performance based on such evaluation factors as installation, operating, and environmental conditions; piping failure characteristics; and leak history.”
In order to obtain the most complete information on the extent of the susceptibility to premature brittle-like cracking of older plastic pipe, a meeting was convened in May 1999 with all the stakeholders to determine how information on older plastic pipe could be assembled. The meeting included representatives of the American Gas Association (AGA), the American Public Gas Association (APGA), the Gas Research Institute (GRI) (now the Gas Technology Institute), the Midwest Energy Association (MEA), and the Plastic Pipe Institute (PPI).
As a result of the May 1999 meeting, the Joint Government-Industry Plastic Pipe Study Committee was formed to address the recommendations of the NTSB Special Investigation Report. The committee held three separate meetings to prepare a draft response to the NTSB recommendations and a draft industry notification of brittle-like cracking problems, the subject of this advisory bulletin. The committee membership consisted of a representative from OPS, a gas distribution operator from AGA, and the Transportation Safety Institute. Meetings were facilitated by General Physics Corporation, Columbia, MD. One of the committee findings was that there is a lack of data available from the industry to completely identify older plastic pipe that is still in service and may be susceptible to brittle-like cracking.
This finding led to the formation of the Plastic Pipe Database Committee (PPDC) to develop a process for gathering data on future plastic pipe failures with involvement from the states, which have assumed the authority from OPS over gas distribution systems, where most of the plastic pipe is installed. The PPDC is comprised of representatives from Federal and State regulatory agencies and from the natural gas and plastic pipe industries. Members include AGA, APGA, PPI, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), and OPS.
The PPDC database is expected to improve the knowledge base of gas utility operators and regulators and is intended to help reveal any failure trends associated with older plastic piping materials. The PPDC's mission is “to develop and maintain a voluntary data collection process that supports the analysis of the frequency and causes of in-service plastic piping material failures.” It provides an opportunity for government and industry to work together to evaluate the extent of plastic pipe performance problems and to mitigate any risks to safety. The PPDC started gathering data in January 2001 from OPS and State pipeline safety agencies. For more information on the PPDC, go to the AGA Web page (
The susceptibility of some polyethylene pipes to brittle-like cracking is dependent on the resin, pipe processing, and service conditions. A number of studies have been conducted on older polyethylene pipe. These studies have shown that some of these older polyethylene pipes are more susceptible to brittle-like cracking than current materials. These older polyethylene pipe materials include the following:
• Century Utility Products, Inc. products.
• Low-ductile inner wall “Aldyl A” piping manufactured by Dupont Company before 1973.
• Polyethylene gas pipe designated PE 3306. (As a result of poor performance this designation was removed from ASTM D-2513.)
The environmental, installation, and service conditions under which the piping is used are factors that could lead to premature brittle-like cracking of these older materials. These conditions include, but are not limited to:
• Inadequate support and backfill during installation.
• Rock impingement.
• Shear/bending stresses due to differential settlement resulting from factors such as:
• Bending stresses due to pipe installations with bends exceeding recommended practices.
• Damaging squeeze-off practices.
Service temperatures and service pressures also influence the service life of polyethylene piping. Piping installed in areas with higher ground temperatures or operated under higher operating pressures will have a shorter life.
Gas system operators may experience an increase in failure rates with a susceptible material. A susceptible material may have leak-free performance for a number of years before brittle-like cracks occur. An increase in the occurrence of leaks will typically be the first indication of a brittle-like cracking problem. It is the responsibility of each pipeline operator to monitor the performance of their gas system. RSPA issues the following recommendations to aid operators in identifying and managing brittle-like cracking problems in polyethylene piping involving taking appropriate action, including replacement, to mitigate any risks to public safety.
Because systems without known susceptible materials may also experience brittle-like cracking problems, RSPA recommends that all operators implement the following practices for all polyethylene piping systems:
1. Review system records to determine if any known susceptible materials have been installed in the system. Both engineering and purchasing records should be reviewed. Based on the available records, identify the location of the susceptible materials. More frequent inspection and leak surveys should be performed on systems that have exhibited brittle-like cracking failures of known susceptible materials.
2. Establish a process to identify brittle-like cracking failures. Identification of failure types and site installation conditions can yield valuable information that can be used in predicting the performance of the system.
3. Use a consistent record format to collect data on system failures. The AGA Plastic Failure Report form (Appendix F of the AGA Plastic Pipe Manual) provides an example of a report for the collection of failure data.
4. Collect failure samples of polyethylene piping exhibiting brittle-like cracking. Evidence of brittle-like cracking may warrant laboratory testing. Although every failure may not warrant testing, collecting samples at the time of failure would provide the opportunity to conduct future testing should it be deemed necessary.
5. Whenever possible record the print line from any piping that has been involved in a failure. The print line information can be used to identify the resin, manufacturer and year of manufacture for plastic piping.
6. For systems where there is no record of the piping material, consider recording print line data when piping is excavated for other reasons. Recording the print line data can aid in establishing the type and extent of polyethylene piping used in the system.
The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), a noncarrier, has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from the Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M) certain railroad rights-of-way and related improvements, totaling approximately 1.45 miles, in Charlestown, Suffolk County, MA. Massport proposes to acquire B&M's right, title and interest in the rail line, known as the Mystic Wharf Branch line, between milepost 0.00 and milepost 1.45.
Massport indicates that it does not intend to conduct rail operations over the line, but is acquiring it to preserve the rail right-of-way and availability of rail service to the Port. Massport further indicates that it may develop an adjacent haul road on the property at a later date. According to Massport, B&M will retain an exclusive permanent easement on the line for rail operations, and its affiliate Springfield Terminal Railway Company will continue to be responsible for providing rail operations over the line. Massport will not obtain the right or obligation to provide rail freight service on the line. Massport certifies that its projected revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier.
The parties reported that they intended to consummate the transaction on November 13, 2002.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34276, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Keith G. O'Brien, REA, CROSS & AUCHINCLOSS, 1707 L Street NW., Suite 570, Washington, DC 20036.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before December 26, 2002 to be assured of consideration.
Estimated recordkeeping/filing per response: 4 hours.
Estimated record (SAR) completion time: 40 minutes.
In the issue of Tuesday, November 12, 2002, on page 68725, in the second column, in the correction of rule document 02-440, in the first line, the heading “
In rule document 02-22622 beginning on page 57490 in the issue of Tuesday, September 10, 2002, make the following corrections:
1. On page 57490, in the first column, under the
2. On the same page, in the third column, under the
3. On page 57491, in the second column, in the first paragraph, in the last line “require” should read, “required”.
4. On page 57492, in the first column, in the second line, after “must” should read, “must be”.
5. On the same page, in the third column, under the
6. On page 57493, in the first column, under the
7. On the same page, in the third column, in paragraph (d), in the seventh line, “of” should read, “if”.
8. On the same page, in the same column, in the same paragraph, in the eighth line, “compiled” should read, “complied”.
In proposed rule document 02-24393 beginning on page 63022 in the issue of Wednesday, October 9, 2002, make the following corrections:
1. On page 63023, in the first column, in the first paragraph, in the 16th line, “at Appendix A of this NRPM.” should read, “at
2. On the same page, in the same column, in the
3. On page 63037, in the third column, in the last paragraph, in the eighth line from the bottom, “(ÿ7Ea trend)” should read, “(a ~ trend)”.
4. On the same page, in the same column, in the same paragraph, in the seventh line from the bottom, “(there was the” should read, “(there was ~ the”.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes to redefine the reference stall speed for transport category airplanes as a speed not less than the 1-g stall speed instead of the minimum speed obtained in a stalling maneuver. The FAA is taking this action to provide for a consistent, repeatable reference stall speed; ensure consistent and dependable maneuvering margins; provide for adjusted multiplying factors to maintain approximately the current requirements in areas where use of the minimum speed in the stalling maneuver has proven adequate; and harmonize the applicable regulations with those currently adopted in Change 15 to the European Joint Aviation Requirements-25 (JAR-25). These changes will provide a higher level of safety for those cases in which the current methods result in artificially low operating speeds.
December 26, 2002.
Don Stimson, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1129; facsimile (425) 227-1320, e-mail
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the following steps:
(1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page (
(2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on “search.”
(3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information for the Docket you selected, click on the document number for the item you wish to view.
You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at
You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591, or by calling (202) 257-9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding this document may contact their local FAA official, or the person listed under
These amendments are based on notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) Notice No. 95-17, which was published in the
As explained in Notice No. 95-17, the stalling speed (V
The speed margin, or difference in speed, between V
A proper reference stall speed should provide a reasonably consistent approximation of the wing's maximum usable lift. Maximum usable lift occurs at the minimum speed for which the lift provided by the wing is capable of supporting the weight of the airplane. This speed is known as the 1-g stall speed because the load factor (the ratio of airplane lift to weight) at this speed is equal to 1.0 “g” (where “g” is the acceleration caused by the force of gravity) in the direction perpendicular to the flight path of the airplane. Speeds lower than the 1-g stall speed during the stalling maneuver represent a transient flight condition that, if used as a reference for the deriving minimum operating speeds, may not provide the desired speed margin to protect against inadvertently stalling the airplane.
For transport category airplanes, the minimum speed obtained in the stall maneuver of § 25.103 usually occurs near the point in the maneuver where the airplane spontaneously pitches nose-down or where the pilot initiates recovery after reaching a deterrent level of buffet,
For the recent generation of high speed transport category airplanes with swept wings and highly advanced airfoils, however, the minimum speed
In recent years, advanced technology transport category airplanes have been developed that employ novel flight control systems. These flight control systems incorporate unique protection features that are intended to prevent the airplane from stalling. They also prevent the airplane from maintaining speeds that are slower than a small percentage above the 1-g stall speed. Because of their unique design features, the traditional method of establishing V
In these special conditions, the multiplying factors used to determine the minimum operating speeds were reduced in order to maintain equivalency with acceptable operating speeds used by previous transport category airplanes. Since the 1-g stall speed is generally higher than the minimum speed obtained in the stalling maneuver, retaining the current multiplying factors would have resulted in higher minimum operating speeds for airplanes using the 1-g stall speed as a basis for the reference stall speed. However, increasing the minimum operating speeds could impose costs on operators because payloads might have to be reduced to comply with the regulations at the higher operating speeds under some performance-limited conditions. Based on the service experience of the current fleet of transport category airplanes, the costs imposed would not be offset by a commensurate increase in safety.
Several airplane types with conventional flight control systems have also been certificated using the 1-g stall speed as a lower limit to the reference stall speed. Because of the potential deficiencies in using the minimum speed demonstrated in the stalling maneuver, the FAA has been encouraging applicants to use the 1-g stall speed methodology in lieu of the minimum speed obtained in the stalling maneuver. Applicants generally desire to use 1-g stall speeds because the 1-g stall speeds are less dependent on pilot technique and other subjective evaluations. Hence, 1-g stall speeds are easier to predict and provide a higher level of confidence for developing predictions of overall airplane performance. Again, reduced multiplying factors are applied to the 1-g stall speeds to obtain minimum operating speeds equivalent to the speeds that have been found acceptable in operational service. Using 1-g stall speeds ensures that the airplane's minimum operating speeds will not be unreasonably low.
In Notice No. 95-17, the FAA proposed to define the reference stall speed in § 25.103 as a speed not less than the 1-g stall speed, rather than the minimum speed obtained in the stalling maneuver. This proposal was made to provide a consistent basis for use in all type design certification requirements for transport category airplanes. The FAA proposed to introduce the symbol V
In addition, the FAA proposed to reduce the multiplying factors that are used in combination with the reference stall speed to determine the minimum operating speeds by approximately 6 percent. This change would result in minimum operating speeds equivalent to those for most current transport category airplanes since the 1-g stall speed for these airplanes is approximately 6 percent higher than the minimum speed obtained in the stalling maneuver. Demonstrating a minimum stalling speed more than 6 percent slower than the 1-g stall speed, which is possible under the current standards, would provide an unacceptable basis for determining the minimum operating speeds. The proposed standards would prevent this situation from occurring. In this respect, the proposed standards would provide a higher level of safety than the existing standards.
However, the proposed reduced factors would allow lower minimum operating speeds to be established for those airplanes that have a minimum speed in the stalling maneuver approximately equal to the 1-g stall speed. One particular class of airplanes for which this applies is airplanes equipped with devices that abruptly push the nose down (
Traditionally, the existing multiplying factors have been applied to these airplanes. The proposal to define the reference stall speed as the 1-g stall speed would generally have no impact for these airplanes, but reducing the multiplying factors would allow lower minimum operating speeds to be established. Therefore, this proposal would allow these airplanes to be operated at speeds and angles of attack closer to the pusher activation point than has been experienced in operational service.
The FAA considered this reduction in operating speeds for pusher-equipped airplanes to be acceptable, provided the pusher reliably performs its intended function and that unwanted operation is minimized. The FAA has addressed the majority of these concerns in a revision to Advisory Circular (AC) 25-7, the “Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes.” This revision, AC 25-7A, dated March 31, 1998, provides criteria for the design and function of stall indication systems, including arming and disarming, indicating and warning devices, system reliability and safety, and system functional requirements. The FAA plans to address other concerns, such as system design and manufacturing tolerances, and system design features like filtering and phase advancing, in a future revision to AC 25-7A.
In addition to proposing to define the reference stall speed as a speed not less than the 1-g stall speed and to reduce the multiplying factors for establishing the minimum operating speeds, the FAA also proposed to require applicants to demonstrate adequate maneuvering capability during the takeoff climb, en route climb, and landing approach phases of flight. During a banked turn, a portion of the lift generated by the wing provides a force to help turn the airplane. To remain at the same altitude, the airplane must produce additional lift. Therefore, banking the airplane (at a constant speed and altitude) reduces the stall margin, which is the difference between the lift required for the maneuver and the maximum lift capability of the wing. As the bank
In addition to the basic effect of bank angle, however, modern wing designs also typically exhibit a significant reduction in maximum lift capability with increasing Mach number. The magnitude of this Mach number effect depends on the design characteristics of the particular wing. For wing designs with a large Mach number effect, the maximum bank angle that can be achieved while retaining an acceptable stall margin can be significantly reduced. Because the effect of Mach number can be significant, and because it can also vary greatly for different wing designs, the multiplying factors applied toV
To address this issue, the FAA proposed to require a minimum bank angle capability in a coordinated turn without encountering stall warning or any other characteristic that might interfere with normal maneuvering. This requirement would be added to § 25.143 as a new paragraph (g). The proposed minimum bank angles were derived by adding a 15 degree allowance for wind gusts and inadvertent overshoot to a maneuvering capability the FAA considers necessary for the specific cases identified in the proposed new paragraph. These proposed maneuver margin requirements would increase the level of safety in maneuvering flight.
Consistent with the proposed maneuver margin requirements, the FAA proposed adding §§ 25.107(c)(3), 25.107(g)(2), and 25.125(a)(2)(iii) to reference § 25.143(g) in the list of constraints applicants must consider when selecting the minimum takeoff safety speed, final takeoff speed, and reference landing speeds, respectively. The normal all-engines-operating takeoff climb speed selected by the applicant would also have to provide the minimum bank angle capability specified in the proposed § 25.143(g).
Section 25.145(a) requires that there be adequate longitudinal control available to promptly pitch the airplane's nose down from at or near the stall in order to return to the original trim speed. The intent of this requirement is to ensure sufficient pitch control for a prompt recovery if the airplane is inadvertently slowed to the point of stall. The FAA proposed to change the wording of this requirement to replace “V
Although compliance with § 25.145(a) must be demonstrated both with power off and with maximum continuous power, there is no intention to require flight test demonstrations of full stalls at engine powers above that specified in § 25.201(a)(2). Instead of performing a full stall at maximum continuous power, compliance will be assessed by demonstrating sufficient static longitudinal stability and nose down control margin when the deceleration is ended at least one second past stall warning during a one knot per second deceleration. The static longitudinal stability during the maneuver and the nose down control power remaining at the end of the maneuver must be sufficient to assure compliance with the requirement.
Section 25.207 requires that a warning of an impending stall must be provided in order to prevent the pilot from inadvertently stalling the airplane. The warning must occur at a speed sufficiently higher than the stall speed to allow the pilot time to take action to avoid a stall. The speed difference between the stall speed and the speed at which the stall warning occurs is known as the stall warning margin. The FAA proposed amending the size of the stall warning margin required by § 25.207(c) because of the change in definition of the reference stall speed.
Currently, the stall warning must begin at a speed exceeding V
On the other hand, if the stall warning margin were reduced to retain approximately the same stall warning speed, the warning would occur only one or two knots prior to reaching the 1-g stall speed. Although reaching the 1-g stall speed is not likely to be a catastrophic occurrence, the FAA considers such a small stall warning margin to be unacceptable. The FAA proposed requiring a stall warning margin of at least 3 knots or 3 percent, whichever is greater, relative to V
The FAA proposed to require a larger stall warning margin for airplanes equipped with devices that abruptly push the nose down at a selected angle of attack (
The FAA proposed to add a new paragraph, § 25.207(e), to require that, in a slow-down turn with load factors up to 1.5 g and deceleration rates up to 3 knots per second, sufficient stall warning must exist to prevent stalling when recovery is initiated not less than one second after stall warning occurs. The FAA considered this proposed requirement necessary to provide adequate stall warning during a dynamic maneuver, such as a collision avoidance maneuver. In addition, this new paragraph would provide a quantitative requirement with which to assess whether “sufficient margin to prevent inadvertent stalling * * * in turning flight” has been provided as required by § 25.207(a). This proposal would increase the level of safety during maneuvering flight.
The FAA proposed to add a new paragraph, § 25.207(f), to require that stall warning be provided for abnormal airplane configurations likely to be used following system failures. This proposal would add a requirement currently contained in JAR-25 and is consistent with current transport category airplane designs. There would be no impact on the existing level of safety.
On modern transport category airplanes, the natural buffet or vibration
The FAA considers the stall warning margins proposed in §§ 25.207(c) and (d) to be the minimum acceptable warning margins, and that these margins should not be reduced by production tolerances associated with a system added to the airplane to provide an artificial stall warning. The FAA intends for the proposed stall warning margins to be available at the most critical tolerance expected in production. Applicants would be expected to demonstrate compliance with the proposed stall warning margin either by flight testing with the stall warning system set to its critical tolerance setting, or by adjusting flight test data obtained at some other setting.
The tolerances associated with the stall warning system must also be considered in relation to the proposed minimum maneuvering requirements of § 25.143(g). As proposed, § 25.143(g) would require that the airplane be capable of reaching a minimum bank angle during a coordinated turn without encountering stall warning. Because the proposed requirements already provide the capability to overshoot the intended bank angle by 15 degrees, the small differences in the speed at which the stall warning system operates due to system tolerances are not as critical. Therefore, the FAA intends for the minimum bank angles in the proposed § 25.143(g) to apply at the designed nominal setting of the stall warning system. To ensure that large production tolerances do not adversely impact the airplane's maneuvering capability free of stall warning, the bank angle capability specified in the proposed § 25.143(g) should not be reduced by more than two degrees with the stall warning system operating at its most critical tolerance. Applicants would be expected to demonstrate this capability either by flight test with the system set to its critical tolerance, or by analytically adjusting flight test data obtained at some other setting.
To be consistent with the proposed revision of the definition of the reference stall speed, the FAA proposed to incorporate reduced multiplying factors throughout part 25, where appropriate, in requirements that use speeds based on a multiple of the reference stall speed. The FAA also proposed numerous minor wording and structural changes to various sections to improve editorial clarity and to harmonize with the wording and structure proposed for JAR-25. Note that the proposed change to the term “1.3 V
The FAA proposed to add the nomenclature “final takeoff speed” and “reference landing speed” and the abbreviations “V
The FAA also proposed to add the abbreviations V
The FAA proposed to amend § C36.9(e)(1) of Appendix C to part 36 by replacing “1.3 V
In the same manner, the FAA proposed to amend § 97.3(b) by replacing “1.3 V
These proposals were discussed extensively with the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) with the intent of harmonizing the certification requirements related to stall speed for transport category airplanes. The Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) 25 prescribes the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes that are accepted by the aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European states. The JAA introduced an equivalent proposal to the FAA's NPRM 95-17, called Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 25B-215, to amend JAR-25 accordingly. The JAA's final 1-g stall requirements, which are equivalent to those adopted by the FAA in this rulemaking, were adopted by the JAA as part of Change 15 to JAR-25, dated October 1, 2000.
The FAA received nearly 40 comments from 12 different commenters on the proposals contained in Notice No. 95-17. The commenters include airplane pilots, manufacturers, operators, and the associations representing them, foreign airworthiness authorities, an organization specializing in flight testing, and private citizens. In general, the proposal to redefine the reference stall speed for transport category airplanes as the 1-g stall speed instead of the minimum speed obtained in a stalling maneuver was supported, although there were comments critical of specific details, and some commenters were supportive only if the current minimum speed method would be retained as an option that would be available for the certification of small transport category airplanes.
Those commenters who recommend retaining the minimum stall speed methodology for small transport category airplanes—small airplane manufacturers and the association representing them—believe that the proposed changes introduce additional cost and complexity into applicants'
One manufacturer of small transport category airplanes notes that when 1-g stall speeds were determined for one of their airplanes, the resulting operating speeds were virtually the same as those determined using the current requirements. This commenter also states that variation in piloting technique remains an issue even if the stall speeds are defined as a 1-g condition, and a more expensive flight test data system is needed to determine where the 1-g stall break occurs. The commenter points out that straight (
The FAA disagrees that the proposed rule changes significantly increases cost and does not increase safety. Cost data supplied by one commenter substantially overstates the incremental cost of the test instrumentation and other items needed to support a 1-g stall speed evaluation. This commenter allocates the entire cost of a new data collection system, including purchase, installation, and calibration, to the proposed rule change, stating that this new system would be needed to determine the “g-break” denoting the 1-g stall speed.
The only additional instrumentation the FAA considers necessary to determine the 1-g stall speed instead of the minimum speed in the stalling maneuver would be accelerometers capable of resolving the load factor normal to the flight path. At the minimum, one accelerometer aligned along the expected 1-g stall pitch angle may provide acceptable data. Determining the point at which the 1-g stall condition is reached is most readily accomplished by a continuous calculation of the load factor-corrected lift coefficient and noting the point at which this parameter is first a maximum. Experience to date with applicants voluntarily complying with the proposed requirements has not highlighted any significant difficulties in determining the 1-g stall speed using typically existing data recording equipment. These applicants have included manufacturers of both large and small transport category airplanes.
The FAA is not surprised that for one of the commenter's airplane types, the current requirements and the 1-g stall proposal yielded virtually the same minimum operating speeds. As noted in Notice No. 95-17 and repeated in the background discussion above, the proposed change to the multiplying factors that are applied to the reference stall speed to obtain the minimum operating speeds was intentionally chosen to yield equivalent operating speeds, on average, for current transport category airplanes. However, the proposed standards would prevent the reference stall speed from being more than six percent slower than the 1-g stall speed, which the current standards do not prohibit. In this respect, the proposed standards would provide a higher level of safety than the existing standards by ensuring that unreasonably low minimum operating speeds will not be obtained.
The FAA agrees that the use of a 1-g stall speed may not entirely remove the effect of pilot technique from being a factor during the flight tests to determine the reference stall speed. However, the use of a 1-g stall speed would significantly mitigate this effect. Subjective assessments of airplane behavior for identifying the stalled condition (using the criteria specified in § 25.201(d)) would no longer be used to determine the reference stall speed. (These criteria will continue to be used, however, for evaluating the airplane handling characteristics during the stalling maneuver.) Test pilot techniques that take advantage of these subjective assessments and allow unreasonably low load factors, and hence unreasonably low stall speeds, to be achieved would no longer be permitted.
In addition, it is usually much easier to measure airspeed accurately at the 1-g stall condition than at the minimum speed reached in the stalling maneuver. Based on the experience gained from the many type certification programs that have already used the 1-g stall speed methodology, the FAA has determined that this methodology provides a more consistent, repeatable reference stall speed than the existing method.
One commenter notes that the International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Airworthiness Technical Manual (Document 9051, 1987) uses the abbreviation V
The FAA actively promotes international standardization and has been working closely with the regulatory authorities of Europe and Canada during this rulemaking. The FAA considered using the abbreviation V
One commenter questions the reason for the new wording in § 25.103(a)(1) to describe the option of idle or zero thrust. The commenter does not see the new wording as an improvement in clarity. The current rule states that zero thrust must be used in determining the stalling speed, except that idle thrust may be used when it does not appreciably affect the stalling speed. Stated in this manner, the rule permits the use of zero thrust when idle thrust causes an increase in the stalling speed. On some turboprop airplanes, where flight idle thrust may be negative, a lower stall speed may be demonstrated using zero thrust than would occur with idle thrust.
The FAA considers such a loss of stall speed margin in a normal flight condition to be unacceptable. In Notice No. 95-17, the FAA proposed a change such that the reference stall speed must be determined with idle thrust, except in cases where that thrust level causes an appreciable decrease in the stall speed. For such cases, not more than zero thrust must be used. There were no
One commenter notes that while the proposal to the reference stall speed in terms of a 1-g stall speed would reduce the amount of scatter in the flight test data used to determine the stall speed, a significant amount of scatter would remain. To further limit the amount of experimental error inherent in the data analysis process, the commenter suggests defining the reference stall speed in terms of the maximum normal force coefficient instead of the maximum lift coefficient. Using the normal force coefficient would yield slightly higher reference stall speeds, which could penalize an airplane's load carrying capability due to the resulting increase in minimum takeoff and landing speeds, but certification costs might be reduced because the data reduction process would be simplified.
The FAA agrees that defining the reference stall speed in terms of the maximum normal force coefficient instead of the maximum lift coefficient may further reduce flight test data scatter and simplify data acquisition and analysis. However, these slight benefits are outweighed by the potentially significant economic penalties associated with the resulting higher reference stall speed. Many recent airplane types have been certified using 1-g stall criteria similar to those contained in Notice No. 95-17 and this experience does not indicate any significant problems in data quality or in the acquisition and analysis process. Data scatter using the proposed 1-g stall criteria is inconsequential compared to the data uncertainty inherent in the current stall speed definition. Therefore, the commenter's suggested change is not being adopted. However, the FAA would find it acceptable if an applicant proposed using the higher reference stall speeds derived from the maximum normal coefficient in order to simplify the data acquisition and analysis process. The proposed amendment need not be changed to allow this option.
A commenter suggests that it is technically more accurate in § 25.103(c) to refer to the lift coefficient in the definition of V
Detailed comments were received from one commenter regarding the effect of the proposed rules on airplanes equipped with devices that abruptly push the nose down (
The commenter points out that ensuring operation when desired and preventing unwanted operation are contradictory goals that result in design tradeoffs. Regardless of the design choice, however, allowing operation closer to the device activation point increases both the probability of reaching the activation point, where the device may fail to operate, and the probability of unwanted operation. Considering these aspects, the commenter contends that the proposed standards would reduce the level of safety relative to the current standards.
The commenter suggests adding the stipulation, for airplanes equipped with a device that abruptly pushes the nose down at a selected angle-of-attack, that V
The FAA agrees with the commenter's analysis and fundamental principle that in terms of the protection from stall provided by such a device, the characteristics resulting from its operation, and its reliability and safety, there are significant differences from a conventionally stalling airplane. Also, the difference between the 1-g stall speed and the minimum speed obtained in the stalling maneuver for this class of airplanes is closer to 0 to 3 percent, rather than the 6 percent average for conventionally stalling airplanes upon which the reduction in operating speed factors was based. Permitting a reduction in the operating speeds for this class of airplanes could potentially result in a reduction in safety that is not justified by existing operational experience.
The commenter's suggested additional constraint on V
The effect of this provision is to increase the minimum operating speeds, relative to the Notice No. 95-17 proposals, for airplanes equipped with devices that abruptly push the nose down at a selected angle-of-attack, but only if the device activates at a speed higher than V
The FAA received several comments regarding the proposed addition of specific maneuvering requirements as a new § 25.143(g). One commenter suggests that the FAA should perform a rigorous study before including a specific gust margin in airplane maneuvering requirements. The commenter points out that the same atmospheric gust would have different effects at different airspeeds, and that using the same gust margin throughout causes the proposed after takeoff maneuvering requirement at V
Several commenters claim that the proposed maneuvering requirements, particularly the one associated with the final takeoff speed (V
This commenter further states that for many existing large transport category airplanes, an early onset of natural stall warning results in a larger stall warning margin than the minimum margin required by the regulations. At V
This commenter also questions whether the proposed 40 degree bank angle requirement at V
As a final comment on this section, this commenter suggests that if the FAA believes that increased bank angles are appropriate for the en route flight paths, which are of longer time duration, this need should be addressed separately from the takeoff flight path requirements. However, the commenter does not consider it necessary to do so as this commenter is unaware of any associated safety issues.
The FAA disagrees that the maneuvering requirements specified in the proposed § 25.143(g) are excessive, including the proposed 40 degree bank angle requirement at V
The proposed maneuvering requirements consist of the minimum bank angle capability the FAA deems adequate for the specified regimes of flight combined with a further 15 degrees of bank angle to provide a safety margin for various operational factors. These operational factors include both potential environmental conditions (
The maneuvering requirement at V
For those airplane types for which the proposed maneuvering requirements would lead to an increase in V
In addition to receiving comments on the minimum bank angles proposed for the new § 25.143(g), the FAA received comments on the footnotes accompanying the table of conditions to
Although the FAA agrees with the intent of this comment, the FAA believes that the comment may stem from a misinterpretation of the proposed requirement. The condition specified in the proposed footnote 1 to § 25.143(g) represents the highest thrust or power setting for the applicable conditions of weight, altitude, and temperature. If system design features or other relevant characteristics result in any condition of weight, altitude, or temperature being more critical than another, compliance with this requirement must be demonstrated for the most critical condition of weight, altitude, and temperature. This point is addressed further in guidance material being proposed for inclusion into AC 25-7A (a notice of proposed advisory circular revisions will be published in the
The commenter further suggests simplifying the text of footnote 3 by replacing the FAA proposed text with, “The critical thrust or power for all engines operating should be that which in the event of an engine failure would result in the minimum climb gradient specified in § 25.121, or any greater thrust or power if more critical.” Although the FAA agrees with the intent of simplifying this footnote, the wording proposed in Notice No. 95-17 is needed to address all-engines-operating climb procedures, such as those used for noise abatement, that may use a thrust or power setting less than that used during the takeoff. Therefore, the FAA does not concur with the commenter's suggestion.
Section 25.143(g) is adopted as proposed.
One commenter suggests that the Notice No. 95-17 proposal to replace “V
The FAA does not intend for the change in the reference stall speed to alter the basic requirement of § 25.145(a), namely that the capability exists on transport category airplanes, at the specified configurations and power settings, to pitch the nose down from any point in the stalling maneuver and regain the trim speed. The commenter's suggested change would reduce the stringency of the regulatory requirement, while depending on non-regulatory guidance material to provided assurances that equivalent capability is retained.
Because the FAA cannot rely on non-regulatory material to establish a capability required of the airplane, the FAA has not adopted the commenter's suggested change. However, to improve clarity, the words “the stall,” proposed in Notice No. 95-17, have been replaced by “stall identification (as defined in § 25.201(d))” in the adopted § 25.145(a). In addition, techniques to show compliance with this requirement without performing a stall at maximum continuous power/thrust were included in the recent issuance of AC 25-7A. Consistent with the preamble discussion of Notice No. 95-17, compliance at maximum continuous power may be assessed by demonstrating sufficient static longitudinal stability and nose down control margin when the deceleration is ended at least one second past stall warning during a one knot per second deceleration. The static longitudinal stability during the maneuver and the nose down control power remaining at the end of the maneuver must be sufficient to assure compliance with the requirement.
Two comments were received regarding the flight test demonstrations to show compliance with § 25.177. Both comments were relative to the safety aspects of conducting full rudder sideslips at low airspeeds, as required by the current rule, although both commenters also noted that this situation may be exacerbated by the lower speeds that can result from the proposed change. The proposed changes were not intended to result in overall lower speeds. Because these comments raise issues with not only speed, but also rudder deflection, they are considered beyond the scope of the Notice No. 95-17 proposals, and § 25.177 has been adopted as proposed. These comments will be retained for consideration of potential future rulemaking to address the concerns expressed by the commenters.
There were many comments on the proposed changes to the stall warning requirements of § 25.207. One commenter requests explicit criteria to address whether or not a stick shaker is required to provide stall warning, or if a visual or aural warning is sufficient. This same commenter also asked whether production tolerances affecting the stall warning margin will be addressed in AC 25-7.
The issue of what constitutes an acceptable artificial stall warning is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, as stated in the current § 25.207(b) (and unchanged by this rulemaking), “a visual stall warning device that requires the attention of the crew within the cockpit is not acceptable by itself.” The FAA is considering future rulemaking to further address the issue of what constitutes an acceptable stall warning. Regarding stall warning tolerances, the FAA has proposed the inclusion of material addressing stall warning system tolerances into a proposed revision to AC 25-7A (a notice of proposed advisory circular revisions will be published in the
Several commenters took issue with the proposed three percent or three knots stall warning margin of § 25.207(c). One commenter believes that the proposal represents an unjustified increase in the severity of this requirement relative to the current rules. This commenter notes that a requirement for stall warning to begin one percent above the 1-g stall speed would be equivalent to the current requirement of a seven percent margin from the minimum speed obtained in the stalling maneuver. As a compromise, this commenter suggests a two percent or two knot stall warning margin relative to the redefined reference stall speed. Another commenter has a concern over possible difficulties in showing compliance with the proposed arbitrary numerical margin for airplanes with a gradual loss of lift
Another commenter has concerns that the change in stall warning margin requirements will reduce the margin that is currently required and therefore would not retain the existing level of safety. This commenter believes that the proposed margin would not represent a reasonable balance between providing the pilot with enough warning to avert an impending stall and providing adequate maneuvering capability at the minimum operating speeds. This commenter suggests retaining the current seven knot stall warning margin from the reference stall speed, even though the reference stall speed would be redefined as the 1-g stall speed, in order to retain the existing level of safety.
Another commenter considers the proposed § 25.207(c) to represent an unjustified increase in the currently required minimum stall warning margin that would inhibit use of part of the airplane flight envelope within which the airplane is controllable without risk of structural damage. The commenter remarks that in windshear avoidance maneuvers, the likelihood of escape is maximized by flying at the minimum controllable airspeed. The commenter also disagrees with the statement made in Notice No. 95-17 that a speed lower than the 1-g stall speed represents a transient flight condition. The commenter notes that in steady climbing flight, the lift force needed to sustain steady flight is less than the airplane weight, and for larger climb angles, steady flight is sustainable at speeds lower than the 1-g stall speed. This commenter suggests revising the proposed § 25.207(c) to require the stall warning to begin at the greater of: (1) A speed higher than either one knot or one percent higher than the reference stall speed; or (2) seven knots or seven percent higher than the speed at the occurrence of a stall (as defined in § 25.201(d)).
Other comments were received on the proposed § 25.207(c) relative to the engine thrust or power setting associated with the proposed three percent or three knot stall warning margin. Two commenters support removing the reference to “engines idling and throttles closed” so that the same stall warning margin would apply to all power and thrust settings. One commenter suggests that to be consistent with the proposed § 25.103(a)(1) it is unnecessary to refer to throttles. This commenter also questions why the proposal states that “§ 25.103(a)(5) does not apply” when defining the reference stall speed to be used in connection with this requirement.
In combination with adopting the 1-g stall speed as the appropriate benchmark for the low speed end of an airplane's limit flight envelope, the FAA considers a warning three knots or three percent prior to reaching this speed to be the minimum margin needed to prevent the crew from inadvertently slowing beyond this speed. A categorical statement regarding the severity of this requirement relative to the current requirement cannot be made since the effect of the change in the reference stall speed will vary with airplane type (and with the high lift device configuration on a given type). It would, however, be inappropriate to couple the existing seven percent margin requirement relative to the minimum speed reached in the stalling maneuver with the redefined reference stall speed as one commenter suggests.
The FAA does not consider the proposed stall warning margin to unduly restrict access to useable parts of the airplane flight envelope. Relative to windshear escape, the dynamic nature of windshear warrants, if anything, a larger speed margin to the stalled condition. Using current windshear escape procedures, frequent and irregular penetrations of the stall warning margin are more likely to occur. This type of trained maneuver was not envisioned when the current stall warning requirements were promulgated. Regarding the comment that for climbing flight the lift force will be less than the airplane's weight, this condition is irrelevant for establishing the reference stall speed or defining a reasonable stall warning margin. The FAA has determined that the intent of the proposal is sufficiently clear in this respect.
The FAA agrees that the stall warning margin for other than idle thrust or power settings should be addressed. The FAA did not intend to restrict consideration of the adequacy of the stall warning margin to only the idle thrust or power condition. The general requirement for a stall warning with sufficient margin to prevent inadvertently stalling prescribed by § 25.207(a) applies to all normal configurations and flight conditions. The three knot or three percent warning margin reference in the proposed § 25.207(c) would specifically quantify this requirement for the conditions under which V
In response to the comments, and to clarify the situation regarding the acceptable stall warning margin for conditions other than those under which VSR is defined, the FAA has revised the proposed § 25.207(c) by specifying that stall warning must begin at least five knots or five percent, whichever is greater, prior to the speed at which the airplane is considered stalled (as defined in § 25.201(d)). This is also the stall warning margin required by JAR-25 prior to the adoption of Change 15, and is considered to neither increase nor decrease the current level of safety. By referencing the speed at which the stall is identified for determining the adequacy of the stall warning margin, and not limiting this requirement to specific conditions of thrust or power, bank angle, or center-of-gravity position, the adopted rule requires that the five knot or five percent margin must be available at all thrust/power settings, bank angles, and center-of-gravity positions.
The FAA expects this stall warning margin to be demonstrated for the conditions of bank angle, power, and center-of-gravity position prescribed for the stall demonstration tests by § 25.201(a). If, however, the stall warning margin may be affected by the system design (
The proposed three knot or three percent (whichever is greater) stall warning margin requirement relative to V
The proposed wording, along with additional explanatory material that would have been proposed for addition to AC 25-7A, was intended to clarify that for center-of-gravity positions other than that specified in the proposed § 25.103(a)(5), the same center-of-gravity position should be used for both the stall speed and the stall warning speed. However, due to the potential for confusion over the proposed wording, and because the explicit stall warning speed margin prescribed by the proposed § 25.207(c) only applies to the conditions under which VSR is determined, the proposed wording regarding center-of-gravity position has been removed. Instead, the center-of-gravity position specified in § 25.103(b)(5) (re-numbered from the proposed § 25.103(a)(5)) has been included in the list of conditions for which the specific three knot or three percent stall warning margin of the adopted § 25.207(d) applies. For other center-of-gravity positions, the acceptable stall warning margin is now addressed in the adopted § 25.207(c).
Because of the differences between naturally stalling airplanes and those that employ a device to abruptly push the nose down at a selected angle of attack to identify the stall, the FAA proposed that the stall warning margin for airplanes that employ these devices would be required to be five knots or five percent prior to the speed at which the device activates. The application of § 25.207(d), as adopted, in combination with the adopted new requirement of § 25.103(d) will ensure that there must be a 5 knot or 5 percent stall warning margin relative to VSR for these airplanes. Therefore, the proposed § 25.207(d) is removed.
The stall speed margins required by the adopted §§ 25.207(c) and (d) must be available in terms of calibrated airspeed. Normally, test demonstrations at the conditions specified in § 25.201 (Stall demonstration) will be sufficient to show compliance with these requirements. However, if the stall warning margin for a particular airplane type varies significantly with power or thrust, center-of-gravity position, bank angle, of some other characteristic, additional test conditions may be necessary.
As with other part 25 requirements, shortfalls in demonstrating compliance with the literal terms of the stall warning margin requirements would necessitate either a design change, an exemption (per § 11.25), or features that would provide equivalent safety using an alternate means of compliance (per § 21.21(b)(1)). Other rulemaking projects in which the stall warning margin is an issue (
Several commenters object to the accelerated stall warning margin requirement proposed as a new § 25.207(e). Some of the commenters claim that, in some cases, attempts to demonstrate compliance with this proposed requirement during flight testing resulted in maneuvers that the commenters consider inappropriate for a transport category airplane. These commenters provide several examples of the maneuvers they described as inappropriate. Other commenters note that the phrase “to prevent stalling” needs further clarification. One commenter questions the lack of a bank angle stipulation in the proposed requirement and provided an analysis indicating that bank angles of about 45 degrees have the greatest effect on aerodynamics. This commenter also claims that a prescribed load factor and deceleration rate are not simultaneously achievable at C
The FAA concurs that detailed guidance material may be helpful to ensure an appropriate and consistent demonstration of compliance with the proposed accelerated stall warning requirement. This material will be presented in the proposed revisions to AC 25-7A, which will be published in the
The purpose of the proposed requirement is to ensure that adequate stall warning exists to prevent an inadvertent stall under the most demanding conditions likely to occur in normal flight. The proposed conditions of 1.5g and a three knots per second entry rate (
As noted by one of the commenters, the bank angle used during the maneuver to demonstrate compliance with this proposed requirement may affect the airplane's stall characteristics. However, this aspect is considered secondary to the primary effect of an elevated load factor on the stall warning margin. For this reason, § 25.207(e) is revised from the version published in the NPRM to prescribe a load factor rather than a bank angle. An acceptable means of producing this load factor would be a 48-degree banked turn in level flight.
As adopted, § 25.207(e) requires an airspeed deceleration rate of greater than two knots per second instead of rates up to three knots per second. This change clarifies the intent of achieving a reasonable deceleration rate rather than one specific value, and will result in the intended penetration beyond the onset of stall warning. The FAA anticipates that with typical test techniques, requiring a deceleration rate of greater than two knots per second will result in deceleration rates close to
To clarify the meaning of the phrase “to prevent stalling,” the parenthetical expression, “(as defined in § 25.201(d)),” has been added in the adopted § 25.207(e). Therefore, any of the acceptable indications of a stall applicable to stall demonstration testing is also considered an indication that the airplane has stalled during the accelerated stall warning demonstration. If any of these indications of a stall occur during the accelerated stall warning demonstration, compliance with § 25.207(e) will not have been demonstrated.
Two commenters offered comments relative to subpart C (Structure) of part 25. One of these commenters suggests that the interpretation of the stall speed used in subpart C be undertaken urgently as part of the Harmonization Work Program. The other commenter suggests that either subpart C should be reworked to reflect the introduction of V
These comments regarding subpart C of part 25 are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which is confined to the definition of the stall speed used for airplane performance determination and handling characteristics. This amendment does not affect the stall speeds used in subpart C for structural analysis.
Further consideration by the FAA regarding the proposed revisions to §§ 1.1 (Definition of reference landing speed) and 97.3(b) (Definition of aircraft approach category) has resulted in minor changes in the adopted rule relative to the original proposals. The proposed definition of reference landing speed had used the term “landing screen height” to identify the point in the approach at which the reference landing speed is determined. Although this term is defined in the preamble discussion of the rule proposal, it is not defined or used elsewhere within the regulations. The landing distance requirements of § 25.125 specify this height as the 50 foot height, and the adopted definition of reference landing speed in § 1.1 has been changed to be consistent with this requirement.
The preamble discussion references approvals of steep approach operations that use a “landing screen height” of less than the 50 foot height prescribed by the § 25.125 landing distance requirements. These types of approvals are not the norm, however, and should be processed as equivalent safety findings, special conditions, or exemptions, whichever is appropriate for the specific case.
In addition to replacing “landing screen height” with “50 foot height,” the words “for manual landings” have been removed from the definition of “reference landing speed” since the applicable § 25.125 landing distance requirements make no such distinction. Approval of automatic landing systems, including consideration of associated landing speeds and distances, is addressed in FAA ACs 20-57A, 120-28D, and 120-29.
Further review of the proposed change to § 97.3(b) indicated a potential for confusion with respect to its application to aircraft certificated using V
One adverse comment was received on the proposed change to § C36.9(e)(1) of Appendix C to part 36. The commenter notes that the proposed change could result in increasing the speed used to show compliance with the approach noise requirements for those cases where V
The FAA disagrees with the commenter. The proposed amendment would have replaced the words “1.3 V
The reference to 1.3 V
In a later amendment to part 36 (Amendment 36-5), the FAA recognized that, for various reasons, a speed higher than 1.3 V
The additional 10 knot speed increment added to 1.3 V
The FAA's proposal would have set the speed over the approach noise measuring point at V
Subsequent to the publication of Notice 95-17, Working Group 1 (WG1) of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) recommended to the ICAO CAEP that the noise certification approach reference speed contained in Volume I of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the ICAO International Standard and Recommended Practice for Aircraft Noise Certification) be changed to V
As a member of the ICAO Council, CAEP and WG1, the FAA supported the conclusion to use V
Other than the changes noted above, the proposed changes to part 25 are adopted as proposed in Notice No. 95-17.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), there are no requirements for information collection associated with this amendment.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practical. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and the Joint Aviation Authorities regulations, where they exist, and has identified no differences in these amendments and the foreign regulations.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency to propose or adopt a regulation only if the agency makes a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards. Where appropriate, agencies are directed to use those international standards as the basis of U.S. standards. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules. This requirement applies only to rules that include a Federal mandate on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector, likely to result in a total expenditure of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation.)
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this final rule: (1) Has benefits that do justify its costs; (2) is not a “significant rulemaking” either as defined in the Executive Order or in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (3) will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities; (4) will lessen restraints on international trade; and (5) will not contain a significant intergovernmental or private sector mandate.
These analyses, available in the docket, are summarized as follows.
This rule supports the existing level of safety because type certification for part 25 airplanes based on 1-g criteria is common practice, the FAA having accepted 1-g stall criteria since the mid-80s for most part 25 type certifications, in many cases through the Issue Paper process. This rule establishes the codification of this practice, and thus adds the safety benefit of preventing deviation from this practice. The FAA has not attempted to quantify this benefit.
The FAA also expects this rule will result in added benefits in the form of cost savings to those affected manufacturers that carry out type certification to both FAR and JAR requirements. Historically, U.S. manufacturers that certificate part 25 airplanes to both FAA and JAA requirements using 1-g stall speed criteria have done so by working out separate arrangements with both authorities. The FAA expects compliance with a single harmonized FAA/JAA regulatory standard will be simpler and more direct than compliance through separate arrangements, and that cost savings will result. The FAA has not attempted to quantify this benefit.
As noted, the FAA has accepted 1-g stall speed criteria for most part 25 type certification projects since the mid-1980s. The FAA expects this rule will not change the substance of accepted certification practices. Thus, no more than minimal additional certification costs will be associated with this new rule.
However, as certification practices and aviation technology have evolved since the mid-1980s, the costs of certification at 1-g have changed. As these costs have changed, manufacturers' estimates of comparative certification costs have changed; and FAA's estimates of the costs associated with this rule have changed.
This final rule evaluation was begun in 1999. It completes the regulatory evaluation process that began with research pursuant to a 1996 NPRM. Comments to the docket in response to that NPRM were received in 1996. Pursuant to this final rule evaluation, providers of previously received information were asked to review, clarify and update their information as necessary. Their clarifications and updates, together with the previous research and analysis are the basis for the conclusions developed in this final rule evaluation.
While the costs provided in the 1996 comments were much higher than those of the 1996 NPRM, the 1999 clarifications and updates brought the costs developed in this final rule evaluation more into line with those of the NPRM. Cost estimates for typical
• In 1996, the NPRM concluded that the costs of 1-g compliance differed depending upon the size of the airplane certified. In then-current dollars, the NPRM estimated compliance costs of $195,000 for a type certification for large part 25 airplanes. For small part 25 airplanes, the NPRM estimate included a one-time cost of $70,000 for each manufacturer and subsequent type certification costs of $250,000. This final rule evaluation concludes that neither regulatory nor practical distinctions between small and large airplanes allow the unambiguous grouping by size category needed to support the level of economic analysis characteristic of final rules.
• In 1996, comments received in response to the NPRM gave additional compliance costs per type certification in then-current dollars that ranged from $331,412 for instrumentation costs plus $35,029 for testing and analysis, to an undifferentiated $1,000,000 per type certification project.
• For this final rule evaluation, the baseline for cost comparisons is the estimate of the current cost of type certification using minimum stall speed as the reference datum for a typical part 25 airplane. Building on the NPRM, the comments to the Docket, and the clarifications and updates, this final rule evaluation estimates typical additional compliance costs of about $130,000 for a type certification program conducted at 1-g for a part 25 airplane, expressed in 1999 dollars.
• During the time the FAA has been accepting certification at 1-g, additional costs of instrumentation have become small to negligible. Falling instrumentation costs and rising instrumentation capability have resulted in acceptable test data being achieved by adding as little additional instrumentation as one accelerometer to the test equipment required for certification at minimum stall speed. (The estimated uninstalled cost of an accelerometer appropriate to this use is the minimal cost of $500 to $2,000, in 1999 dollars. Further, accelerometer and gyroscopic components already present in the inertial navigation systems incorporated on modern transport category airplanes are the fundamental starting point for instrumentation sufficient to measure a 1-g stall speed.)
In summary, for a typical part 25 airplane, the current industry practice of type certification using 1-g stall as the reference datum adds a minor cost ($130,000) for flight-testing and analysis to the costs of the baseline alternative of type certification using minimum speed stall. This practice also is expected to add very minor or no cost for additional instrumentation beyond that required for the type certification baseline.
This final evaluation notes the possibility, also raised in the NPRM and in the 1999 clarifications and updates, that codification of this ongoing practice, and its consequent extension to all U.S. manufacturers and to all part 25 airplanes they will certificate in the future, could have an adverse impact on marketing efforts by manufacturers. (In general, this rule reduces the multiplying factors used to convert reference speed to minimum operational speeds by about 6 percent. When the reduced multiplying factors are applied to the 1-g stall speed, which is generally about 6 percent higher than minimum speed stall, the resulting minimum operating speeds generally will result in the same values produced by using minimum stall speed as the reference datum. However, variation is possible. This possible variation is at the heart of assertions of marketing impact. No such impact is considered in this evaluation, for the reasons that follow:
The FAA finds that this rule improves the codification of current industry practices that have evolved over a period of about 15 years. These practices already result in the benefits of the current level of safety. With one exception, this rule will add little or nothing to these benefits. The exception is the elimination of the possibility that a future part 25 airplane might not be certificated based on 1-g stall speed criteria. Removing this possibility ensures that the benefits being received cannot be reduced, thus diminishing the current level of safety. The agency has not attempted to quantify either this added benefit or the benefits already being received.
Another additional benefit of improved codification is that type certification to both FAR and JAR requirements will be simpler, more direct and consequently less costly. The agency has not attempted to quantify this harmonization benefit.
Because it is an improvement of the codification of voluntary industry practices, the FAA concludes that this rule will add little or no cost to the industry. The agency estimates that affected manufacturers already voluntarily incur costs of about $130,000 (in 1999 dollars) for each type certification project they base on 1-g stall speed criteria, beyond the costs they would incur in type certification based on minimum stall speed criteria.
The FAA concludes that while this final rule will add little or nothing to the safety benefits and the certification costs that already result from voluntary industry practices, it does add safety and harmonization benefits. Thus, the FAA believes this rule is cost effective.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the Act.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should
Evaluation of this final rule in terms of this standard shows that no current manufacturer of transport category airplanes is a small manufacturer. Although the future entry of a small manufacturer into the business of manufacturing transport category airplanes is possible, such an unusual single entrant could not be construed to equate to a “substantial number.”
Finally, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required for this rule because it adds little or nothing to the costs that otherwise would be required for type certification of a transport category airplane by a manufacturer of any size. Therefore the impact of this rule would not be significant whether it fell on a large or on a small manufacturer.
In light of these arguments, the FAA certifies that the rule change will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
Because this rule is a part of a harmonization process that will result in a single FAA/JAA regulatory standard, it reduces a barrier to international trade. Thus, in accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and has determined that it will support the Act.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995 is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments.
Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the assessment requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the State, or the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, we determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications.
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title 14 of the CFR in a manner affecting interstate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. Because this rule would apply to the certification of future designs of transport category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could, if adopted, affect interstate aviation in Alaska.
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically excluded from presentation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this rulemaking action qualifies for a categorical exclusion.
The energy impact of this amendment has been assessed in accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Public Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. It has been determined that the final rule is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA.
Air transportation.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (air), Weather.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
V
V
V
V
V
V
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
(a) The reference stall speed, V
(b) V
(1) Engines idling, or, if that resultant thrust causes an appreciable decrease in stall speed, not more than zero thrust at the stall speed;
(2) Propeller pitch controls (if applicable) in the takeoff position;
(3) The airplane in other respects (such as flaps and landing gear) in the condition existing in the test or performance standard in which V
(4) The weight used when V
(5) The center of gravity position that results in the highest value of reference stall speed; and
(6) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed selected by the applicant, but not less than 1.13V
(c) Starting from the stabilized trim condition, apply the longitudinal control to decelerate the airplane so that the speed reduction does not exceed one knot per second.
(d) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, when a device that abruptly pushes the nose down at a selected angle of attack (
(b) * * *
(1) 1.13V
(ii) Turbojet powered airplanes without provisions for obtaining a significant reduction in the one-engine-inoperative power-on stall speed;
(2) 1.08V
(ii) Turbojet powered airplanes with provisions for obtaining a significant reduction in the one-engine-inoperative power-on stall speed; and
(c)* * *
(1) V
(2) V
(3) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(g).
(g) V
(1) 1.18 V
(2) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(g).
(a) The takeoff path extends from a standing start to a point in the takeoff at which the airplane is 1,500 feet above the takeoff surface, or at which the transition from the takeoff to the en route configuration is completed and V
(b) A climb speed of not more than V
(c)
(d)
(2) The maximum landing weight;
(3) A climb speed established in connection with normal landing procedures, but not more than 1.4 V
(4) Landing gear retracted.
(a) * * *
(2) A stabilized approach, with a calibrated airspeed of V
(i) 1.23 V
(ii) V
(iii) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(g).
(g) The maneuvering capabilities in a constant speed coordinated turn at forward center of gravity, as specified in the following table, must be free of stall warning or other characteristics that might interfere with normal maneuvering:
(a) It must be possible, at any point between the trim speed prescribed in § 25.103(b)(6) and stall identification (as defined in § 25.201(d)), to pitch the nose downward so that the acceleration to this selected trim speed is prompt with
(1) The airplane trimmed at the trim speed prescribed in § 25.103(b)(6);
(b) * * *
(1) With power off, flaps retracted, and the airplane trimmed at 1.3 V
(4) With power off, flaps retracted, and the airplane trimmed at 1.3 V
(6) With power off, flaps extended, and the airplane trimmed at 1.3 V
(c) It must be possible, without exceptional piloting skill, to prevent loss of altitude when complete retraction of the high lift devices from any position is begun during steady, straight, level flight at 1.08 V
b. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii) by revising the expression “V
c. In paragraph (c) introductory text by revising the expressions “1.1 V
d. In paragraph (d) introductory text by revising the expressions “1.1 V
e. In paragraph (d)(5) by revising the expression “1.4 V
(a) * * *
(2) The power necessary to maintain level flight at 1.5 V
(b) * * *
(4) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at the speed prescribed in § 25.103(b)(6).
(b) The warning must be furnished either through the inherent aerodynamic qualities of the airplane or by a device that will give clearly distinguishable indications under expected conditions of flight. However, a visual stall warning device that requires the attention of the crew within the cockpit is not acceptable by itself. If a warning device is used, it must provide a warning in each of the airplane configurations prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section at the speed prescribed in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(c) When the speed is reduced at rates not exceeding one knot per second, stall warning must begin, in each normal configuration, at a speed, V
(d) In addition to the requirement of paragraph (c) of this section, when the speed is reduced at rates not exceeding one knot per second, in straight flight with engines idling and at the center-of-gravity position specified in § 25.103(b)(5), V
(e) The stall warning margin must be sufficient to allow the pilot to prevent
(f) Stall warning must also be provided in each abnormal configuration of the high lift devices that is likely to be used in flight following system failures (including all configurations covered by Airplane Flight Manual procedures).
(f) * * *
(2) Instead of a rational analysis, the kinetic energy absorption requirements for each main wheel-brake assembly may be derived from the following formula, which must be modified in cases of designed unequal braking distributions.
(g) In the landing case, the minimum speed rating of each main wheel-brake assembly (that is, the initial speed used in the dynamometer tests) may not be more than the V used in the determination of kinetic energy in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section, assuming that the test procedures for wheel-brake assemblies involve a specified rate of deceleration, and, therefore, for the same amount of kinetic energy, the rate of energy absorption (the power absorbing ability of the brake) varies inversely with the initial speed.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
(b) Aircraft approach category means a grouping of aircraft based on a speed of V