Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Minerals Management Service
National Park Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Justice Programs Office
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Research and Special Programs Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule revises the regulations concerning compensation rates for handlers' services performed in connection with reserve prunes covered under Marketing Order No. 993 (order). The order regulates the handling of dried prunes produced in California and is administered locally by the Prune Marketing Committee (Committee). This rule will establish a procedure in the administrative rules and regulations which the Committee will follow to compute the level of handler payments for holding reserve prunes during and beyond the crop year of acquisition. These payment rates will reflect current industry costs. The rule also will establish time frames for changing the payment rates, and procedures for informing interested persons of the payment rates and payment procedures. This rule also does not allow for payment of handler services for reserve prunes released through the handler acceptance of diversion certificates if the released prunes have not been stored by the handler.
This final rule becomes effective May 12, 2003.
Richard P. Van Diest, Marketing Specialist, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721; telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906; or George Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938.
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or e-mail:
This final rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 993, both as amended (7 CFR part 993), regulating the handling of dried prunes produced in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This final rule revises the regulations concerning compensation to handlers for services they perform pertaining to reserve prunes covered under the order. Under the order, handlers are compensated for such costs as inspection, receiving, storing, grading, and fumigation of reserve prunes held for the account of the Committee. In the administrative rules and regulations, the compensation rate has been $25 per ton since the early 1970's. This rule establishes a procedure in the administrative rules and regulations that the Committee will follow to compute the level of handler payments that reflect current industry costs instead of having the compensation rate stated in the rule. The Committee will obtain current industry costs through surveys of dried prune handlers and compute average costs based on the number of handlers participating in the survey. Abnormally high or low results will not be considered in the average. The average may be rounded to the nearest $0.25. USDA will approve the updated compensation rate computed by the Committee. The Committee will announce the compensation rate for handling reserve prunes at the time the Committee reviews the industry statistics during the latter part of June and notify all handlers accordingly. Additional payment for handler services for reserve prunes held beyond the crop year of acquisition will be updated through a stated percentage of the handler compensation rate during the crop year of acquisition. The Committee unanimously recommended this action on November 29, 2001.
The order provides authority for volume regulation designed to promote orderly marketing conditions, to stabilize prices and supplies, and to improve producer returns. When volume regulation is in effect, a certain percentage of the California prune crop may be sold by handlers to any market (salable tonnage) while the remaining percentage must be held by handlers in a reserve pool (or reserve) for the account of the Committee. Reserve prunes are disposed of through various programs authorized under the order, including government purchases. Net
Section 993.21c of the prune marketing order defines salable prunes as prunes which are free to be handled pursuant to any salable percentage established by the USDA pursuant to § 993.54.
Section 993.21d of the order defines reserve prunes as prunes which must be withheld in satisfaction of a reserve obligation arising from the application of a reserve percentage established by the USDA pursuant to § 993.54.
Section 993.54 of the order provides authority for USDA, based on recommendations by the Committee and supporting information supplied by the Committee, or from other available information, to establish salable and reserve percentages for dried prunes received by handlers during a crop year. The crop year begins August 1 and runs through July 31. When salable and reserve percentages are in effect, § 993.57 requires handlers to hold in their possession or under their control, for the account of the Committee, the quantity of prunes necessary to meet their reserve obligation.
Section 993.59 of the order specifies that handlers be compensated for necessary services performed in connection with reserve prunes including, but not limited to inspection, receiving, storing, grading, and fumigation. The payment is made on the tonnage of reserve prunes held by the handler for the account of the Committee, in accordance with a schedule of payments.
Pursuant to § 993.59 of the order, details of the criteria and procedures for compensating prune handlers in connection with reserve prunes are established by regulation after recommendation by the Committee. They may be found in § 993.159 of the administrative rules and regulations. Since the early 1970's, the compensation rate has been $25 per ton. The prune industry has not implemented salable and reserve percentages since 1971; therefore, the compensation rate does not reflect current costs. In recent years, the Committee has considered implementing a reserve.
The Committee normally meets during the end of June or early July to discuss marketing policy issues and decides whether to recommend implementing a reserve. The Committee met on November 29, 2001, and unanimously recommended revising the rules and regulations pertaining to the compensation rates for handler services in connection with reserve prunes. One change recommended establishes a procedure in the administrative rules and regulations for computing the compensation rates instead of having the rates stated in the rule. To aid in formulating the compensation rates, the Committee will obtain current costs through surveys of dried prune handlers and compute average costs based on the number of handlers participating in the survey. Abnormally high or low results will not be considered in the average. The average may be rounded to the nearest $0.25.
An updated compensation rate for handling reserve prunes during the crop year of acquisition will be computed when the Committee considers its annual marketing policy, but no later than July 20. This date could be extended up to 10 days, if warranted by a late crop. During marketing policy discussions, the Committee reviews, among other things, industry production and marketing statistics for dried prunes here and abroad, pricing information for domestic and foreign produced dried prunes, and handler costs for holding reserve prunes, including, but not limited to inspection, receiving, storing, grading, and fumigating prunes. Any recommended change in compensation rate will be reviewed, and will have to be approved by USDA. Upon approval, the Committee will inform all handlers of the changed compensation rate for the upcoming crop year. The process will be completed by the beginning of the crop year (August 1).
On November 29, 2001, the Committee also recommended that no payment for handler services be made for reserve prunes released by handler acceptance of diversion certificates under §§ 993.62 and 993.162, if the handler has not stored the prunes. For example, a handler may have a reserve obligation of 1,000 tons and received 900 tons worth of diversion certificates. The handler submits the 900 tons of diversion certificates to the Committee and requests that he be relieved of 900 tons of reserve prune obligation, leaving a reserve obligation of 100 tons. In this situation, the Committee will only reimburse the handler for reserve pool costs on the 100 tons.
The Committee intends to pay up to one-half the compensation rate (first payment) as soon as practicable after the majority of the deliveries have been made and funds are available. During normal years, the first payment will occur after the second quarter of the crop year (usually during February) and quarterly payments will be made thereafter, as funds are available. The crop year runs from August 1 through July 31.
The Committee also recommends a number of administrative changes to the rules and regulations. They include: (1) Correcting a reference in § 993.159(a) from § 993.57 to § 993.59; (2) adding a provision in § 993.159(a)(1) stating that in crop years when the Committee recommends a reserve pool, it shall meet by July 20 to review costs for handler services in connection with reserve prunes pursuant to § 993.59, except that the Committee may extend this date by not more than 10 business days if warranted by a late crop; (3) adding weighing and stacking prunes as part of the direct labor costs in § 993.159(a)(2); (4) adding clean-up, health insurance, pension plan contributions, vacation pay, holiday and other paid days off as part of the plant overhead costs in § 993.159(a)(2); and (5) eliminating reference to personal pronouns and replacing them with a descriptive noun so the regulatory text is not gender specific. Paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3) of § 993.159 are modified accordingly.
In addition, the Committee recommended that the provisions in § 993.159(c)(2) regarding payments to handlers for services rendered in connection with reserve prunes held beyond the end of the crop year of acquisition also be updated. The regulations currently establish the reimbursement rate for storage and fumigation at $2 per ton for the first quarter of the year beyond the crop year of acquisition. This approximates 10 percent of the current handler compensation rate for the crop year of acquisition. The Committee recommended that handlers be compensated at 10 percent of the yearly rate computed by the Committee and approved by USDA for the crop year of acquisition for the first quarter after the crop year of acquisition, rather than establishing a specific rate. That paragraph also specifies specific amounts per ton for storage and fumigation for the second, third, and fourth quarters after the crop year of acquisition at $1.00, $0.25, and $0.25 per ton, respectively. This equates to 50 percent of the first quarter's amount for the second quarter and 25 percent each for the third and fourth quarters. Rather than maintaining specific rates for the
The Committee also recommended that it be allowed to determine the rate per ton for bin rental within the industry for the succeeding crop year and to inform handlers in accordance with paragraph (e) of § 993.159. Handlers will be compensated at that rate for use of their bins in storing reserve prunes for the account of the Committee. Paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of § 993.159 are modified accordingly.
New paragraph (e) of § 993.159 will specify that the Committee shall give reasonable publicity to producer and handler members and alternates who serve on the Committee, commercial dehydrators, handlers, and the cooperative bargaining association(s) of each meeting to consider handler payment rates or any modification thereof, and each such meeting shall be open to them. Similar publicity shall be given to producer and handler members and alternates who serve on the Committee, commercial dehydrators, handlers, and the cooperative bargaining association(s) of each payment rate modification submitted to USDA for review and approval. The Committee shall notify producer and handler members and alternates who serve on the Committee, commercial dehydrators, handlers, and cooperative bargaining association(s) of USDA's action on payment rates and conditions for payment by first class mail and/or by electronic communications.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 1,205 producers of dried prunes in the production area and approximately 24 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000.
An updated industry profile shows that 9 out of 24 handlers (37.5 percent) shipped over $5,000,000 worth of dried prunes and could be considered large handlers by the Small Business Administration. Fifteen of the 24 handlers (62.5 percent) shipped under $5,000,000 worth of prunes and could be considered small handlers. An estimated 32 producers, or less than 3 percent of the 1,205 total producers, will be considered large growers with annual incomes over $750,000. The majority of handlers and producers of California dried prunes may be classified as small entities.
Pursuant to § 993.59 of the order, this final rule will allow the Committee to compute and announce the level of payments paid to handlers for services performed in connection with holding reserve prunes for the account of the Committee. Each handler holding reserve prunes for the account of the Committee will complete such services so that the Committee is assured that the prunes are maintained in good condition. The Committee will use the procedure specified in the administrative rules and regulations for computing the payment levels. This flexibility will allow for cost updates in a timely and efficient manner and at less cost to implement. This rule will allow the Committee to survey each of the prune handlers to obtain their costs for each category of expenses for handling reserve prunes listed in § 993.159 of the administrative rules and regulations. These costs will be averaged according to the formula in the rules and regulations. After reviewing and computing these costs, the Committee will submit the compensation rates to USDA for approval. After USDA approves the compensation rates, the payment rates will be publicized as required in paragraph (e) of this section. No payments for handler services will be made for reserve prunes released by handler acceptance of diversion certificates if the handler has not stored the released dried prunes for the account of the Committee.
The Committee also recommended a number of administrative changes to the rules and regulations. They include: (1) Correcting a section reference in § 993.159(a) from § 993.57 to § 993.59; (2) Adding a provision to § 993.159(a)(1) stating that in crop years when the Committee recommends a reserve pool, it shall meet by July 20 to review the costs incurred by handlers in connection with holding reserve prunes for the account of the Committee, except that the Committee may extend this date up to 10 business days if warranted by a late crop; (3) Adding weighing and stacking prunes as part of the direct labor costs in § 993.159(a)(2); (4) Adding clean-up, health insurance, pension plan contributions, vacation pay, holiday and other paid days off as part of the plant overhead costs in § 993.159(a)(2); and (5) Eliminating references to personal pronouns and replacing them with descriptive nouns so the regulatory text is not gender specific. Paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3) of § 993.159 are modified accordingly.
In addition, the Committee recommended that the provisions in § 993.159(c)(2) also be updated and be formula based. These provisions regard payments to handlers for services (storage and fumigation) rendered in connection with reserve prunes held beyond the crop year of acquisition. The regulations currently establish the reimbursement rate at $2 per ton for the first quarter of the crop year after acquisition. This approximates 10 percent of the current handler compensation rate for the crop year of acquisition. The Committee recommended that the handler payment rate for the first quarter of the crop year after acquisition be 10 percent of the yearly rate for the crop year of acquisition, rather than establishing a specific payment rate. That paragraph also specifies specific amounts per ton for storage and fumigation for the second, third, and fourth quarters of the crop year following acquisition at $1.00, $0.25, and $0.25 per ton, respectively. This equates to 50 percent of the first quarter's amount for the second quarter and 25 percent each for the third and fourth quarters. Rather than maintaining specific rates for the second, third, and fourth quarters, the Committee recommended that the rates be expressed as these percentages in the administrative rules and regulations. Expressing these rates paid to handlers for services rendered beyond the crop year of acquisition as percentages will add flexibility to the regulatory scheme and eliminate the need to revise that part of the regulations when the rates for
The Committee also recommended that it be allowed to determine the rate per ton for bin rental within the industry for the succeeding crop year and to inform handlers in accordance with paragraph (e) of § 993.159. Handlers will be compensated at that rate for the use of their bins in storing reserve prunes for the account of the Committee. Paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of § 993.159 are modified accordingly.
New paragraph (e) of § 993.159 will specify that the Committee give reasonable publicity to producer and handler members and alternates who serve on the Committee, commercial dehydrators, handlers, and the cooperative bargaining association(s) of each meeting to consider handler payment rates or any modification thereof, and each such meeting shall be open to them. Similar publicity will be given to producer and handler members and alternates who serve on the Committee, commercial dehydrators, handlers, and the cooperative bargaining association(s) of each payment report submitted to USDA for review and approval. The Committee will notify producer and handler members and alternates who serve on the Committee, commercial dehydrators, handlers, and cooperative bargaining association(s) of USDA's action on payment rates and conditions for payment by first class mail and/or by electronic communication.
Regarding the impact of this rule on affected entities, the order provides that handlers shall store reserve prunes for the account of the Committee. Net proceeds from sales of such reserve prunes are distributed back to the reserve pool's equity holders, primarily producers. Handlers are compensated from reserve pool funds for their costs in inspecting, receiving, storing, grading, fumigation, and handling reserve prunes. Currently, handlers are compensated at a rate of $25 per ton for reserve prunes acquired during a particular crop year. The $25 per ton rate has been the compensation rate since the early 1970's. Costs have increased dramatically in the past 30 years. The Committee recommended that a procedure be added to the administrative rules and regulations to allow the Committee to adjust the compensation rate for handling reserve prunes in a timely manner instead of specifying them in the rules and regulations. The industry meets during the end of June or early July to discuss marketing policy issues, including reserve pooling, for the next crop year, which begins August 1. A procedure in the administrative rules and regulations will allow the Committee to update the compensation rate during a particular crop year in a timely, efficient, and less expensive manner. The computed payment rates will be recommended by the Committee and approved administratively by USDA. After USDA approval the payment rates will be publicized as required in § 993.159(e).
This rule will allow the Committee to reimburse handlers their actual costs incurred in holding reserve prunes for the account of the Committee. While this may reduce net proceeds to the equity holders, it shifts the costs to the appropriate entities. There should be no disproportionate impact of this action on small entities. Costs of the reserve pool are taken out of the proceeds of the pool and each equity holder shares in the expenses based on their proportionate share of prunes in the reserve pool.
The Committee discussed other alternatives to this change on November 29, 2001, including doing nothing. However, that will leave reserve pooling as a less viable supply management option due to the outdated schedule of handler payments. Another option discussed was to update the data for a given crop year; however, the survey and formula procedure was considered more viable.
This action will allow the Committee to survey prune handlers to obtain their costs applicable to holding reserve prunes for the account of the Committee. Reporting and recordkeeping burdens are necessary for compliance purposes and for developing statistical data to administer the program. This rule will impose some additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements on both small and large California dried prune handlers. In order to help the Committee formulate the compensation rate for handler services in connection with reserve prunes, current costs will be obtained through a survey voluntarily submitted by dried prune handlers. The average costs will be computed based on the number of handlers participating in the survey. It is estimated that it will take an average of 15 minutes per response to collect this information. If all 24 handlers participate in the survey, the additional burden created is estimated to be 6 hours. However, the Committee believes that the burden to complete a handler compensation survey will be outweighed by obtaining and using updated cost data to determine the handler compensation for handling reserve prunes.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), AMS is seeking approval for the additional burden imposed by the Handler Compensation Survey. Upon OMB approval, the additional burden will be merged into the information collection currently approved under OMB No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders. As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, the USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
In addition, the Committee's Supply Management Subcommittee meeting on November 28, 2001, and the Committee meeting on November 29, 2001, where this action was deliberated were both public meetings widely publicized throughout the prune industry. All interested persons, both large and small, were invited to attend the subcommittee and Committee meetings and participate in the industry's deliberations.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Marketing agreements, Plums, Prunes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
(a)
(1) On or before July 20 of each crop year when the Committee recommends a reserve pool (except the Committee may extend this date by not more than ten business days if warranted by a late crop), the Committee shall hold a meeting to review the costs for necessary services rendered by handlers in connection with reserve prunes.
(2) Such amount shall, together with the additional payments, as provided in this section, be in full payment for the costs incurred in connection with but not be limited to the following services: Inspection, receiving, storing, grading, fumigation, and handling. The costs include, but are not limited to:
(i) Acquisition costs, which include those for salaries, commission, or brokerage fees, transportation and handling between plants and receiving stations, inspection, and other costs, including container expenses, incidental to acquisition or storage;
(ii) Direct labor costs, which include those for weighing, receiving and stacking, grading, preliminary sorting and storing (including that performed by the handler at the receiving station), and loading for shipment or other delivery to the Committee or its designee;
(iii) Plant overhead costs, which include those for supervision, indirect labor, fuel, power and water, taxes and insurance on facilities, depreciation and rent, repairs and maintenance (clean-up, etc.), factory supplies and expense, and employee benefits (payroll taxes, compensation insurance, health insurance, pension plan contributions, vacation pay, holiday and other paid days off, and other such costs).
(3) The Committee shall survey all handlers to obtain their costs for services performed with respect to reserve tonnage prunes. The Committee will compute the average industry cost for holding reserve pool prunes by adding each handlers' cost data, and dividing the composite figure by the number of handlers participating in the survey. In the event that any handler's cost data is too low or too high, the Committee may choose to exclude the high and low data in computing an industry average. The industry average costs may be rounded to the nearest $0.25. The industry average costs computed by the Committee shall be publicized by the Committee pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section.
(b)
(1) The name and address of the handler;
(2) The location(s) where reserve prunes will be held for the account of the Committee and the premium rate per $100 value per annum at each location;
(3) The value per ton at which the reserve prunes are insured; and
(4) The name and address of the insurance underwriter.
(c)
(1) Whenever a handler is directed by the Committee to move and dump containers or reserve prunes held by the handler for the account of the Committee for the purpose of causing an inspection to be made of the prunes as provided in § 993.75, but without taking delivery of the prunes at that time, the handler shall be paid for such services at a rate per ton (natural condition weight) determined by the Committee and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture. Such reimbursement rate shall be computed as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section and publicized as required in paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) Additional payment for reserve tonnage prunes held beyond the crop year of acquisition shall be made in accordance with this paragraph. Each handler holding reserve prunes shall complete such services so that the Committee is assured that the prunes are maintained in good condition.
(i) For storage and necessary fumigation, each handler shall be compensated at a per ton rate announced by the Committee in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section:
(A) For all or any part of the first 3 months of the succeeding crop year, the rate per ton shall be 10 percent of the yearly rate established for the crop year of acquisition;
(B) For all or any part of the second 3 months of the succeeding crop year, the rate per ton shall be 50 percent of the rate established for the first 3 months of the succeeding crop year;
(C) For all or any part of the third 3 months of the succeeding crop year, the rate per ton shall be 25 percent of the rate established for the first 3 months of the succeeding crop year;
(D) For all or any part of the fourth 3 months of the succeeding crop year, the rate per ton shall be 25 percent of the rate established for the first 3 months of the succeeding crop year;
(ii) For all or part of the succeeding crop year, the Committee shall determine the per ton rate for bin rental within the industry and announce bin rental rate to the industry pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section.
(iii) For insurance as prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section.
(d)
(1) Whenever a handler is directed by the Committee to deliver to it or its designee reserve prunes in natural condition, the Committee shall furnish the handler with the containers in which to deliver the prunes, or reimburse the handler, at cost, for any containers which the handler furnishes pursuant to an agreement with the Committee.
(2) Whenever the Committee arranges with a handler for the reserve prunes delivered to it or its designee to be in processed and packaged condition, the Committee shall reimburse the handler
(e) The Committee shall give reasonable publicity to producer and handler members and alternates who serve on the Committee, commercial dehydrators, handlers, and the cooperative bargaining association(s) of each meeting to consider handler payment rates or any modification thereof, and each such meeting shall be open to them. Similar publicity shall be given to producer and handler members and alternates who serve on the Committee, commercial dehydrators, handlers, and the cooperative bargaining association(s) of each payment rate modification submitted to USDA for review and approval. The Committee shall notify producer and handler members and alternates who serve on the Committee, commercial dehydrators, handlers, and cooperative bargaining association(s) of USDA's action on payment rates and conditions for payment by first class mail and/or by electronic communications.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to a single McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 airplane, that requires repetitive tests for electrical continuity and resistance and repetitive inspections to detect discrepancies of the fuel boost/transfer pump connectors; and corrective actions, if necessary. This action is necessary to prevent arcing of connectors in the fuel boost/transfer pump circuit, which could result in a fire or explosion of the fuel tank. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective May 15, 2003.
The incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A228, including Appendix, Revision 02, dated December 7, 2001, as listed in the regulations, was approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 12, 2002 (67 FR 45053, July 8, 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; 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.
Philip C. Kush, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (562) 627-5263; 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 a single McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 airplane 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.
The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. However, for clarity and consistency in this final rule, we have retained the language of the NPRM regarding that material.
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.
This AD applies to one McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-30 airplane and that airplane is of U.S. registry. It will take approximately 65 work hours to accomplish the required tests and inspections on that airplane, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on the single U.S. operator is estimated to be $3,900, per test or inspection cycle.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that the operator has not yet accomplished the requirements of this AD action, and that the operator would not 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
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The requirements of this AD are identical to those in AD 2002-13-10, amendment 39-12798, which applies to Model DC-10-10, -10F, -15, -30, -30F, -30F (KC10A and KDC-10), -40, and -40F airplanes, and Model MD-10-10F and -30F airplanes; as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A228, including Appendix, Revision 01, dated July 16, 2001; and Model MD-11 and -11F airplanes, as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A112, including Appendix, dated December 11, 2000.
Airplane fuel tanks on which the fuel/boost pump and wiring connector have been physically removed and the fuel tank made inoperable are not subject to the requirements of this AD.
This AD applies to the airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. If the airplane has 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 arcing of connectors of the fuel boost/transfer pump, which could result in a fire or explosion of the fuel tank, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, do tests (using a digital multi-meter and Quadtech 1864 megohm meter or an equivalent megohm meter that meets current and voltage requirements, as specified in the service bulletin) for electrical continuity and resistance and a general visual inspection to detect discrepancies (
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.”
(b) If the result of any test required by paragraph (a) of this AD is outside the limits specified in the service bulletin identified in that paragraph, or if any discrepancy is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD, before further flight, accomplish corrective actions (
(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 §§ 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 in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-28A228, including Appendix, Revision 02, dated December 7, 2001. The incorporation by reference of that document was approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 12, 2002 (67 FR 45053, July 8, 2002). 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; 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 May 15, 2003.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; delay of effective date; correction.
This document makes a correction to the
Diana Frohn, telephone (202) 267-7027.
In FR Doc. 03-6181 published on March 14, 2003, on page 12542, in the first column, correct the
The effective date of the final rule amending 14 CFR parts 91, 121, 135 and 145 published on August 6, 2001, at 66 FR 41088 is delayed until October 3, 2003, with the following exception: § 145.163 remains effective April 6, 2005.
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Final rule; removal.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) hereby removes obsolete rules regulating the use of motorized vehicles over the Land Between The Lakes. Under the Land Between The Lakes Protection Act of 1998, administrative jurisdiction transferred from TVA to the United States Department of Agriculture—Forest Service (USDA-FS) on October 1, 1999. The USDA-FS currently is in charge of operation, maintenance, and development of this area. Accordingly, this rule would rescind the regulations effective upon publication in the
April 10, 2003.
Rebecca Chunn Tolene, Office of the General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 865-632-3045.
Land Between The Lakes (“LBL”) is a national recreation area located in western Kentucky and Tennessee established by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in 1964 and maintained by TVA until 1999. 18 CFR part 1305 contains rules regulating the use of motorized vehicles over LBL including designating the Turkey Bay Off-Road Vehicle Area as the only area to be authorized for use of off-road vehicles. Under the Land Between The Lakes Protection Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 460111-61), administrative jurisdiction transferred on October 1, 1999, from TVA to the USDA-FS. Accordingly, this rule rescinds 18 CFR part 1305 effective upon publication in the
Traffic regulations.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Final rule; approval of amendment.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are approving an amendment to the Alabama regulatory program (Alabama program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Alabama proposed revisions to its rules concerning forms and license applications. Alabama revised its program to improve operational efficiency.
April 10, 2003.
Arthur W. Abbs, Director, Birmingham Field Office. Telephone: (205) 290-7282. Internet address:
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.”
By letter dated October 17, 2002 (Administrative Record No. AL-0654), Alabama sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the January 16, 2003,
Following are the findings we made concerning the amendment under SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. We are approving the amendment as described below.
ASMC 880-X-1B lists the forms used in the operations and organization of the Alabama Surface Mining Commission. Alabama proposed to revise its list of forms by deleting some of the existing forms that are no longer used, revising the titles of other existing forms to clarify their use, and adding some new forms.
1. Alabama deleted the following forms:
Alabama uses other existing forms in place of the deleted forms.
2. Alabama changed the existing descriptions of Forms ASMC-6, ASMC-16, ASMC-176, and ASMC-232 to the descriptions shown below:
Alabama revised the descriptions of the above forms to clarify their current use.
3. Alabama added the following new forms to its list:
There is no direct Federal regulation counterpart to Alabama's rule at ASMC 880-X-1B. However, we find that the revised list of forms used in the operations and organization of the Alabama Surface Mining Commission is not inconsistent with the requirements of the Federal regulations or SMCRA. Therefore, we are approving the revisions to ASMC 880-X-1B.
Alabama's rule at ASMC 880-X-6A-.06(g)2 requires an applicant to submit information that demonstrates sufficient financial responsibility to reasonably assure the Alabama Surface Mining Commission of the applicant's financial ability to meet the requirements of the Alabama program. Alabama is proposing to revise one of the information provisions at ASMC 880-X-6A-.06(g)2(ii)(I). This revised provision will allow public accountants to certify and sign current statements of the net worth of applicants applying for licenses to conduct surface coal mining operations. Currently, Alabama only allows certified public accountants to certify and sign these statements. The revised provision reads as follows:
A current statement in letter form, certified by a certified public accountant or public accountant licensed to do business in the State of Alabama that the applicant has a net worth of not less than $100,000. The statement must not be ambiguous, qualified, or otherwise vague. It must state the Alabama certificate or registration number of, and be signed by the certified public accountant or public accountant.
There is no direct Federal regulation counterpart to Alabama's rule at ASMC 880-X-6A-.06(g)2(ii)(I). However, we find that the revised provision is not inconsistent with the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 778.11, which requires a permit applicant to submit various kinds of applicant, operator, and ownership and control information. Therefore, we are approving the revision to ASMC 880-X-6A-.06(g)2(ii)(I).
We asked for public comments on the amendment, but did not receive any.
On October 25, 2002, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Alabama program (Administrative Record No. AL-0655). We did not receive any comments.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to get a written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
On October 25, 2002, under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), we requested comments on the amendment from EPA (Administrative Record No. AL-0655). EPA did not respond to our request.
Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), we are required to request comments from the SHPO and ACHP on amendments that may have an effect on historic properties. On October 25, 2002, we requested comments on Alabama's amendment (Administrative Record No. AL-0655), but neither responded to our request.
Based on the above findings, we approve the amendment Alabama sent us on October 17, 2002.
To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 901, which codify decisions concerning the Alabama program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making this rule effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.
The revisions made at the initiative of the State have been reviewed and a determination made that they do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the fact that the deletions, revisions, and additions by the Alabama Surface Mining Commission to the forms listed in ASMC 880-X-1B are administrative and procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry. The same is true for the revisions to ASMC 880-X-6A-.06.
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.
This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. This determination is based on the fact that the Alabama program does not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Alabama program has no effect on Federally recognized Indian tribes.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C).
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local governmental agencies or geographic regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based on the fact that the deletions, revisions, and additions by the Alabama Surface Mining Commission to the forms listed in ASMC 880-X-1B are administrative and procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry. The same is true for the revisions to ASMC 880-X-6A-.06.
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based on the fact that the deletions, revisions, and additions by the Alabama Surface Mining Commission to the forms listed in ASMC 880-X-1B are administrative and procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry. The same is true for the revisions to ASMC 880-X-6A-.06.
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
30 U.S.C. 1201
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
This final rule amends VA's conduct regulations to provide that VA employees are required to report information about possible criminal activity to appropriate authorities. The VA Police and the VA Office of Inspector General, the department's two law enforcement entities, will receive such information, will investigate those cases within their respective jurisdiction and will refer proper cases for prosecution. In addition, the final rule will clarify and more accurately state the investigative jurisdiction of the Office of Inspector General. The goal of the final rule is to protect the VA, its employees and the veterans it serves, by having information about criminal activity reported and properly investigated as quickly and thoroughly as possible to prevent additional harm and to bring criminal perpetrators to justice.
Michael R. Bennett, Attorney Advisor, Office of Inspector General (51A1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 565-8678. (The telephone number is not a toll-free number.)
Some significant, serious criminal matters related to VA programs and operations have not been reported to the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG), or to any law enforcement organization, in a timely manner to permit a thorough, effective criminal investigation. In reviewing these cases, it was discovered that there is no regulation that requires all VA employees to report possible criminal activity to law enforcement organizations. The final rule corrects this flaw by adding new sections to 38 CFR part 1.
The final rule is a reasonable and logical extension of an existing regulatory duty to report wrongdoing already placed on VA (and Federal) employees. 5 CFR 2635.101(b)(1) requires that “[e]mployees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse and corruption to appropriate authorities.” Obviously, this requirement already requires Federal employees to report some criminal behavior to appropriate authorities. Given that there is a legal duty to report certain possibly criminal behavior, there should be an equal duty placed on employees to report even more serious matters that could involve physical harm to other employees, VA patients, veterans or other individuals.
In addition, a duty to report criminal activities exists in VA's Employee Handbook. The Handbook, which is dated February 2002, states on page 30 that, “You, as a VA employee, are responsible for reporting any evidence or information that gives reasonable cause to suspect that a serious irregularity or other criminal violation may have occurred in any activity of VA.” The VA Employee Handbook goes on to cite section 7(a) of the Inspector General Act, which authorizes the OIG to “receive and investigate complaints or other information from any employee concerning * * * a violation of law * * *.” It is worth noting that the section on “How To Contact the Office of Inspector General” is on the same page as the duty to report serious irregularities and criminal acts.
At least six other Federal agencies (Department of the Interior, Department of Health and Human Services, Small Business Administration, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services/Office of Scientific Investigations, and Federal Aviation Administration) have enacted regulations which require their employees to report information about possible criminal activity. The regulations of the first five agencies listed include references to their respective Offices of Inspector General as an appropriate recipient of such information.
A second reason for the final rule is to make certain that, once reported, the appropriate law enforcement organization quickly and properly investigates serious criminal matters relating to the programs and operations of VA. Independent and objective investigations of criminal matters relating to the programs and operations of VA are a major part of the OIG's statutory responsibilities.
In coordination with the VA police, the OIG intends to ensure that the appropriate entity investigates allegations of criminal conduct. Because the criminal law enforcement authority of VA police is restricted to VA property, their ability to conduct criminal investigations is limited. The OIG is the only VA entity with the authority to conduct criminal investigations off VA premises. The OIG's experience and knowledge of VA, combined with its statutory authority, makes the OIG uniquely qualified to conduct criminal investigations related to VA programs and operations since virtually all serious, complex cases will require some investigative work away from VA premises.
The VA OIG is also well qualified to serve as the point of referral and contact with the United States Attorneys' Offices on serious criminal matters affecting VA. Finally, there is a clear legal basis for the OIG's jurisdiction and statutory authority to conduct such criminal investigations.
At present, the only VA regulations that relate to the referral of criminal allegations are found in 38 CFR 14.560
The existing regulation cited above, and various other VA policy directives, indicate that the jurisdiction of the VA OIG is limited to “fraud, waste and abuse” and does not include crimes against the person or property. In fact, the Inspector General Act of 1978 (IG Act) confers extremely broad jurisdiction on the OIG with respect to investigations. 5 U.S.C. App. 3. The purpose section of the IG Act states that Offices of Inspector General are created so that “independent and objective units within departments and agencies [can conduct] investigations relating to the programs and operations' of the department.
The IG Act also provides that, in order to assure independence and objectivity, the IG is personally vested with the discretion to determine whether to conduct a particular investigation. Section 6(a)(2) of the IG Act states that the Inspector General “is authorized to make such investigations and reports relating to the administration of the programs and operations of the applicable establishment as are, in the judgment of the Inspector General, necessary or desirable.”
Perhaps the most significant section of the IG Act, with respect to the IG's investigative authority, is section 7 of the Act. Section 7(a) provides that the IG may investigate complaints from an employee “concerning the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety.” A felony is a “violation of law” and can also constitute a “substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety.” Therefore, so long as there is some relation to the programs and operations of VA, these violations are clearly within the IG's investigative jurisdiction. Current VA regulations and policies improperly limit and restrict the IG's statutory authority by stating, or implying, incorrectly, that OIG jurisdiction is limited to fraud, waste and abuse. The final rule, in part, corrects the improper limitations placed on the IG by the current regulations.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before developing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This final rule would have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments.
This document contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
This document is published without regard to the notice and comment and effective date provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 since it relates to agency management and personnel.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule would affect only individuals. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of §§ 603 and 604.
There is no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Government employees, Government property, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Courts, Foreign relations, Government employees, Lawyers, Legal services, Organization and functions (government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Trusts and trustees, Veterans.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Philippines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scholarships and fellowships, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.
38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.
This subpart establishes a duty upon and sets forth the mechanism for VA employees to report information about actual or possible criminal violations to appropriate law enforcement entities.
All VA employees with knowledge or information about actual or possible violations of criminal law related to VA programs, operations, facilities, contracts, or information technology systems shall immediately report such knowledge or information to their supervisor, any management official, or directly to the Office of Inspector General.
Information about actual or possible violations of criminal laws related to VA programs, operations, facilities, or involving VA employees, where the violation of criminal law occurs on VA premises, will be reported by VA management officials to the VA police component with responsibility for the VA station or facility in question. If there is no VA police component with jurisdiction over the offense, the information will be reported to Federal, state or local law enforcement officials, as appropriate.
Criminal matters involving felonies will also be immediately referred to the Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations. VA management officials with information about possible criminal matters involving felonies will ensure and be responsible for prompt referrals to the OIG. Examples of felonies include but are not limited to, theft of Government property over $1000, false claims, false statements, drug offenses, crimes involving information technology systems and serious crimes against the person,
VA police and/or the OIG, whichever has primary responsibility within VA for investigation of the offense in question, will be responsible for notifying the appropriate United States Attorney's Office, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 535.
5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 2671-2680; 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 512, 515, 5502, 5902-5905; 28 CFR part 14, appendix to part 14, unless otherwise noted.
38 U.S.C. 501, 1721, unless otherwise noted.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The EPA is approving a revision to Wisconsin's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the attainment of the one-hour ozone standard for the Milwaukee-Racine area. This SIP revision, submitted to EPA on December 16, 2002, provides new compliance options for sources subject to the state's rules limiting emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO
This direct final rule is effective on June 9, 2003 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse written comments by May 12, 2003. If we receive adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the
You should mail written comments to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), USEPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
A copy of the state's request is available for inspection at the above address.
Alexis Cain, Environmental Scientist, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), USEPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7018.
EPA is approving, as part of the Wisconsin ozone SIP, rules that would allow sources to use emissions averaging and an emissions cap as a option for complying with ozone season limits on emissions (NO
Emissions averaging will allow units subject to the NO
Plan Emission Rate = {Sum [Projected Unit Heat Input x (Unit Emission Rate Limit—0.01)}/(Sum of Projected Unit Heat Inputs)
As a result, total emissions under an averaging plan would be lower than they would be if each unit demonstrated compliance on an individual basis. However, individual units would be allowed to exceed emissions rates specified in the NO
In addition, units participating in an averaging plan are subject to a mass emission limitation, beginning with the 2008 ozone season. This feature of the program “caps” the aggregate ozone season NO
Within 60 days of the end of each ozone season, owners or operators of the participating units must submit compliance reports demonstrating compliance with the plan's emission rate and mass emission limit.
EPA has determined that this SIP revision will not interfere with reasonable further progress or with attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or any other requirement of the Clean Air Act. Emissions averaging programs are considered a type of economic incentive program. EPA's guidance on such programs is “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,” EPA-452/R-01-001, January 2001 (the EIP guidance).
Wisconsin's NO
Wisconsin's NO
In addition, EPA finds that the operation of an averaging program with averaging across ownership will be of minimal risk in the individual case of Wisconsin's program. This program involves a limited number of existing sources, and new sources cannot use emissions averaging. Therefore, the State will receive only a small number of averaging plans, and it will be well able to review such plans ahead of time to ensure that projected activity levels are reasonable. Moreover, the sources that are potential participants in Wisconsin's averaging program all operate at levels close to capacity, and therefore have limited ability to project significant increases in activity levels. Therefore, EPA anticipates no problems resulting of averaging across sources under different ownership; nonetheless, EPA will evaluate as the program operates whether averaging across units under different ownership creates compliance problems or interferes with the achievement of expected reductions.
Other provisions of Wisconsin's program include:
• Excess emission reductions used in an averaging program must be reductions beyond those needed to meet all other state and federal requirements;
• Emissions averaging will create an environmental benefit, since in calculating the aggregate allowable emission rate, the allowable emission rate of each source is reduced by 0.01 pounds per million btu;
• If either the aggregate allowable emission rate or the mass ozone season cap is violated, each unit participating in the averaging plan is considered out of compliance for each day of non-compliance, and is potentially subject to penalties for each day of non-compliance;
• NO
• If the mass ozone season cap for an averaging plan is violated, WDNR can require additional emissions reductions from participating units;
• Emissions must be measured using continuous monitoring equipment;
• WDNR will have the opportunity to review emissions averaging plans to determine their completeness prior to the beginning of the ozone season. Averaging plans must be submitted to WDNR 90 days prior to the beginning of the ozone season, and WDNR has 30 days to determine whether additional information is needed;
• The public will be kept informed of potential changes in emissions caused by emissions averaging; operators of units involved in an emissions averaging plan are required to provide public notice at least 60 days prior to the start of the ozone season, and to provide copies of the plan to the public upon request.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state regulations as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state regulations. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule also does not have tribal implications, because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 9, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(108) On December 16, 2002, Lloyd L. Eagan, Director, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, submitted revised rules to allow use of NO
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) NR 428.02(6m) as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, November 2002, No. 563 and effective December 1, 2002.
(B) NR 428.04(2)(g)(3) as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, November 2002, No. 563 and effective December 1, 2002.
(C) NR 428.06 as published in the (Wisconsin) Register, November 2002, No. 563 and effective December 1, 2002.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Immediate final rule.
Nebraska has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for Final authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this immediate final action. EPA is publishing this rule to authorize the changes without a prior proposal because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. Unless we receive written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the decision to authorize Nebraska's changes to its hazardous waste program will take effect. If we receive comments that oppose this action, we will publish a document in the
This Final authorization will become effective on June 9, 2003 unless EPA receives adverse written comment by May 12, 2003. If EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this immediate final rule in the
Send written comments to Lisa V. Haugen, U.S. EPA Region 7, ARTD/RESP, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. You can view and copy Nebraska's application during normal business hours at the following addresses: Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Suite 400, The Atrium, 1200 “N” Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922, (402) 471-2186; and EPA Region 7, Library, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, (913) 551-7877, Lisa V. Haugen.
Lisa V. Haugen, U.S. EPA Region 7, ARTD/RESP, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, (913) 551-7877.
States which have received Final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.
We conclude that Nebraska's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Nebraska Final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Nebraska has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Nebraska, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
The effect of this decision is that a facility in Nebraska subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Nebraska has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:
• Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports
• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits
This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Nebraska is being authorized by today's action are already effective under state law, and are not changed by today's action.
EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's
If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the
If we receive comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste program, we will withdraw only that part of this rule but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The
Nebraska initially received Final authorization on January 24, 1985, effective February 7, 1985 (50 FR 3345), to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to its program on October 4, 1985, effective December 3, 1988 (53 FR 38950), June 25, 1996, effective August 26, 1996 (61 FR 32699), and June 4, 2002, effective April 22, 2002 (67 FR 38418).
On July 23, 2002, Nebraska submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of its changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to EPA's receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Nebraska's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore, we grant Nebraska Final authorization for the following program changes:
In this authorization of the State of Nebraska's program revisions for Federal Revision Checklists 71 and 142A-D, there are no provisions that are more stringent or broader in scope. Broader in scope requirements are not part of the authorized program and EPA cannot enforce them.
Nebraska will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Nebraska is not yet authorized.
Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the CFR. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart CC for this authorization of Nebraska's program changes until a later date.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Immediate final rule.
Utah has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for Final authorization and is authorizing the State's changes through this immediate final action. We are publishing this rule to authorize the changes without a prior proposal because we believe this action is not controversial. Unless we receive written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the decision to authorize Utah's changes to their hazardous waste program will take effect. If we receive comments that oppose this action, we will publish a document in the
This Final authorization will become effective on June 9, 2003 unless EPA receives adverse written comment by May 12, 2003. If EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this Immediate Final Rule in the
Copies of the Utah program revision applications and the materials which EPA used in evaluating the revisions are available for inspection and copying at the following locations: EPA Region VIII, from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, contact: Kris Shurr, phone number: (303) 312-6139 or Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., 288 North 1460 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4880, contact: Susan Toronto, phone number: (801) 538-6776. Send written comments to Kris Shurr, 8P-HW, U.S. EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, phone number: (303) 312-6139 or electronically to
Kris Shurr, 8P-HW, U.S. EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, phone number: (303) 312-6139 or
States which have received Final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
We conclude that Utah's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Utah Final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Utah has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders, except in Indian Country, and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Utah, including issuing permits, until Utah is authorized to do so.
This decision means that a facility in Utah subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Utah has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:
• Conduct inspections; require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;
• enforce RCRA requirements; suspend or revoke permits; and,
• take enforcement actions regardless of whether Utah has taken its own actions.
This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Utah is being authorized by today's action are already effective and are not changed by today's action.
EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change. We are providing an opportunity for the public to comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's
If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the
If we receive comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the Utah hazardous waste program, we will withdraw that part of this rule but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The
Utah initially received Final Authorization on October 10, 1984, effective October 24, 1984 (49 FR 39683) to implement its base hazardous waste management program. Utah received authorization for revisions to its program on February 21, 1989 (54 FR 7417), effective March 7, 1989; May 23, 1991 (56 FR 23648) and August 6, 1991 (56 FR 37291), both effective July 22, 1991; May 15, 1992 (57 FR 20770), effective July 14, 1992; February 12, 1993 (58 FR 8232) and May 5, 1993 (58 FR 26689), both effective April 13, 1993; October 14, 1994 (59 FR 52084), effective December 13, 1994; May 20, 1997 (62 FR 27501), effective July 21, 1997; January 13, 1999 (64 FR 02144), effective March 15, 1999; October 16, 2000 (65 FR 61109), effective January 16, 2001, and May 7, 2002 (67 FR 30599), effective July 7, 2002.
On February 12, 2003, Utah submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Utah's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore, we grant Utah Final authorization for the following program changes (the Federal Citation followed by the analog from the Utah Administrative Code (R315), revised August 15, 2002): Emergency Revision of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Treatment Standards for Listed Hazardous Wastes from Carbamate Production [63 FR 47409, 09/04/98](Checklist 171)/R315-13-1(Utah rules for checklist revised 09/20/2001); HWIR Media [63 FR 65874, 11/30/98](Checklist 175)/R315-1-1(b), R315-2-4(g) through R315-2-4(g)(2)(iii), R315-8-1(g) through R315-8-1(g)(13), R315-8-5.3, and R315-8-6.12(d); Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV—Technical Corrections and Clarifications to Treatment Standards [64 FR 25408, 05/11/99](Checklist 179)/R315-2-2(c), R315-2-2(c)(3), R315-2-2(e)(1)(iii), R315-2-4(a)(16), R315-2-4(a)(17) and R315-2-4(a)(17)(v), R315-2-4(b)(7)(iii) and R315-2-4(b)(7)(iii)(A), R315-5-3.34, and R315-13-1; Test Procedures for the Analysis of Oil and Grease and Non-Polar Material [64 FR 26315, 05/14/99](Checklist 180)/R315-1-2(a); Universal Waste Rule: Specific Provisions for Hazardous Waste Lamps [64 FR 36466, 07/06/99](Checklist 181)/R315-1-1(b), R315-2-25(b)-(d), R315-8-1(e)(10)(ii)-(iv), R315-7-8.1(c)(11)(ii)-(iv), R315-13-1, R315-3-1(e)(2)(viii)(B)-(D), R315-16-1.1(a)(2)-(4), R315-16-1.2(a)(1), R315-16-1.2(b)(2) & (3), R315-16-1.3(a), R315-16-1.4(a), R315-16-1.5(a), R315-16-1.5(b) through R315-16-1.5(b)(2), R315-16-1.5(c) through R315-16-1.5(c)(2), R315-16-1.8(a) through R315-16-1.8(a)(2), R315-16-1.8(b), R315-16-1.9(e), R315-16-1.9(f), R315-16-1.9(i), R315-16-1.9(k), R315-16-2.1, R315-16-2.4(d) through R315-16-2.4(d)(2), R315-16-2.5(e), R315-16-3.1, R315-16-3.3(b)(4) & (5), R315-16-3.4(d) through R315-16-3.4(d)(2), R315-16-3.5(e), R315-16-4.1, R315-16-5.1(a), and R315-16-7.1(a); Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards for Combustors [64 FR 52828, 09/30/99](Checklist 182)/R315-1-1(b), R315-2-26, R315-8-15.1(b) through R315-8-15.1(b)(2), R315-8-15.1(c)-(e), R315-8-16, R315-7-22.1(b) through R315-7-22.1(b)(2), R315-7-22.1(c); R315-14-7, R315-50-16, R315-3-2.10, R315-3-2.10(e), R315-3-2.13, R315-3-4.3, R315-3-6.3, and R315-3-6.6; Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV—Technical Corrections [64 FR 56469, 10/20/99](Checklist 183)/R315-2-10(f), R315-5-3.34(a), and R315-13-1; Accumulation Time for Waste Water Treatment Sludges [65 FR 12378, 03/08/2000](Checklist 184)/R315-5-3.34(a); Organobromine Production Wastes Vacatur [65 FR 14472, 03/17/2000](Checklist 185)/R315-2-10(f), R315-2-11(f), R315-50-9, R315-50-10, and R315-13-1; Petroleum Refining Process Wastes—Clarification [65 FR 36365, 06/08/2000](Checklist 187)/R315-2-10(e) and R315-13-1.
Utah did not make any changes that are more stringent or broader-in-scope than the Federal rules in this rulemaking. Utah did not change any previously more stringent or broader-in-scope provisions to be equivalent to the Federal rules.
Utah will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which were issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until Utah has equivalent instruments in place. We will not issue any new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in Item G after the effective date of this authorization. EPA previously suspended issuance of permits for other provisions on the effective date of Utah's Final Authorization for the RCRA base program and each of the revisions listed in Item F. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Utah is not yet authorized.
This program revision does not extend to “Indian Country” as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian Country includes lands within the exterior boundaries of the following Indian reservations located within or abutting the State of Utah:
1. Goshute Indian Reservation
2. Navajo Indian Reservation
3. Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation of Utah (Washakie) Indian Reservation
4. Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Indian Reservation
5. Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah Indian Reservation
6. Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation (see below)
7. Ute Mountain Indian Reservation
With respect to the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation, Federal courts have determined that certain lands within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation do not constitute Indian Country. This State program revision approval will extend to those lands which the courts have determined are not Indian Country.
In excluding Indian Country from the scope of this program revision, EPA is not making a determination that Utah either has adequate jurisdiction or lacks jurisdiction over sources in Indian Country. Should the Utah choose to seek program authorization within Indian Country, it may do so without prejudice. Before EPA would approve the State's program for any portion of Indian Country, EPA would have to be satisfied that the State has authority, either pursuant to explicit Congressional authorization or applicable principles of Federal Indian law, to enforce its laws against existing and potential pollution sources within any geographical area for which it seeks program approval and that such approval would constitute sound administrative practice.
Codification is the process of placing a State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the CFR. We do this by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. Utah's rules, up to and including those revised 2/15/96, have previously been codified through the incorporation-by-reference effective 3/15/99 (66 FR 58964, 11/26/2001) We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart TT for the codification of Utah's updated program until a later date.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Incorporation by Reference, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health Service (PHS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Interim final rule with comment period.
The Public Health Service Act authorizes the Secretary, in consultation with the Surgeon General, to make and enforce regulations as are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. The existing regulations are outdated and do not address communicable diseases that currently pose a substantial public health threat.
As of April 2, 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO) has reported 2236 cases and 78 deaths related to outbreaks of a severe form of pneumonia of unknown origin in Hong Kong SAR, Vietnam, Guangdong province in southern China, Canada, Singapore, and Thailand, which appears to have spread rapidly. For this reason, the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a global alert about cases of atypical pneumonia and recommended that travelers with atypical pneumonia who may be related to these outbreaks be placed into isolation and assessed by quarantine officials. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is currently investigating 85 suspected cases of the disease in the United States. This is being issued as an interim final rule because this newly-detected disease is likely spread in person-to-person fashion and may have an adverse public
This rule is effective on April 10, 2003. Comments must be submitted by June 9, 2003.
Mail written comments to the following address: Jennifer Brooks, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Atlanta, GA 30333; telephone (404) 639-2763. Mail written comments on the proposed information collection requirements to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street, NW., rm. 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer for CDC.
James E. Barrow, National Center for Infectious Diseases (E03), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Atlanta, GA 30333; telephone (404) 498-1604.
This interim final rule, which was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866, is being promulgated in accordance with U.S.C. 42 section 264 (section 361 of the PHS Act) which authorizes the Secretary, in consultation with the Surgeon General, to make and enforce regulations as are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession. The quarantine of persons believed to be infected with communicable diseases is a public health prevention measure that has been used effectively to contain the spread of disease. The existing regulations are outdated and do not address communicable diseases that currently pose a substantial public health threat.
The Public Health Service Act gives the Secretary of HHS responsibility for preventing the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and from one State or possession into another within the United States. Under its delegated authority, the CDC Division of Global Migration and Quarantine is empowered to detain, medically examine, or conditionally release individuals suspected of carrying a communicable disease. The list of quarantinable diseases is contained in an Executive Order of the President.
This rule is being issued on an interim final basis with no prior notice and comment and no delay in effective date. As of April 2, 2003, the WHO has reported 2236 cases and 78 deaths of severe pneumonia-like illness of unknown origin in a growing number of countries. Several countries, including Canada, Hong Kong SAR, and Singapore have instituted maximum health measures, including quarantine, to prevent the further spread of the disease. The CDC is currently investigating 85 suspected cases of the disease in the United States. While no deaths have been reported in the United States, the potentially fatal disease is likely spread in person-to-person fashion and may have an adverse public health impact if further spread. Accordingly, appropriate public health control measures including quarantine need to be available immediately to protect against this threat.
Following is a summary of changes to the current regulations:
71.32 Persons, carriers, and things.
We try to write clearly. If you can suggest how to improve the clarity of these regulations, call or write Jennifer Brooks at the address listed above.
Communicable diseases, Public health, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel restrictions.
Airports, Animals, Communicable diseases, Harbors, Imports, Pesticides and pests, Public health, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Secs. 215 and 311 of Public Health Service (PHS) Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 216, 243); secs. 361-369, PHS Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 264-272).
Regulations prescribed in this part authorize the detention, isolation, quarantine, or conditional release of individuals, for the purpose of preventing the introduction, transmission, and spread of the communicable diseases listed in an Executive Order setting out a list of quarantinable communicable diseases, as provided under section 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act. Executive Order 13295, of April 4, 2003, contains the current revised list of quarantinable communicable diseases, and may be obtained at
Secs. 215 and 311 of Public Health Service (PHS) Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 216, 243); secs. 361-369, PHS Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 264-272).
(a) Whenever the Director has reason to believe that any arriving person is infected with or has been exposed to any of the communicable diseases listed in an Executive Order, as provided under section 361(b) of the Public Health Service Act, he/she may isolate, quarantine, or place the person under surveillance and may order disinfection or disinfestation, fumigation, as he/she considers necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of the listed communicable diseases. Executive Order 13295, of April 4, 2003, contains the current revised list of quarantinable communicable diseases, and may be obtained at
(b) Whenever the Director has reason to believe that any arriving carrier or article or thing on board the carrier is or may be infected or contaminated with a communicable disease, he/she may require detention, disinfection, disinfestation, fumigation, or other related measures respecting the carrier or article or thing as he/she considers necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; correction.
Federal Communications Commission published in the
Effective April 16, 2003.
Ted Ryder, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2803.
The FCC published a document in the
In rule FR Doc. 03-4176 published on March 17, 2003 (68 FR 12743) make the following correction. On page 12768, in the second column, revise the amendatory instruction for § 74.602 to read as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS is issuing a final rule concerning the nomenclature and taxonomy of the North Atlantic right whale, North Pacific right whale, and the southern right whale. The first change updates the formerly-used genus
Effective on May 12, 2003.
Supporting documentation is available for public inspection, by request from NMFS, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226.
Aleria Jensen or Gregory Silber at (301) 713-2322.
The right whale was originally described as
The second change reflects new evidence from recent genetic studies regarding the taxonomic classification of right whales. Historically, right whales were classified as two distinct species,
1. The North Atlantic right whale (
2. The North Pacific right whale (
3. The southern right whale (
Previous genetic studies concluded there was sufficient haplotypic divergence between North Atlantic and South Atlantic right whales to indicate that the northern and southern populations have not interbred for approximately 3-12.5 million years (Malik
Conservation measures, recovery planning, and Federal consultations have been treated distinctly for each of these species. For over a decade, the treatment of these species as discrete entities has been well-established in agency science and management. Draft recovery plans are currently in review for both North Atlantic and North Pacific right whales, designated in these plans as
Refining the taxonomy of these endangered cetaceans is critical to the recovery planning and conservation of these species. Genetic data now provide unequivocal support to distinguish three right whale lineages as separate phylogenetic species. The revised designation of these populations allows for consistent scientific practice and management policies in recovering these populations.
The following NMFS documents will be affected by this technical revision:
1. MMPA Stock Assessment Reports for Alaska currently refer to stocks of right whales in the North Pacific as “Northern Right Whale,
2. All Biological Opinions prepared under section 7 of the ESA will now consider the North Pacific, North Atlantic and southern right whales as separate species for the purposes of establishing baseline information and conducting consultations on Federal actions with the potential to affect the taxa.
3. The “Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Right Whale,
These changes result in technical revisions to provisions related to right whales in 50 CFR parts 17, 222, and 226. However, all right whales will remain listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act and subject to the same protections as existed prior to these changes.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS (AA) finds that good cause exists to waive the requirement for prior notice and the opportunity for comment, pursuant to authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Such procedures would be unnecessary, as the taxonomic changes made in this rule are technical and reflect actions already taken in the scientific community. This rule does not change the listing status of right whales under the ESA; therefore, it does not increase the scope of the regulated community nor add any new requirements.
This action is not subject to review under Executive Order 12866. In addition, because a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Although this final rule simply makes taxonomic changes relative to a listing determination that NMFS has already made under the ESA and does not change the listing status of right whales under the ESA, NOAA has concluded that ESA listing determinations are exempt from requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, these taxonomic changes relative to a listing determination are also exempt from these requirements. (See NOAA Administrative Order 216-6.)
This final rule does not contain policies with federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
Best, P.B., J.L. Bannister, R.L. Brownell Jr., and G.P. Donovan (Eds). 2001. Right Whales: Worldwide Status. The Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, Special Issue 2. International Whaling Commission, Cambridge, UK. 309 pp.
Cummings, W.C. 1985. Right Whales:
Hall, R.E. and K.E. Kelson. 1959. The Mammals of North America. The Ronald Press Company, New York. 546 pp.
Jefferson, T.A., S. Leatherwood, and M.A. Webber. 1993. Marine Mammals of the World. United Nations Environment Programme, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 320 pp.
Klinowska, M. 1991. Dolphins, Porpoises and Whales of the World. The IUCN Red Data Book. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. 429 pp.IWC. 2000. Report of the Scientific Review Committee. 52
Lacepede. 1818. Mem. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris 4:409, 473.
Malik, S; Brown, MW; Kraus, SD; White, BN. 2000. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA diversity within and between North and South Atlantic right whales. Marine Mammal Science, Vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 545-558.
Muller. 1776. B[alaena] glacialis. Zool. Danicae prodr., 7 pp.
Muller, J. 1954. Observations of the orbital regions of the skull of the Mystacoceti. Zoologische Mededelingen, 32, 239-290.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. Final recovery plan for the Northern right whale
Rice, D.W. 1977. A list of marine mammals of the world. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-711, 15 pp.
Rice D.W. 1998. Marine Mammals of the World: Systematics and Distribution. Allen Press-The Society for Marine Mammalogy, Lawrence, Kansas.
Rosenbaum, CH; Brownell, LR; Brown, WM;
Schaeff, CM; Kraus, SD; Brown, MW; Perkins, JS; Payne, R; White, BN. 1997. Comparison of genetic variability of North and South Atlantic right whales (
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. Threatened wildlife of the United States. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington DC 289 pp.
Endangered and threatened species.
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
16 U.S.C. 1531
16 U.S.C. 1533.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to all Short Brothers and Harland Ltd. (Shorts) Models SC-7 Series 2 and SC-7 Series 3 airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to repetitively inspect all flight control system rods for corrosion and cracks, replace any cracked rod, and repair corrosion damage or replace any corroded rod depending on the extent of the damage. This proposed AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom. The actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to prevent failure of any flight control system rod caused by cracks or corrosion. Such failure could lead to complete failure of the flight control system with consequent loss of control of the airplane.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive any comments on this proposed rule on or before May 19, 2003.
Submit comments to FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2003-CE-15-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. You may view any comments at this location between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also send comments electronically to the following address:
You may get service information that applies to this proposed AD from Short Brothers PLC, P.O. Box 241, Airport Road, Belfast BT3 9DZ Northern Ireland; telephone: +44 (0) 28 9045 8444; facsimile: +44 (0) 28 9073 3396. You may also view this information at the Rules Docket at the address above.
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept FAA informed of the situation described above.
The proposed AD would give initial inspection credit to those operators who had previously inspected the flight control rods in accordance with Shorts Service Bulletin 27-74 (any revision level).
The follow-up inspections would be substantially less than the initial inspection because the flight control rods only have to be removed in the initial inspection. Replacement control rods cost $2,000. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need such repair/replacement.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. FAA amends § 39.13 by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD) to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
The United Kingdom Civil Airworthiness Authority (CAA) classified Shorts Service Bulletin Number 27-77, Original Issue 27/FEB/03, as mandatory. The CAA classifying a service bulletin as mandatory is the equivalent for airplanes on the British registry as an AD is for airplanes on the U.S. registry.
Minerals Management Service, Interior.
Notice of public workshops.
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) is giving notice of four public workshops to discuss specific issues regarding the existing Federal gas royalty valuation regulations at 30 CFR Part 206 for natural gas produced from Federal leases.
The public workshop dates are:
The workshop locations are:
Workshop 1 will be held at the Minerals Management Service, Denver Federal Center, 6th Avenue and Kipling Street, Building 85, Auditoriums A-D, Denver, Colorado, 80226-0165, telephone number (303) 231-3302.
Workshop 2 will be held at the Double Tree Hotel Albuquerque, 201 Marquette NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102, telephone number (505) 247-7000.
Workshop 3 will be held at the Westin Galleria, 5060 West Alabama, Houston, Texas 77056, telephone number (713) 960-8100.
Workshop 4 will be held at the Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240 (South Penthouse Room), telephone number, (202) 208-3512.
Paul Knueven, Minerals Management Service, Minerals Revenue Management, PO Box 25165, MS 320B2, Denver, Colorado 80225-0165, telephone (303) 231-3316, fax number (303) 231-3781, e-mail
MMS continues to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of its regulations. While we believe that the Federal gas valuation rule generally is accomplishing its objective, that rule is now 15 years old. With the changes having taken place in the natural gas market over the past 15 years, our experience with the 2000 Indian gas valuation rule, and 5 years of experience with taking royalties in kind, we have identified possible changes to the existing rule on which we seek public comment.
Accordingly, MMS is seeking public comment and recommendations on the following specific issues:
(1) Allowing lessees who sell their production to an affiliate the option (for a 2 year period) of basing the royalty value on either a published index price for gas or their affiliate's arm's-length resale price, (2) using NYMEX prices at the Henry Hub rather than published spot prices for natural gas, (3) adjusting natural gas index prices for location differences between the index pricing point and the lease, (4) revising the specific transportation costs that we identified in MMS's 1998 amendment to the gas transportation allowance regulations, (5) determining the rate of return allowed for calculating actual costs under non-arm's-length transportation agreements, (6) allowing lessees to apply natural gas index prices to wellhead gas volumes to eliminate the current requirement of tracing gas that is processed to remove natural gas liquids, and (7) valuing and reporting natural gas disposed of under joint operating agreements.
In addition to the specific issues identified above, we encourage participants to comment on any other significant issues impacting the value of natural gas for royalty purposes.
The workshops will be open to the public without advance registration. Public attendance may be limited to the space available. We encourage a workshop atmosphere; members of the public are encouraged to participate.
For building security measures, each person may be required to present a picture identification to gain entry to the meetings.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Texas regulatory program (Texas program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Texas proposes to add a new rule to its administrative hearing procedures concerning telephonic hearing proceedings. Texas intends to revise its program to improve operational efficiency.
This document gives the times and locations that the Texas program and proposed amendment to that program are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and the procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested.
We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m., c.s.t. May 12, 2003. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on May 5, 2003. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4 p.m., c.s.t. on April 25, 2003.
You should mail or hand deliver written comments and requests to speak at the hearing to Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa Field Office, at the address listed below.
You may review copies of the Texas program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document at the addresses listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting OSM's Tulsa Field Office.
Michael C. Wolfrom, Director, Tulsa Field Office. Telephone: (918) 581-6430. Internet address:
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.”
By letter dated February 12, 2003 (Administrative Record No. TX-654), Texas sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
A. Texas' new rule at 16 TAC 1.130 outlines the method to request a telephonic proceeding, how the proceeding will be conducted, the establishment of the record in such proceedings, and the grounds for a default judgment or a dismissal.
1. Section 1.130(a) allows the hearings examiner, on the timely written motion of a party or on the examiner's own motion, to conduct all or part of a prehearing conference or hearing by telephone. All parties must consent to the telephonic proceeding.
2. Section 1.130(b) requires a written request that is filed at the Commission and served on all parties. The request must include the pertinent telephone number(s), the scope of the telephonic portion of the proceeding, and the identity of any witnesses that may testify telephonically. If expert
3. Section 1.130(c) requires the hearings examiner to ensure that the proceeding is fair and provides due process. In determining if it is feasible to conduct all or part of a proceeding telephonically, the hearings examiner must take into account the following factors: (1) Timeliness of a party's request; (2) receipt of written agreements from all parties to conduct all or part of the proceeding by telephone; (3) demonstrations from the parties on how witnesses will be separated, how coaching of witnesses will be prevented, why observing only a witness's oral demeanor is sufficient, and how the witnesses' and parties' identities will be established; (4) the number of parties and the number of witnesses; (5) the number and type of exhibits; (6) the distance of the parties or witnesses from Austin; (7) the nature of the hearing; and (8) any other pertinent factors which the hearings examiner believes may affect the proceeding.
4. Section 1.130(d) requires the hearings examiner to notify the parties, not less than ten days before the proceeding, of his or her decision to conduct all or part of a proceeding telephonically.
5. Section 1.130(e) requires the parties to file and serve all documentary evidence, other than prefiled written testimony, in advance of the proceeding.
6. Section 1.130(f) specifies that, subject only to the limitation of the physical arrangement, all substantive and procedural rights apply to telephonic proceedings.
7. Section 1.130(g) requires that the time and location of telephonic proceedings be posted. Any person may, by advance request, be present in the room with the hearings examiner.
8. Section 1.130(h) requires the hearings examiner to conduct telephonic proceedings using a speaker telephone. The hearings examiner must make a tape recording of the telephonic proceeding, or arrange to have the proceeding recorded by a court reporter.
9. Section 1.130(i) requires the hearings examiner to initiate the telephonic proceeding, including arranging any necessary conference call. When all parties appearing telephonically are connected, the hearings examiner will affirm the parties' consent to the telephonic proceeding. The hearings examiner will then call the proceeding to order; ask all parties to identify themselves, their locations, and their witnesses; affirm on the record the prior written agreement from all parties consenting to the telephonic appearance or proceeding; and state whether the proceeding is being tape recorded or whether a court reporter is recording the proceeding. The hearings examiner will administer the oath to each witness individually before his or her testimony.
10. Section 1.130(j) provides that if the hearings examiner is prevented from connecting all parties through circumstances that are beyond the control of any party or the examiner, the examiner may postpone, continue, or recess the proceeding, as appropriate, until the earliest possible date and time for the proceeding to be reconvened.
11. Section 1.130(k) provides that if the hearings examiner decides or any party requests not to proceed with the telephonic proceeding at any time, or asserts that the presence of the parties or witnesses in the hearing room is necessary for full disclosure of the facts, the hearings examiner may postpone, continue, or recess the proceedings, as appropriate. The hearings examiner must reschedule the proceedings to the earliest possible date and time. The examiner must state on the record or in writing to all parties the reasons for terminating the telephonic proceeding and state the date, time, and location of the reconvened proceeding.
12. Section 1.130(l) provides that the Commission may consider the following events to constitute a failure to appear and grounds for default or dismissal: (1) Failure to answer the telephone for more than 10 minutes after the scheduled time for the proceeding; (2) failure to free the telephone for the proceeding for more than 10 minutes after the scheduled time for the proceeding; (3) failure to be ready to proceed with the proceeding within 10 minutes of the scheduled time; and (4) a party's intentional disconnection from the conference call.
13. Finally, Section 1.130(m) specifies that in the event of accidental disconnection of one or more parties to the proceeding, the hearings examiner will immediately recess the hearing and attempt to re-establish the connection or connections. If reconnection is achieved within 30 minutes, the hearings examiner may resume the telephonic hearing, or may postpone, continue, or recess the proceedings, as appropriate, until the earliest possible date and time for the proceeding to be reconvened. The examiner must state on the record the date, time, and location of the reconvened proceeding. If reconnection cannot be achieved, then the hearings examiner must recess the telephonic proceeding and reschedule the hearing.
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the State program.
Send your written or electronic comments to OSM at the address given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. We will not consider or respond to your comments when developing the final rule if they are received after the close of the comment period (
Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII or Microsoft Word file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: TX-043-FOR” and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact the Tulsa Field Office at (918) 581-6430.
We will make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments. If individual respondents request confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent allowable by law. Individual respondents who wish to withhold their name or address from public review, except for the city or town, must state this prominently at the beginning of their comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public review in their entirety.
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the fact that the telephonic hearing provisions proposed by Texas are administrative and procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry.
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.
This rule does not have federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. This determination is based on the fact that the Texas program does not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Texas program has no effect on Federally recognized Indian tribes.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C).
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local governmental agencies or geographic regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the telephonic hearing provisions proposed by Texas are administrative and procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry.
This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the telephonic hearing provisions proposed by Texas are
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
FinCEN is in the process of implementing the requirements delegated to it under the USA Patriot Act of 2001, in particular the requirement pursuant to section 352 of the Act that financial institutions establish anti-money laundering programs. The term “financial institution” includes “persons involved in real estate closings and settlements.” FinCEN is issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPRM”) to solicit public comments on a wide range of questions pertaining to this requirement, including how to define “persons involved in real estate closings and settlements,” the money laundering risks posed by such persons, and whether any such persons should be exempted from this requirement.
Written comments may be submitted on or before June 9, 2003.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by electronic mail because paper mail in the Washington, DC area may be delayed. Comments submitted by electronic mail may be sent to
Office of Chief Counsel, FinCEN, (703) 905-3590; Office of the General Counsel (Treasury), (202) 622-1927; or the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Banking and Finance (Treasury), (202) 622-0480 (not toll-free numbers).
On October 26, 2001, the President signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-56) (“the Act”). Title III of the Act, also known as the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, made a number of amendments to the anti-money laundering provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), which are codified in subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code. These amendments are intended to make it easier to prevent, detect, and prosecute international money laundering and the financing of terrorism.
Section 352(a) of the Act, which became effective on April 24, 2002, amended section 5318(h) of the BSA. As amended, section 5318(h)(1) requires every financial institution including persons involved in real estate settlements and closings under section 5312(a)(1)(U) to establish an anti-money laundering program that includes, at a minimum: (i) The development of internal policies, procedures, and controls; (ii) the designation of a compliance officer; (iii) an ongoing employee training program; and (iv) an independent audit function to test programs. When prescribing minimum standards for anti-money laundering programs, section 352 directs the Secretary of the Treasury to “consider the extent to which the requirements imposed under [section 352 of the Act] are commensurate with the size, location, and activities of the financial institutions to which such regulations apply.” The Secretary has delegated the authority to administer the BSA to the Director of FinCEN.
On April 29, 2002, and again on November 6, 2002, FinCEN temporarily exempted certain financial institutions, including persons involved in real estate closings and settlements, from the requirement to establish an anti-money laundering program.
A real estate closing or settlement is the process in which the purchase price is paid to the seller and title is transferred to the buyer.
The real estate industry could be vulnerable at all stages of the money laundering process by virtue of dealing with high value products.
In money laundering, the initial or placement stage is the stage at which funds from illegal activity, or funds intended to support illegal activity, are first introduced into the financial system. This could occur, for example, in the real estate industry through the payment for real estate with a large cash down payment.
In the second or layering stage of money laundering, the illicit funds are further disguised and distanced from their illegal source through the use of a series of frequently complex financial transactions. This could occur in the real estate industry when, for instance, multiple pieces of real estate are bought and resold, exchanged, swapped, or syndicated, making it more difficult to trace the true origin of the funds.
The third or integration phase of money laundering occurs when the illegal funds appear to have been derived from a legitimate source. In the context of the real estate industry, this could occur when real estate is sold by a money launderer to a bona fide purchaser and the purchaser, or his or her financial institution, provides the money launderer with a check that the money launderer then has the ability to represent as the proceeds of a legitimate business transaction.
The real estate industry itself has taken steps to identify potential money laundering vulnerabilities. For instance, the American Land Title Association has identified several potential “red flag” situations involving real estate transactions, including:
• Where a prospective buyer is paying for real estate with funds from a high risk country, such as a “non-cooperative country or territory” as designated by the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”) or a country designated by the Secretary as “a primary money laundering concern” pursuant to section 311 of the Act;
• Where the seller requests that the proceeds of a sale of real estate be sent to a high risk country;
• Where a person is seeking to purchase real estate in the name of a nominee and has no apparent legitimate explanation for the use of a nominee;
• Where a person is acting, or appears to be acting, as an agent for an undisclosed party and is reluctant or unwilling to provide information about the party or the reason for the agency relationship;
• Where a person does not appear to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the purpose or use of the real estate being purchased;
• Where the person appears to be buying and selling the same piece of real estate within a short period of time or is buying multiple pieces of real estate for no apparent legitimate purpose;
• Where the prospective purchaser or seller seeks to have the documents reflect something other than the true nature of the transaction; and
• Where the person provides suspicious documentation to verify his or her identity.
FinCEN solicits comment on the experience of the real estate settlement industry with money laundering schemes, the existence of any safeguards in the industry to guard against money laundering, and what additional steps may be necessary to protect the industry from abuse by money launderers, including those who finance terrorist activity.
The BSA identifies a person involved in a real estate closing or settlement as a financial institution. The statute includes no definition of the term and FinCEN has not had an occasion to define the term in a regulation. Moreover, the legislative history provides no insight into how Congress intended the term to be defined. Because section 5312(a)(1)(U) uses the phrase “persons
The universe of participants in real estate transactions is potentially broad, even in the simplest residential real estate transaction. The typical residential real estate transaction may involve the following participants:
• A real estate broker or brokers,
• One or more attorneys, who represent the purchaser or the seller,
• A bank, mortgage broker, or other financing entity,
• A title insurance company,
• An escrow agent, and
• An appraiser, who may assess the condition and value of the real estate, as well as various inspectors.
Moreover, the participants involved, and the nature of their involvement, could vary with the contemplated use of the real estate, the nature of the rights to be acquired, or how these rights are to be held. Real estate may be acquired for any one or number of purposes, including, without limitation, residential, commercial, portfolio investment, or development purposes. As for the nature of the rights to be acquired, the real estate may be held in fee simple, under a lease agreement or as security for indebtedness. Finally, real estate may be held directly or through various investment vehicles, such as real estate investment trusts, real estate limited partnerships, or entities commonly referred to as “syndicates” of real estate investors.
The guiding principle in defining the phrase “persons involved in real estate closings and settlement” is to include those persons whose services rendered or products offered in connection with a real estate closing or settlement that can be abused by money launderers. Equally as important is identifying those persons who are positioned to identify the purpose and nature of the transaction. Another factor may be the importance of various participants to successful completion of the transaction, which may suggest that they are well positioned to identify suspicious conduct. In addition, professionals may have very different roles, in different transactions, that greatly impact on their exposure to money laundering. At one end of the spectrum may be those professionals involved in structuring a real estate deal (and thus in the best position to observe and prevent their use for money laundering); at the other end, those whose role may be far from the financial aspects, such as property inspectors. Finally, involvement with the actual flow of funds used to purchase the property is a significant factor.
As noted above, attorneys often play a key role in real estate closings and settlements and thus merit consideration along with all the other professionals involved in the closing and settlement process. Section 352 requires that a financial institution take steps to detect and prevent itself from being abused by money launderers, and to comply with existing BSA requirements, such as reporting the receipt of cash or cash equivalents in an amount over $10,000 on Form 8300. This provision does not independently impose any reporting requirements on
FinCEN accordingly seeks comment on which participants in the real estate closing or settlement process are in a position where they can effectively identify and guard against money laundering in such transactions. Information and comment may, among other things, address both the extent to which various participants have access to information regarding the nature and purpose of the transactions at issue and the importance of the participants' involvement to successful completion of the transactions. Information and comment should focus on the real estate sector in general and on various transaction types. FinCEN is particularly interested in receiving comments addressing commercial real estate transactions. Comments are welcome from those involved centrally in the real estate settlement process,
FinCEN also solicits comments regarding whether there should be an exemption for any category of persons involved in real estate closings and settlements. In this connection, FinCEN anticipates that persons that are already subject to separate anti-money laundering program rules (or that will be subject to separate rules) will not also be subject to the anti-money laundering rules for persons involved in real estate closings and settlements.
In applying section 352 of the Act to persons involved in real estate closings and settlements, FinCEN must consider the extent to which the standards for anti-money laundering programs are commensurate with the size, location, and activities of persons in this industry. FinCEN recognizes that while large businesses are involved in real estate closings and settlements, businesses in this industry may be smaller companies or sole proprietors. FinCEN thus seeks comment on any particular concerns these smaller businesses may have regarding the implementation of an anti-money laundering program.
FinCEN also recognizes that persons involved in real estate closings and settlements may have some programs in place to meet existing legal obligations, such as the requirement to report on Form 8300 the receipt of over $10,000 in currency and certain monetary instruments. These businesses may also have procedures in place to protect them against fraud. FinCEN therefore seeks comment on what types of programs persons involved in real estate closings and settlements have in place to prevent fraud and illegal activities, and the applicability of such programs to the prevention of money laundering.
With this ANPRM, FinCEN is seeking input to assist it in determining how to implement the requirements of section 352 with respect to persons involved in real estate closings and settlements. FinCEN welcomes comments on all aspects of a potential regulation and encourages all interested parties to provide their views.
This ANPRM is not a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Order 12866. It neither establishes nor proposes any regulatory requirements. Instead, it seeks public comment on a wide range of questions concerning the extent to which the anti-money laundering program mandates of section 352 of the USA Patriot Act should apply to persons involved in real estate closings and settlements.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a drawbridge operation regulation for the draw of the CSX Railroad swing bridge across the Apalachicola River, mile 105.9, at River Junction (near Chattahoochee), Florida. The regulation will allow for the bridge to be unmanned and remain closed during hours of infrequent traffic with
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 9, 2003.
You may mail comments and related material to Commander (obc), Eighth Coast Guard District, 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3396, or deliver them to room 1313 at the same address above between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying by appointment at the Bridge Administration Branch, Eighth Coast Guard District between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Mr. David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, at the address given above or telephone (504) 589-2965.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD08-03-007), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. However, you may submit a request for a public meeting by writing to the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch at the address under
The CSX swing bridge across the Apalachicola River, mile 105.9, presently opens on signal for the passage of vessels. The bridge owner has requested to change the operation regulations so that the bridge be required to open on signal only from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. Monday through Friday. At all other times, the bridge would open on signal if at least four hours advanced notification is given. The request was made based upon a documented decrease in the number of requests for openings in the last three years. In 2000, the bridge opened 63 times for the passage of vessels. In 2001, the bridge opened 38 times for the passage of vessels. In the first five months of 2002, the bridge opened 15 times for the passage of vessels. Information gathered regarding the decrease in vessel movements indicates that the closure of a sand and gravel facility above the bridge and a prolonged drought are the main contributing factors. While water elevations may return to their pre-drought levels, there is presently no evidence that the number of requests for bridge openings will increase in the future due to limited industrial development along the waterway.
The proposed rule will have no effect on the existing operation of the bridge between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday when the bridge will open on signal to accommodate marine traffic. At all other times the bridge will only open if four hours advance notice is provided. This change is proposed to reduce the financial burden on the drawbridge operator of maintaining bridge tenders at times that there is little or no vessel traffic.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security.
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.
Prior to proposing this rule, the Coast Guard analyzed the bridge usage records and determined that requiring four hours notice during off peak periods would have minimal impact on commercial vessel traffic. This proposed rule allows vessels ample opportunity to transit this waterway during normal weekdays and with minimal notification at all other times.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels requiring a vertical clearance of greater than 17.4 feet above Ordinary High Water and needing to transit the bridge outside of the 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. weekday time frame. The impacts to small entities will not be significant because of the limited number of openings required by these vessels.
This is not considered to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Bridge Administration Branch, Eighth Coast Guard District at the address above.
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this proposed rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not economically significant and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
We considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 32(e), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This action is categorically excluded under paragraph 32(e) as it is for the purpose of promulgating an operation regulation for this drawbridge. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under
Bridges.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend Part 117 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 117 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
2. § 117.258 is added to read as follows:
The draw of the CSX Railroad bridge, mile 105.9, at River Junction shall open on signal Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m. At all other times, the bridge will open on signal if at least 4 hours notice is given.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone concerning the control of volatile organic compounds. The SIP revision consists of amendments to New York Codes, Rules and Regulations part 226, “Solvent Metal Cleaning,” part 235, “Consumer Products” and the adoption of new rule part 239, “Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control.” This SIP revision consists of control measures needed to meet the shortfall emissions reduction identified by EPA in New York's 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP. The intended effect of this action is to approve control strategies required by the Clean Air Act which will result in emission reductions that will help achieve attainment of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone.
Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2003.
All comments should be addressed to: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
A copy of the New York submittals are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources, 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233.
Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch,
Section 182 of the Clean Air Act (Act) specifies the required State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions and requirements for areas classified as nonattainment for ozone and when these submissions and requirements are to be submitted to EPA by the states. The specific requirements vary depending upon the severity of the ozone problem. The New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island area is classified as a severe ozone nonattainment area. Under section 182, severe ozone nonattainment areas were required to submit demonstrations of how they would attain the 1-hour standard. On December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70364), EPA proposed approval of New York's 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area. In that rulemaking, EPA identified an emission reduction shortfall associated with New York's 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP, and required New York to address the shortfall. In a related matter, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) developed control measures into model rules for a number of source categories and estimated emission reduction benefits from implementing these model rules. These model rules were designed for use by states in developing their own regulations to achieve additional emission reductions to close emission shortfalls.
On February 4, 2002 (67 FR 5170), EPA approved New York's 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP. This approval included an enforceable commitment submitted by New York to adopt additional control measures to close the shortfall identified by EPA for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.
On December 30, 2002, Carl Johnson, Deputy Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), submitted to EPA a revision to the SIP which included state adopted revisions to two regulations. The two regulations consist of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), part 235, “Consumer Products” and part 239, “Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control.” In addition, on January 17, 2003, Deputy Commissioner Johnson submitted to EPA a revision to the SIP which included state proposed revisions to NYCRR, part 226, “Solvent Metal Cleaning.” All of these revisions will provide volatile organic compound (VOC) emission reductions to address, in part, the shortfall identified by EPA. New York used the OTC model rules as guidelines to develop its rules.
Part 226 is intended to establish hardware and operating requirements for vapor cleaning machines used to clean metal parts as well as solvent volatility limits and operating practices for cold cleaners. The revisions to part 226 include clarifications to the general requirements; equipment specifications; and operating requirements, including recordkeeping requirements for cold cleaning degreasers; and exemptions. The revisions to part 226 also include a solvent vapor pressure specification of 1.0 millimeters of mercury at 20 degrees Celsius which becomes mandatory January 1, 2004, unless a process-specific Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) demonstration has been approved by the NYSDEC and EPA. The alternate RACT provision is available for situations in which it can be demonstrated that a solvent metal cleaning process cannot be controlled to comply with the requirements of part 226 for reasons of technological and economic infeasibility.
The revisions to part 235 include VOC content limits for 43 separate consumer product categories. Revised part 235 establishes that no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or manufacture consumer products on or after January 1, 2005, which contain VOCs in excess of the VOC content limits specified by New York for those products. Part 235 includes specific exemptions, as well as certification and product labeling requirements, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and test methods and procedures, and provisions for acquiring variances and approvals of innovative products exemptions (IPEs) and alternative compliance plans (ACPs).
The part 235 IPE and ACP provisions provide alternatives to complying with the VOC content limits specified in the Table of Standards in part 235. The State has provided criteria for documentation of emissions and the VOC content limit of the product as well as procedures for submissions to apply for IPEs and ACPs. Part 235 also allows a manufacturer who was granted an IPE or ACP pursuant to the California Air Resource Board (CARB) provisions in sections 94511, 94503.5 and 94540-94555 of title 17 of the California Code of Regulations to apply for and obtain an IPE or ACP in New York State. The IPE or ACP can become effective in New York State for the period of time that the CARB IPE or ACP remains in effect, provided that all the consumer products within the CARB IPE or ACP are regulated by part 235. Any manufacturer seeking such an exemption on this basis must submit to the NYSDEC, a copy of the CARB IPE or ACP decision (
Part 235 also establishes procedures for obtaining a variance. Any person who cannot comply with requirements set forth in part 235, due to extraordinary reasons that are beyond that person's reasonable control, may apply in writing to the NYSDEC for a variance. An application for a variance must specify the grounds upon which the variance is sought, the proposed date(s) by which compliance with the part 235 VOC limits will be achieved and a compliance report reasonably detailing the method(s) by which compliance will be achieved.
Part 239 is intended to reduce refueling emissions from those equipment and engines in the off-road categories that are predominantly refueled with portable fuel containers. Part 239 applies to any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures for sale in New York State portable fuel container(s) or spout(s) or both for use in New York State. Part 239 includes exemptions; administrative requirements which include date coding; compliance certification; labeling; recordkeeping requirements; a manufacturer warranty requirement; and test methods and procedures.
Part 239 establishes performance standards applicable on or after January 1, 2003, which are divided into two sections. One standard specifically addresses spill-proof systems and the other addresses spill-proof spouts for use in portable fuel containers. Included are performance standards for automatic shut off, automatic closure, container openings, fuel flow rates and fill levels.
Part 239 allows the manufacturers of noncompliant products a one year sell-through period. Manufacturers may continue to sell an existing product provided that the products were manufactured before January 1, 2003, and the date of manufacture or a date code representing the date of manufacture is clearly displayed on that product.
Part 239 also establishes IPE provisions which allow for alternatives to complying with the performance standards specified in part 239. As in the case of part 235, if a manufacturer was granted an IPE pursuant to the CARB provisions, the IPE can become effective in New York State for the period of time that the CARB IPE remains in effect. Section 2467.4 of title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, specifies the CARB provisions applicable to portable fuel containers. Any manufacturer seeking such an exemption on this basis must submit to the NYSDEC, a copy of the CARB IPE decision (
In addition, part 239 provides procedures for obtaining a variance. Any person who cannot comply with the performance standards set forth in part 239, due to extraordinary reasons that are beyond that person's reasonable control, may apply in writing to the NYSDEC for a variance. An application for a variance must specify the grounds upon which the variance is sought, the proposed date(s) by which compliance with the part 239 VOC limits will be achieved and a compliance report reasonably detailing the method(s) by which compliance will be achieved.
EPA has evaluated New York's submittal for consistency with the Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. EPA has determined that the revisions made to part 226, part 235 and new part 239 of title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, entitled, “Solvent Metal Cleaning”, “Consumer Products” and “Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control”, respectively, meet the SIP revision requirements of the Act with the following exception. While the provisions related to alternate test methods, variances, innovative products and alternate compliance plans pursuant to part 235, “Consumer Products” or part 239, “Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control” are acceptable, the specific application of those provisions (those that are granted or accepted by NYSDEC) will not be recognized as meeting Federal requirements until they are approved by EPA on a case-by-case basis as a SIP revision. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the regulations as part of the New York SIP with the exception that the specific application of provisions associated with alternate test methods, variances, innovative products and alternate compliance plans, must be submitted as SIP revisions.
In addition, the revisions to part 226, “Solvent Metal Cleaning” are being proposed under a procedure called parallel processing, whereby EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrent with the state's procedures for amending its regulations. If the proposed revision is substantially changed in areas other than those identified in this document, EPA will evaluate those changes and may publish another notice of proposed rulemaking. If no substantial changes are made to part 226 as cited in this document, EPA will publish a final rulemaking on the revisions. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been adopted by New York and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP. It should be noted, that if for some reason the adoption process by New York for part 226 is delayed, it is likely that EPA will proceed with a final rulemaking action on the revisions to parts 235 and 239 and address the final rulemaking action for part 226 separately.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to Wisconsin's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the attainment of the one-hour ozone standard for the Milwaukee-Racine area. This SIP revision, submitted to EPA on December 16, 2002, provides new compliance options for sources subject to the state's rules limiting emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO
In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
EPA must receive comments on this action by May 12, 2003.
You should mail written comments to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), USEPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
A copy of the state's request is available for inspection at the above address.
Alexis Cain, Environmental Scientist, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), USEPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7018.
EPA is proposing to approve, as part of the Wisconsin ozone SIP, rules that would allow sources to use emissions averaging and an emissions cap as a option for complying with ozone season limits on emissions of NO
Emissions averaging will allow units subject to the NO
For additional information see the direct final rule published in the rules and regulations section of this
42 U.S.C. 4201
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
Nebraska has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final authorization to Nebraska. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Send your written comments by May 12, 2003.
Send written comments to Lisa V. Haugen, U.S. EPA Region 7, ARTD/RESP, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas. You can view and copy Nebraska's application during normal business hours at the following addresses: Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Suite 400, The Atrium, 1200 “N” Street, Lincoln, Nebraska, 68509-8922, (402) 471-2186; and EPA Region 7, Library, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, (913) 551-7877, Lisa V. Haugen.
Lisa V. Haugen, (913) 551-7877.
For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA proposes to grant Final authorization to the hazardous waste program changes submitted by Utah. In the “Rules” section of this
We must receive your comments by May 12, 2003.
Send written comments to Kris Shurr, 8P-HW, U.S. EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th St, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, phone number: (303) 312-6139. You can view and copy Utah's application at the following addresses: Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., 288 North 1460 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4880, contact: Susan Toronto, phone number: (801) 538-6776, and EPA Region VIII, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, contact: Kris Shurr, phone number: (303) 312-6139.
Kris Shurr, EPA Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, phone number: (303) 312-6139.
For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules” section of this
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is proposing to revise its Schedule of Regulatory Fees in order to recover the amount of regulatory fees that Congress has required it to collect for fiscal year 2003. Section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides for the annual assessment and collection of regulatory fees under sections 9(b)(2) and (b)(3), respectively, for annual “Mandatory Adjustments” and “Permitted Amendments” to the Schedule of Regulatory Fees.
Comments are due on or before April 25, 2003, and reply comments are due on or before May 5, 2003.
Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-0444 or Rob Fream, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-0408.
By the Commission:
1. In this
2. Each fiscal year, the Commission proportionally allocates the total amount that must be collected via regulatory fees (Attachment C).
3. In calculating the FY 2003 regulatory fees proposed in Attachment D, the Commission further adjusted the FY 2002 list of payment units (Attachment B) based upon licensee data bases and industry and trade group projections. Whenever possible, the Commission verified these estimates from multiple sources to ensure accuracy of these estimates.
4. The NPRM also proposes adjusting payment units for FY 2003 by expanding the AM and FM Radio Station Regulatory Fees Grid. Since FY 1998, the Commission has used a grid that divides broadcast station regulatory fees by class of service, population, and type of service (AM/FM).
5. The NPRM is therefore proposing a revised grid (six by seven) that includes a population category of “greater than three million people.” In addition, the NPRM is also proposing to change the population threshold amounts to reflect a slightly wider population field. The current and proposed radio station grids follow:
6. In both 2001,
7. Those who argue for such a reclassification of LMDS for regulatory fee purposes have pointed out other differences between MDS and LMDS, such as individually licensed station hub sites (MDS) versus geographically based licenses (LMDS), differing markets, and different financial/investment requirements. Proponents of moving LMDS to another category also note the differences in the spectrum propagation characteristics of MDS and LMDS—with LMDS having more propagation limitations.
8. Those opposing such a re-classification of LMDS for regulatory fee purposes note that there are many similarities between the services of LMDS and MDS, including that they both provide high speed voice and data services. They also point out that past arguments for making a change have only come forward after the Commission has issued its final annual fee assessments.
9. The Commission's denial of the past requests to move LMDS to a microwave fee category—or any other category—has not been based on rejection or acceptance of either set of arguments, but simply the fact that insufficient evidence has been provided. Thus, the NPRM asks for public comment on how LMDS should be categorized for regulatory fee purposes, including whether an entirely new fee category should be established just for LMDS, in order to build a complete record on whether LMDS is properly classified within its current fee category of “Multipoint Distribution.”
10. Section 9 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 159) requires the Commission to assess and collect regulatory fees to cover the costs of certain regulatory activities. The statute also specifies when these fees may be waived.
11. Although fee waivers will generally be given in cases of financial hardship, we nevertheless note that even under our current policies, in some circumstances a significant question may exist as to whether bankruptcy represents extraordinary and compelling circumstances justifying a waiver when balanced against the public interest in reimbursing the Commission for its costs as reflected in the statutory fee provisions. A policy of automatically granting a waiver, in the case of large entities owing millions of dollars in fees, for example, might have significant impact on the Commission's overall ability to collect fees to reimburse the government for its costs as required by law. Therefore, under such circumstances a waiver may well not promote the public interest, as provided in sections 8(d)(2) and 9(d). We therefore emphasize that under the statutory waiver provisions, case-by-case review of fee waiver requests is necessary to determine the public interest, even in bankruptcy cases.
12. We also seek comment on whether we should set a cap on the amount of fees that we will generally waive in circumstances involving bankruptcy or otherwise. Fees owed above this cap would, of course, be subject to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C. 101
13. In an effort to streamline the regulatory fee process, the Commission is undertaking several initiatives that will make the process of collecting fees more efficient. Historically, in addition to providing official notice of regulatory fee assessments in the
14. Further, the Commission is also undertaking a pilot program to mail postcards specifically stating the amount owed (
15. With the exception of the changes noted in the preceding sections, the FY 2003 regulatory fee collection will follow the policies or procedures found in the
16. We are beginning a multi-year effort to review, streamline and modernize our fee assessment and collection processes and procedures. We welcome comments on a broad range of options in this regard. Areas of particular interest include: (1) The process for notifying users about changes in the annual regulatory fee schedule and how it can be improved; (2) the most effective way to disseminate regulatory fee bills,
17. As in the past, the Commission is proposing that regulatees whose total regulatory fee liability, including all categories of fees for which payment is due by an entity, amounts to less than $10 will be exempted from fee payment in FY 2003.
18. The time for payment of standard fees will be announced in the
(a) Media services—the responsibility for the payment of regulatory fees rests with the holder of the permit or license on October 1, 2002. However, in instances where a license or permit is transferred or assigned after October 1, 2002, responsibility for payment rests with the holder of the license or permit at the time payment is due.
(b) Wireline (Common Carrier) and Cable Services (fees are not based on a subscriber, unit, or circuit count)—fees must be paid for any authorization issued on or before October 1, 2002.
(c) Cable Subscriber Services and Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) cellular, mobile, and messaging services (fees based upon a subscriber, unit or circuit count)—the number of subscribers, units or circuits on December 31, 2002 will be used as the basis from which to calculate the fee payment.
19. The Commission strongly recommends that entities submitting more than twenty-five (25) Form 159-C's use the electronic fee filer program when sending in their regulatory fee payment. The Commission will, for the convenience of payers, accept fee payments made in advance of the normal formal window for the payment of regulatory fees.
20. As required in 47 U.S.C. 159(c), an additional charge shall be assessed as a penalty for late payment of any regulatory fee. A late payment penalty of 25 percent of the amount of the required regulatory fee will be assessed on the first day following the deadline date for filing of these fees. Failure to pay regulatory fees and/or any late penalty will subject regulatees to sanctions, including the provisions set forth in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (“DCIA”). The Commission also assesses administrative processing charges on delinquent debts to recover additional costs incurred in processing and handling the related debt pursuant to the DCIA and section 1.1940(d) of the Commission's rules. These administrative processing charges will be assessed on any delinquent regulatory fee, in addition to the 25 percent late charge penalty. Partial underpayments of regulatory fees are treated in the following manner. The licensee will be given credit for the amount paid, but if it is later determined that the fee paid is incorrect or was submitted after the deadline date, the 25 percent late charge penalty will be assessed on the portion that is
21. Pursuant to 47 CFR section 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before April 25, 2003, and reply comments on or before May 5, 2003. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
22. Comments filed through the ECFS are sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
23. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be hand delivered, sent by commercial overnight courier, or mailed through the U.S. Postal Service (please note that the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered paper filings at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
24. Parties who choose to file by paper must also submit their comments on diskette. Two copies of the diskettes must be submitted. One copy is to be sent to Qualex International, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The other copy is to be sent to Office of Managing Director, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 1-C848, Washington, DC 20554. These submissions must be in a Microsoft Windows
25. The public may view the documents filed in this proceeding during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, and through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS)
26. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding.
27. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
28. Authority for this proceeding is contained in sections 4(i) and (j), 8, 9, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. It is ordered that this NPRM is adopted.
29. Further information about this proceeding may be obtained by contacting the Fees Hotline at (888) 225-5322.
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
2. This rulemaking proceeding is initiated to obtain comments concerning the Commission's proposed amendment of its Schedule of Regulatory Fees in the amount of $269,000,000, the amount that Congress has required the Commission to recover. The Commission seeks to collect the necessary amount through its proposed Schedule of Regulatory Fees in the most efficient manner possible and without undue public burden.
3. This action, including publication of proposed rules, is authorized under sections (4)(i) and (j), 9, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
4. 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.
5. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for cable and other pay television services, which includes all such companies generating $11 million or less in revenue annually.
6. The Commission has developed its own definition of a small cable system operator for purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide.
7. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a definition of a small cable system operator, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.”
8.
9. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide appears to be data the Commission publishes annually in its
10. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs)
11.
12.
13.
14. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to licensees in the international services. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is generally the definition under the SBA rules applicable to Communications Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC).
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by television to the public, except cable and other pay television services. Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational and other television stations. Also included here are establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and which produce taped television program materials.
26. Additionally, the SBA defines a radio broadcasting station that has $5 million or less in annual receipts as a small business.
27. The rules may affect an estimated total of 1,714 television stations, approximately 1,320 of which are considered small businesses.
28.
29. The Commission estimates that there are approximately 3,790 translators and boosters. The Commission does not collect financial information on any broadcast facility, and the Department of Commerce does not collect financial information on these auxiliary broadcast facilities. We believe that most, if not all, of these auxiliary facilities could be classified as small businesses by themselves. We also recognize that most commercial translators and boosters are owned by a parent station which, in some cases, would be covered by the revenue definition of small business entity discussed above. These stations would likely have annual revenues that exceed the SBA maximum to be designated as a small business ($5 million for a radio station or $10.5 million for a TV station). Furthermore, they do not meet the Small Business Act's definition of a “small business concern” because they are not independently owned and operated.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42. The Commission is unable at this time to estimate the number of small businesses which could be impacted by the rules. The Commission's 1994 Annual Report on PLMRs
43.
44.
45. Most applicants for recreational licenses are individuals. Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the radio carriage requirements of any statute or treaty. For purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in this FRFA, we estimate that there may be at least 712,000 potential licensees which are individuals or are small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA. We estimate that only 10,200 will be subject to FY 2003 regulatory fees.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54. With certain exceptions, the Commission's Schedule of Regulatory Fees applies to all Commission licensees and regulatees. Most licensees will be required to count the number of licenses or call signs authorized, complete and submit an FCC Form 159 (“FCC Remittance Advice”), and pay a regulatory fee based on the number of licenses or call signs.
55. Each licensee must submit the FCC Form 159 to the Commission's lockbox bank after computing the number of units subject to the fee. Licensees may also file electronically to minimize the burden of submitting multiple copies of the FCC Form 159. Applicants who pay small fees in advance and provide fee information as part of their application must use FCC Form 159.
56. Licensees and regulatees are advised that failure to submit the required regulatory fee in a timely manner will subject the licensee or regulatee to a late payment penalty of 25 percent in addition to the required fee.
57. The Commission's rules currently provide for relief in exceptional circumstances. Persons or entities may request a waiver, reduction or deferment of payment of the regulatory fee.
58. 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: (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. As described in section IV of this IRFA,
59.
60. With the use of actual cost accounting data for computation of regulatory fees, we found that some fees which were very small in previous years would have increased dramatically and would have a disproportionate impact on smaller entities. The methodology we are adopting in this
61. Several categories of licensees and regulatees are exempt from payment of regulatory fees.
62. None.
In order to calculate individual service fees for FY 2003, we adjusted FY 2002 payment units for each service to more accurately reflect expected FY 2003 payment liabilities. We obtained our updated estimates through a variety of means. For example, we used Commission licensee data bases, actual prior year payment records and industry and trade association projections when available. We tried to obtain verification for these estimates from multiple sources and, in all cases, we compared FY 2003 estimates with actual FY 2002 payment units to ensure that our revised estimates were reasonable. Where appropriate, we adjusted and/or rounded our final estimates because the impact of certain variables could not be estimated exactly. These include an unknown number of waivers and/or exemptions that may occur in FY 2003, as well as the number of actual licensees or station operators that may also fluctuate because of economic, technical or other reasons. Therefore, when we note that our estimated FY 2003 payment units are based on FY 2002 actual payment units, we do not necessarily mean that our FY 2003 projection is
Specific information on each day tower, including field ratio, phasing, spacing and orientation was retrieved, as well as the theoretical pattern RMS figure (mV/m @ 1 km) for the antenna system. The standard, or modified standard if pertinent, horizontal plane radiation pattern was calculated using techniques and methods specified in section 73.150 and 73.152 of the Commission's rules.
The maximum of the horizontal and vertical HAAT (m) and ERP (kW) was used.
Where the antenna HAMSL was available, it was used in lieu of the overall HAAT figure to calculate specific HAAT figures for each of 72 radials under study. Any available directional pattern information was applied as well, to produce a radial-specific ERP figure. The HAAT and ERP figures were used in conjunction with the propagation curves specified in section 73.313 of the Commission's rules to predict the distance to the city grade (70 dBuV/m or 3.17 mV/m) contour for each of the 72 radials.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This
Comments must be filed on or before May 12, 2003, and reply comments on or before May 27, 2003.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the Joint Petitioners' counsel, as follows: Kevin F. Reed, Esq., Elizabeth A. M. McFadden, Esq., and Nam E. Kim, Esq., Down Lohnes & Albertson, PLLC; 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Suite 800; Washington, DC 20036.
R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's notice of proposed rule making, MB Docket No. 03-77, adopted March 19, 2003, and released March 21, 2003. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail
Cox's reallotment proposals for Stations WBHJ, WFMH-FM, WRSA, WFFN, WQOP-FM, WASZ, and WTRB-FM comply with the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, and therefore, the Commission will not accept competing expressions of interest in the use of Channel 239C2 at Midfield, the use of Channel 238A at Hackleburg, the use of Channel 245C at Holly Pond, the use of Channel 237A at Coaling, the use of Channel 223A at Cordova, the use of Channel 238A at Hobson City, or the use of Channel 252A at Ashland, or require Cox to demonstrate the availability of additional equivalent class channels for use by other parties.
The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a notice of proposed rule making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 336.
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Alabama, is amended by removing Channel 238A and adding Channel 252A at Ashland; by adding Coaling, Channel 237A; by removing Channel 237A and adding Channel 223A at Cordova; by removing Channel 245C at Decatur; by removing Dora, Channel 223A; by adding Hackleburg, Channel 238A; by adding Hobson City, Channel 238A; by removing Channel 238A and adding Channel 245C at Holly Pond; by adding Midfield, Channel 239C2; by removing Sylacauga, Channel 252A; and by removing Channel 239C1 at Tuscaloosa.
3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Georgia, is amended by removing Channel 253C and adding Channel 253C0 at Atlanta.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a petition filed by Dana J. Puoplo proposing the allotment of Channel 252A at Ridgecrest, CA, as that community's third FM commercial service. Channel 252A can be allotted to Ridgecrest, consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's rules, provided there is a site restriction of 12.5 kilometers (7.7 miles) west of the community. The reference coordinates for Channel 252A at Ridgecrest are 35-39-19 North Latitude and 117-48-06 West Longitude.
Comments must be filed on or before May 12, 2003, and reply comments on or before May 27, 2003.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, as follows: Dana J. Puopolo, 2134 Oak Street, Unit C, Santa Monica, CA 90405.
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a summary of the Commission's notice of proposed rule making, MB Docket No. 03-79, adopted March 19, 2003, and released March 21, 2003. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a notice of proposed rule making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under California, is amended by adding Channel 252A at Ridgecrest.
Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces a one-day public meeting to solicit comments on issues raised at a recent meeting of the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC), at a public meeting OPS held on March 14, 2003, and at a public workshop held February 21-22, 2003, which was jointly organized by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) Foundation and the American Gas Association (AGA). At this meeting we intend to present the issues for comment and to question further those offering comments to assure that we completely understand each issue.
The meeting is open to all. There is no cost to attend. This meeting will be held on Friday, April 25, 2003, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Marriott at Washington Dulles Airport, 4520 Aviation Drive, Dulles, VA 20166. Tel: 703-471-9500; Web site:
You may submit written comments by mail or delivery to the Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. The dockets facility is open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. You should submit the original and one copy. Anyone who wants confirmation of receipt of their comments must include a stamped, self-addressed postcard. You may also submit comments to the docket electronically. To do so, log on to the Internet Web address
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comments (or signing the comments, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the U.S. Department of Transportation's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Jean Milam at (202) 493-0967 or Jenny Donohue at (202) 366-4046, regarding this document. General information about RSPA/OPS programs may be obtained by accessing RSPA's Internet page at
Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities: For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance, contact Juan Carlos, (202) 366-1933.
To better prevent pipeline failures that can imperil the health and safety of nearby residents and cause significant damage to their property, RSPA/OPS is promulgating a series of rules to require pipeline operators to develop integrity management programs. These programs are intended to identify the best methods for maintaining the structural soundness of pipelines operating across the United States. The programs operators develop are to include conducting baseline and periodic assessments of certain pipeline segments. RSPA/OPS has completed the integrity management program rules for hazardous liquid operators and is now addressing the requirements for natural gas transmission pipeline operators. RSPA/OPS proposed a rule on integrity management program requirements on January 28, 2003, (68 FR 4278).
The proposed rule has been discussed at a meeting of the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) on March 27, 2003, at a public meeting OPS held in Washington, DC, on March 14, 2003, and at a workshop jointly organized by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) Foundation and the American Gas Association (AGA) held in Houston, TX, on February 21-22, 2003. Discussions from the public meeting and the workshop are in the docket. Several issues were raised during these discussions that OPS/RSPA would like to explore further. RSPA/OPS is holding the April public meeting to present the issues for comment and to question further those offering comments to assure that we completely understand each issue.
The preliminary agenda for the April meeting includes the following questions for discussion:
Should assessment requirements for low-stress pipeline (
Should the requirement to pressure test pipelines to verify integrity against material and construction defects be limited to pipeline segments for which information suggests a potential vulnerability to such defects? If so, what information should be relied upon?
Should the assessment intervals for direct assessment be revised to be the same as those applicable to in-line inspection or pressure testing? Are there opportunities to quickly schedule and assess research demonstrations to provide additional data on which to base judgments about validity?
What assessment requirements should be applicable to plastic transmission pipelines?
Should a repair criteria for constraint dents on the bottom of the pipe be different from that allowed for dents located on the top? Should the presence of stress risers, cracking or metal loss affect this decision?
Should additional third-party damage prevention methods be utilized instead of explicit assessments for third-party damage? What methods should be used in conjunction with other assessment methods to detect delayed third party damage?
How can the requirements be clarified for the situations when an operator should look beyond the segment in a high consequence area, when segments outside the HCA are likely to have similar integrity concerns as those found inside an HCA?
Should we require monthly electronic reporting of performance measures?
Should a rule allow two options: following the definition of high consequence areas defined by final rule on August 6, 2002; (67 FR 50824) or using potential impact circles along the entire length of the pipeline? Under either option, an operator would calculate the potential impact circles for each segment, but the use of those circles would differ depending on the option. If the operator used the class location component of the high consequence area definition, the operator would treat entire class 3 and 4 areas as high consequence areas and use the potential impact circles to determine population density beyond 660 feet using specified number of buildings intended for human occupancy. Under the potential impact circle option, operators would use the circles to identify areas where the density of buildings intended for human occupancy exceeds a specified number and then focus the integrity assessments, repairs and other protections in these areas.
Requirements for how an operator treats identified sites that are defined in the high consequence area would not change under either option.
Should the criterion for determining the population density component of a high consequence area be based on 10 or 20 buildings intended for human occupancy within the impact circle?
Should additional safety margin be applied to the potential impact circle radius calculated using the C-FER equation?
Should a rule allow an operator to use data regarding the number of buildings within 660 feet of the pipeline (available now to operators because of the existing definition of class locations) to infer (extrapolate) the building density in potential impact circles larger than 660 feet? Should this be limited to an interim period of five years to allow operators to collect additional data on buildings beyond 660 feet?
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of availability of draft environmental impact statement.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lassen National Forest, wishes to advise the public of availability of a DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a proposed land exchange between the Spalding Community Services District (SCDS) and the Lessen National Forest, Lassen County, CA. Approval would include the transfer of approximately 57.21 acres of Federal lands encompassing one 52.50 acre parcel and one 4.71 acres parcel, and also includes a non-significant minor amendment to the “Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (LRMP), and authorization of a special use of National Forest System Lands for water and sewer pipeline corridors, and an access road totaling approximately 2.7 acres. Details on the proposed action, location and areas of environmental concern addressed in the DEIS are provided in the
Submit comments on or before close of business on May 27, 2003 at the address listed below.
The final EIS is scheduled for completion in June 2003.
You may submit comments to the responsible official: Edward C. Cole, Forest Supervisor, Lassen National Forest, 2550 Riverside Drive, Susanville, CA 96130.
Forest Service (lead agency) is proposing an equal value exchange of federal land with the SCSD for one SCSD parcel and third party private lands. If the values are unequal, either party may equalize the values by making a cash payment not to exceed 25 percent of the value of the lands transferred out of Federal ownership. The Forest Service is initiating this action in response to a request by SCSD to acquire lands to accommodate construction and operation of a wastewater collection and treatment facility. The federal lands are from the Lassen National Forest (57.21 acres). Lands the SCSD may potentially exchange include up to eleven parcels listed in order of priority for acquisition (Lassen County Assessor Parcel Numbers 077-303-21; 075-120-14, -15, 075-130-11, 075-080-17; and Plumas County Assessor Parcel Numbers 009-190-006; 010-010-029, -030; and 005-220-018, -019, -020). Acquisition of these parcels would improve access to National Forest System Lands, eliminate one or more in-holdings, and add wetland habitat to the Lassen National Forest. Approval of the land exchange would also include a non-significant minor amendment to the Lassen LRMP, and authorization of a special use of National Forest System Lands for water and sewer pipeline corridors and an access road totaling approximately 2.7 acres. The DEIS analyses the environmental impacts of this proposal as well as the “no action” alternative.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission to the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information (FOIA) permits such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address.
Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the DEIS. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the final environmental impact statement, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision making process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers' position and contentions.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement on a proposal to treat vegetation using a variety of silvicultural methods on approximately 1,680 acres of National Forest System lands in the Horse Creek watershed near the towns of Horse Creek and Klamath River, in Siskiyou County, California. Approximately 1.9 miles of classified
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received within 14 days of the publication of this notice in the
Send written comments to Ray Haupt, District Ranger, Scott River Ranger District, 11263 N. Highway 3, Fort Jones, CA 96032.
Bill Bailey, Timber Management Officer, at the above address or call (530) 468-5351.
The purpose of this proposed action is to protect the long-term hydrologic and aquatic health within the Horse Creek watershed and four 7th field subwatersheds (Horse/Middle, Buckhorn, Kohl, and Doggett Creeks). The Horse/Middle, Buckhorn, and Doggett Creek subwatersheds are considered impaired, as described in the Horse Creek Ecosystem Analysis (also known as a Watershed Analysis, November 2002). During the Horse Creek Ecosystem Analysis process, existing conditions were compared to the desired conditions in the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, and a need to reduce both stocking and fuel levels was identified. This would also reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and promote forest stand health and longevity. The need was further documented with a fuels inventory completed in the summer of 2002 that showed abnormally high fuel levels of 33 tons per acre in the project area.
The higher elevations of the project area are comprised of stands of Shasta red fir. These stands are heavily infested with dwarf mistletoe and
The Scott River District of the Klamath National Forest proposes to treat vegetation on approximately 1,680 acres in the Horse Creek watershed using the following silvicultural prescriptions (acreages are approximate): 699 acres of thinning, 344 acres of group selection, 553 acres of sanitation/salvage, 72 acres of green tree retention, and 12 acres of overstory removal. Tractor, cable, and helicopter logging methods would be used, with helicopter as the predominant method.
Project-generated fuels would be treated through a combination of mastication (reducing vegetative matter to small pieces using machinery) and hand piling/burning. Mastication would occur on areas that are less than 45% slope gradient. Hand piling would occur on steeper slopes and any areas with machine entry exclusions.
All Shasta red fir, white fir, and hemlock stumps would be hand treated with the fungicide Sporax® to reduce the spread of fungus
Openings created from group selection and green tree retention prescriptions would be planted and baiting for pocket gophers. Baiting application method would consist of probing and/or spooning method of below-ground application of strychnine.
There would be no new system road construction. Approximately 1.9 miles on seven classified road segments are proposed for decommissioning in this project design. Approximately 1.6 miles of eight unclassified roads and road segments are proposed for decommissioning. Approximately 1.8 miles of two existing unclassified roads are proposed for adding to the transportation system.
The areas proposed for treatment are within the General Forest, Retention, Partial Retention, Special Interest Area (Condrey Mountain Blueschist), and Riparian Reserve land allocations in the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The legal description for the proposal is Township 47 North, Range 9 West, Sections 19, 20, and 30; Township 47 North, Range 10 West, Sections 11-15, 22, 24, and 26; Mount Diablo Meridian. All activities would likely be completed within five years of the decision being made.
Forestwide Standard and Guideline 11-4 of the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan would be modified to state: “Perpetuate the sustainable, aesthetically valued landscape character when implementing Forest programs and activities. Achieve Forest Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) to help conserve that character's existing and potential valued attributes. If the character is seriously threatened due to current ecosystem conditions, individual corrective alterations may be permitted, even if inconsistent with the Forest VQO. When undertaking such corrective actions, the following provisions apply:
(a) Alterations must remain consistent with the Forest VQO in the cumulative sense, thereby meeting the VQO within the affected area's immediate viewshed and/or its linear viewing corridor;
(b) Public scenery interests of the affected area must be fully considered; and
(c) Alterations in excess of the Forest VQO would persist no longer than 10 years after project completion.”
The Forest Service must decide whether it will implement this project, including a project-specific amendment to the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; implement an alternative that meets the purpose and need; or not implement any project at this time.
Margaret Boland, Forest Supervisor, USDA Forest Service, 1312 Fairlane Road, Yreka, California 96097 is the Responsible Official.
In October 2001, this project was included in the Klamath National Forest's Fall 2001 Schedule of Proposed Actions, which was posted on the Klamath National Forest's internet website and mailed to interested parties. In January 2003, a scoping letter was sent to potentially affected individuals and anyone who expressed interest in the proposal. This Notice of Intent invites additional public comment on this proposal and initiates the preparation of the environmental impact statement. Due to the extensive scoping effects already conducted, no scoping meeting is planned. The public is encouraged to take part in the planning process and to visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision.
While public participation in this analysis is welcome at any time, comments received within 14 days of the publication of this notice will be especially useful in the preparation of the draft environmental impact statement. The scoping process will include identifying potential issues, significant issues to be analyzed in depth, alternatives to the proposed action, and potential environmental effects of the proposal and alternatives.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement.
A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Del Norte County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet on May 6, 2003 in Crescent City, California. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the selection of Title II projects under Public Law 106-393, H.R. 2389, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, also called the “Payments to States” Act.
The meeting will be held on May 6, 2003 from 6 to 8:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Del Norte County Unified School District Board Room, 301 West Washington Boulevard, Crescent City, California.
Laura Chapman, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Six Rivers National Forest, 1330 Bayshore Way, Eureka, CA 95501. Phone: (707) 441-3549. E-mail:
The committee will hear revised public proposals and new proposals from the Six Rivers National Forest. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the committee at that time.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), an Agency within the Rural Development mission area, announces the availability of two individual grants: one single $496,750 grant from the passenger transportation funds appropriated for the RBS Rural Business Enterprise Grant (RBEG) program and another single $248,375 grant from the Federally Recognized Native American Tribes funds appropriated for RBS under the RBEG Program for fiscal year (FY) 2003. Each grant is to be competitively awarded to a qualified national organization. These grants are to provide technical assistance for rural transportation.
The deadline for receipt of preapplications in the Rural Development State Office is May 15, 2003. Preapplications received at a Rural Development State Office after that date would not be considered for FY 2003 funding.
For further information, entities wishing to apply for assistance should contact a Rural Development State Office to receive further information and copies of the pre-application package. A list of Rural Development State Offices follows:
The passenger transportation portion of the RBEG program is authorized by section 310B(c)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)(2)). The RBEG program is administered on behalf of RBS at the State level by the Rural Development State Offices. The primary objective of the program is to improve the economic conditions of rural areas. Assistance provided to rural areas under this program may include on-site technical assistance to local and regional governments, public transit agencies, and related nonprofit and for-profit organizations in rural areas; the development of training materials; and the provision of necessary training assistance to local officials and agencies in rural areas.
Awards under the RBEG passenger transportation program are made on a competitive basis using specific selection criteria contained in 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G, and in accordance with section 310B(c)(2) of the CONACT. That subpart also contains the information required to be in the preapplication package. For the $248,375 grant, at least 75 percent of the benefits of the project must be received by members of Federally Recognized Tribes. The project that scores the greatest number of points based on the selection criteria and Administrator's points will be selected for each grant. Preapplications will be tentatively scored by the State Offices and submitted to the National Office for review, final scoring, and selection.
To be considered “national”, a qualified organization is required to provide evidence that it operates in multi-State areas. There is not a requirement to use the grant funds in a multi-State area. Under this notice, grants will be made to qualified, private, non-profit organizations for the provision of technical assistance and training to rural communities for the purpose of improving passenger transportation services or facilities. Public bodies are not eligible for passenger transportation RBEG grants.
The information collection requirements contained within this Notice have received approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570-0022 (7 CFR part 1942, subpart G).
Each preapplication received in a Rural Development State Office will be reviewed to determine if this preapplication is consistent with the eligible purposes contained in section 310B(c)(2) of the CONACT. Each selection priority criterion outlined in 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G, section 1942.305(b)(3), must be addressed in the preapplication. Failure to address any of the criteria will result in a zero-point score for that criterion and impact the overall evaluation of the preapplication. Copies of 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G, will be provided to any interested applicant making a request to a Rural Development State Office listed in this notice. All projects to receive technical assistance through these passenger transportation grant funds are to be identified when the preapplications are submitted to the Rural Development State Office. Multiple project preapplications must identify each individual project, indicate the amount of funding requested for each individual project, and address the criteria as stated above for each individual project. For multiple-project preapplications, the average of the individual project scores will be the score for that preapplication.
All eligible preapplications, along with tentative scoring sheets and the Rural Development State Director's recommendation, will be referred to the National Office no later than June 13, 2003, for final scoring and selection for award.
The National Office will score preapplications based on the grant selection criteria and weights contained in 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G and will select a grantee subject to the grantee's satisfactory submission of a formal application and related materials in the manner and time frame established by RBS in accordance with 7 CFR part 1942, subpart G. It is anticipated that the grantees will be selected by July 31, 2003. All applicants will be notified by RBS of the Agency's decision on the awards.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), an Agency within the Rural Development mission area, announces the availability of grants of up to $50,000 per application from the Rural Business Opportunity Grant (RBOG) Program for fiscal year (FY) 2003, to be competitively awarded. For multi-State projects, grant funds of up to $150,000 will be available on a competitive basis.
The deadline for the receipt of applications in the Rural Development State Office is June 2, 2003. Any applications received at a Rural Development State Office after that date would not be considered for FY 2003 funding.
For further information, entities wishing to apply for assistance should contact a Rural Development State Office to receive further information and copies of the application package. Potential applicants located in the District of Columbia must send their applications to the National Office at:
The RBOG program is authorized under section 306 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(11)). The Rural Development State Offices administer the RBOG program on behalf of RBS at the State level. The primary objective of the program is to improve the economic conditions of rural areas. Assistance provided to rural areas under this program may include technical assistance for business development and economic development planning. A total of $993,500 of non-earmarked funds is available for the RBOG program for FY 2003. To ensure that a broad range of communities have the opportunity to benefit from the available funds, no grant will exceed $50,000, unless it is a multi-State project where funds may not exceed $150,000. Pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution Act for FY 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7), a total of $1,987,000 has been earmarked for Native Americans and Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Rural Economic Area Partnerships. There is no project dollar amount limitation on applications for earmarked funds. Awards are made on a competitive basis using specific selection criteria contained in 7 CFR part 4284, subpart G. 7 CFR part 4284, subpart G, also contains the information required to be in the application package. The State Director may assign up to 15 discretionary points to an application, and the Agency Administrator may assign up to 20 additional discretionary points based on geographic distribution of funds, special importance for implementation of a strategic plan in partnership with other organizations, or extraordinary potential for success due to superior project plans or qualifications of the grantee. To ensure the equitable distribution of funds, three projects from each State that score the greatest number of points based on the selection criteria and discretionary points will be considered for funding. Applications will be tentatively scored by the State Offices and submitted to the National Office for final review and selection.
The National Office will review the scores based on the grant selection criteria and weights contained in 7 CFR part 4284, subpart G. All applicants will be notified by RBS of the Agency's decision on the awards.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirement contained in to this Notice are approved by the Office of Management and Budget (MB) under OMB Control Number 0570-0024.
In connection with its investigation into the cause of chlorine gas release from a rail tank car unloading operation at DPC Enterprises, near Festus, Missouri on April 14, 2002, the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board announces that it will convene a Public Meeting beginning at 9 a.m. local time on May 1, 2003, at the Holiday Inn Express, 1200 Gannon Drive, Festus, MO 63028.
On the morning of August 14, 2002, 48,000 pounds of chlorine—a toxic gas—was released from a rail tank car unloading operation at DPC Enterprises, near Festus, Missouri. The facility repackages bulk dry liquid chlorine into one-ton containers and 150-pound cylinders for commercial, industrial, and municipal use in the St. Louis metropolitan area. Key issues involved in the investigation concern mechanical integrity, emergency management, and chlorine transfer hose supply.
At the meeting CSB staff will present to the Board the results of their investigation into this incident,
Recommendations are issued by a vote of the Board and address an identified safety deficiency uncovered during the investigation, and specify how to correct the situation. Safety recommendations are the primary tool used by the Board to motivate implementation of safety improvements and prevent future incidents. The CSB uses its unique independent accident investigation perspective to identify trends or issues that might otherwise be overlooked. CSB recommendations may be directed to corporations, trade associations, government entities, safety organizations, labor unions and others.
After the staff presentation, the Board will allow a time for public comment. Following the conclusion of the public comment period, the Board will consider whether to vote to approve the final report and recommendations. When a report and its recommendations are approved, this will begin CSB's process for disseminating the findings and recommendations of the report not only to the recipients of recommendations but also to other public and industry sectors. The CSB believes that this process will ultimately lead to the adoption of recommendations and the growing body of safety knowledge in the industry, which, in turn, should save future lives and property.
All staff presentations are preliminary and are intended solely to allow the Board to consider in a public forum the issues and factors involved in this case. No factual analyses, conclusions or findings should be considered final. Only after the Board has considered the staff presentation and approved the staff report will there be an approved final record of this incident.
The meeting will be open to the public. Please notify CSB if a translator or interpreter is needed, at least 5 business days prior to the public meeting. For more information, please contact the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board at (202)-261-7600, or visit our Web site at:
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a conference call of the Delaware Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 1 p.m. and adjourn at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, April 10, 2003. The purpose of the conference call is to Develop strategy for update and new edition of the Committee's published report entitled Delaware Citizens Guide to Civil Rights and Supporting Services, and continues planning for a new project proposal based on the Committee's project concept for a series of forums.
This conference call is available to the public through the following call-in number: 1-800-497-7709, contact name: Ed Darden. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls not initiated using the supplied call-in number or over wireless lines and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line connections. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and contact name.
To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting Ed Darden of the Eastern Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116), by 4 p.m. on Tuesday, April 9, 2003.
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Hawaii Advisory Committee to the Commission which was to have convened at 1 p.m. and adjourned at 4 p.m. on Friday, April 11, 2003, at the Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson Drive, Honolulu, Hawaii 96814, has been canceled.
The original notice for the meeting was announced in the
Persons desiring additional information should contact Phillip Montez, Director of the Western Regional Office, 213-894-3437 (TDD 213-894-3435).
The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Number of Respondents: 22,500.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at dHynek@doc.gov).
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of extension of time limit for preliminary results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review.
April 10, 2003.
Carrie Farley or Darla Brown, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-0395 or 202-482-2849, respectively.
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order/finding for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination is published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively.
On September 20, 2002, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the countervailing duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip from the Republic of Korea, covering the period January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001 (
In this administrative review, we are analyzing whether one of the programs we found countervailable in the original investigation has ended. The termination of this program involves the change of ownership of one of the respondent companies. In addition, several new programs are being examined in this review. As a result of these issues, additional information, and possible verification of this information, is required. Due to these considerations, we determine that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results of this review within the original time limit. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limits for completion of the preliminary results until no later than September 2, 2003.
This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice and request for applications.
The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS or Sanctuary) is seeking applicants for the following vacant seats on its Sanctuary Advisory Council (Council): alternates for the Tourism/Chamber of Commerce/Recreation seat and the Marine Business/Ports/Industry seat. Applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; philosophy regarding the conservation and management of marine resources; and possibly the length of residence in the area affected by the Sanctuary. Applicants who are chosen as members should expect to serve three-year terms, pursuant to the Council's Charter. Applicants for the alternates' positions will serve terms that expire at the end of the current members' terms.
Applications are due by April 30, 2003.
Application kits may be obtained from Andrew Palmer, OCNMS, 115 East Railroad Ave., Suite 301, Port Angeles, WA 98362. Completed applications should be sent to the same address.
Andrew Palmer at (360) 457-6622 x15 or
The Sanctuary Advisory Council provides NOAA with advice on the management of the Sanctuary. Members provide advice to the Olympic Coast Sanctuary Superintendent on Sanctuary issues. The Council, through its members, also serves as a liaison to the community regarding Sanctuary issues and acts as a conduit, relaying the community's interests, concerns, and management needs to the Sanctuary.
The Sanctuary Advisory Council members represent public interest groups, local industry, commercial and recreational user groups, academia, conservation groups, government agencies, and the general public.
16 U.S.C. Section 1431 et seq.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's (CFMC) Habitat Advisory Panel (HAP), and the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a meeting.
The HAP/SSC meeting will be held on April 24-25, 2003.
The meeting will be held at the Best Western Pierre Hotel, 105 De Diego Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1920, telephone: 787-766-5926.
The HAP, and the SSC will meet to discuss the items contained in the following agenda on the Draft Essential Fish Habitat/Environmental Impact Statement for the CFMC:
-Review list of alternatives (Sect. 2.5)
-Discuss rationale (Sect. 2.5)
- Discuss consequences (Sect. 4.5)
- Review list of alternatives (Sect. 2.4)
- Discuss rationale (Sect. 2.4)
- Discuss consequences (Sect. 4.4)
- Review list of alternatives (Sect. 2.3)
- Discuss rationale (Sect. 2.3)
- Discuss consequences (Sect. 4.3)
- Missing information (Sect. 4.1)
- Cumulative impacts (Sect. 4.6)
- Previously discussed - additional comments?
The HAP/SSC will convene on Thursday, April 24, 2003, from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m., and will continue on Friday, April 25, 2003, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
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 nonemergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Committees for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Committee action during these meetings. Committee action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice, and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Panel'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, 00918-1920, telephone 787-766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Highly Migratory Species Plan Development Team (HMSPDT), Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel, and Highly Migratory Species Subcommittee of the Science and Statistical Committee will hold a joint work session, which is open to the public.
The work session will be Tuesday, April 29, 2003 from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m.; and Wednesday, April 30, 2003 from 9 a.m. until business for the day is completed.
The work session will be held at the Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, 2595 Ingraham Street, San Diego, CA 92109; telephone: (619) 226-3870.
Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220-1384.
Mr. Dan Waldeck, Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (503) 820-2280.
At this joint meeting, NMFS analysts will present information on potential impacts on sea turtles from high seas longline fishing east of 150° W longitude. Recent information from longline fishing operations east of 150° W longitude has been reviewed by NMFS. Based on their initial review, NMFS is concerned that longline vessels targeting swordfish could have interactions with sea turtles at rates similar to rates in waters west of 150° W longitude. These latter rates were the basis for total turtle take and mortality estimates that resulted in a jeopardy determination and the prohibition of swordfish targeting by Hawaii-based longline vessels. A similar conclusion for West Coast-based fishing under the FMP could result in partial disapproval of the fishery management plan (FMP). Therefore, in March 2003, NMFS requested and the Council agreed to delay submission of the HMS FMP to provide time for NMFS to complete scientific review of the new data and present the results to the Council HMS advisory committees. At the June 2003 Council meeting, the Council will review the new information and, based on the advice of its advisors and the public, could act to modify a motion previously adopted. That is, at the June 2003 Council meeting, the Council could modify the preferred alternative for pelagic longline fisheries outside of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.
Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Notice to add a record system.
The Department of the Air Force proposes to add a system of records notice to its inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
The actions will be effective on May 12, 2003 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
Send comments to the Air Force FOIA/Privacy Manager, AF-CIO/P, 1155 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1155.
Mrs. Anne P. Rollins at (703) 601-4043.
The Department of the Air Force's record system notices for records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 522a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on April 1, 2003, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Congressional and Key Contacts.
Office of Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, 1160 Air Force, Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1160.
Current members of the U.S. Congress and key Congressional staff members.
Biographical information on members of Congress and key staff members, mailing addresses, committee memberships, contact reports, and related information.
10 U.S.C. 8013, Secretary of the Air Force.
To provide information on members of Congress and their staffs before whom Air Force representatives may be testifying or for whom escorts may be provided so that more effective communications can be achieved when providing Air Force information and services to members of Congress and their staffs and to promote the timely delivery of information for Department of Defense related events and materials.
Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ set forth at the beginning of the Air Force's compilation of systems of records notices apply to this system.
Maintained on computers and computer output products.
By Congress member's or staff member's last name and committee membership.
Records are maintained in password-protected network accessible only to authorized personnel.
Disposition pending. No records will be destroyed until the National Archives and Records Administration has approved the retention and disposal of the records.
Chief, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, 1160 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1160.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Chief, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, 1160 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1160.
Individuals seeking to access information contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Chief, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, 1160 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1160.
The Air Force rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in Air Force Instruction 37-132; 32 CFR part 806b; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Congress members and key Congressional staff members. Official public records such as the Congressional Record, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, official transcripts of unclassified committee hearings, and the Congressional Staff Directory.
None.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice of open meeting.
The Board of Visitors of the Marine Corps University (BOV MCU) will meet to review, develop and provide recommendations on all aspects of the academic and administrative policies of the University; examine all aspects of professional military education operations; and provide such oversight and advice as is necessary to facilitate high educational standards and cost effective operations. The Board will be discussing the 2005 accreditation process and the quality enhancement plan, the University's Institutional Research program, the status of Academic Chairs, and Camp Lejeune's Education Consortium. All sessions of the meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, May 8, 2003, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and on Friday, May 9, 2003, from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held at Camp Lejeune's Paradise Point Officer Club, the Division Room, 2615 Seth Williams Boulevard, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 28547-2539.
Mary Lanzillotta, Executive Secretary, Marine Corps University Board of Visitors, 2076 South Street, Quantico, Virginia 22134, telephone number (703) 784-4037.
National Assessment Governing Board; Education.
Notice of public forum.
The National Assessment Governing Board is announcing a public forum on May 1, 2003 to obtain comment on the draft Background Information Framework for the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Public and private parties and organizations are invited to present written and/or oral testimony. The forum will be held at the Washington Court Hotel, 525 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, DC from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
The framework, subject to approval by the Governing Board, presents a plan to guide the collection and reporting of the noncognitive or background information needed for the fair and accurate presentation of student achievement data, as measured in the surveys of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
The framework will define the purpose and scope of NAEP's non-cognitive questionnaires and describe other sources of background data that NAEP may collect. It will establish criteria for reporting background question results and also create a system for asking various groups of questions to various samples of students at various times.
Under Public Law 107-110, the Governing Board has final authority over all cognitive and non-cognitive questions on the National Assessment. The background information is obtained from student, teacher, and school questionnaires, as well as from school records and other reliable data sources.
The draft framework is available on the Web site of the Governing Board at
The Board is seeking comment from teachers, education researchers, state and local school administrators, assessment specialists, parents of children in elementary and secondary schools, and interested members of the public. Members of the NAGB Ad Hoc Committee on NAEP Background Questions, chaired by John H. Stevens, will conduct the forum to receive testimony and to ask clarifying questions and respond to presentations. Oral presentations should not exceed ten minutes. Testimony will become part of the public record.
All views will be considered by the Ad Hoc Committee in developing its recommendations to the Governing Board and by the full Board when it takes final action on the Background Information Framework, which is anticipated at its meeting of August 1-2, 2003.
To register to present oral testimony on May 1, 2003 at the Washington Court Hotel, please call Tessa Regis, of the NAGB staff, at 202-357-7500 by Tuesday, April 29. Written testimony should be sent by mail, fax or e-mail for receipt in the Board office by May 1. Written materials received by noon on April 30 will be duplicated for distribution at the forum.
Testimony should be sent to: National Assessment Governing Board, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 825, Washington, DC 20002, Attn: Lawrence Feinberg, FAX: (202) 357-6945, E-mail:
For further information, please contact Lawrence Feinberg at (202) 357-6942.
This document is intended to notify the general public of their opportunity to attend. Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (
The National Assessment Governing Board is established under section 412 of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994, as amended.
The Board is established to formulate policy guidelines for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The Board's responsibilities include selecting subject areas to be assessed, developing assessment objectives, developing appropriate student achievement levels for each grade and subject tested, developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating results, and developing standards and procedures for interstate and national comparisons.
Summaries of the forum, which are informative to the public and consistent with the policy of section 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), will be available to the public within 14 days of the meeting. Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board, Suite #825, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
Department of Energy.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR part 1021), to assess the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project by WMPI PTY, LLC, to design, construct, and operate a demonstration plant near Gilberton, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The proposed Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Project, selected under the Clean Coal Power Initiative competitive solicitation, would produce electricity, clean hydrocarbon liquids, and steam from coal waste that exists in legacy piles from old mining practices. The proposed project would be the first commercial-scale demonstration of coal waste gasification and Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthesis of liquid hydrocarbon fuels in the United States. The proposed project would involve construction and operation of a plant to produce about 5,000 barrels-per-day of ultra-clean liquid hydrocarbon fuels and approximately 41 MW (megawatts) of electricity for the local electrical grid. The quantity of feed material for the plant could be up to approximately 4,700 dry tons-per-day of coal waste from prior and current anthracite mining. An estimated 300 million tons of this coal waste exists throughout Pennsylvania. The EIS will evaluate the proposed project and reasonable alternatives.
The EIS will help DOE decide whether to provide 16 percent (approximately $100 million as a repayable loan) of the total estimated funding of $612 million for the proposed project. The purpose of this Notice of Intent is to inform the public about the proposed project; invite public participation in the EIS process; announce the plans for a public scoping meeting and explain the EIS scoping process; and solicit public comments for consideration in establishing the proposed scope and content of the EIS.
To ensure that all of the issues related to this proposal are addressed, DOE invites comments on the proposed scope and content of the EIS from all interested parties. Comments must be received by May 19, 2003, to ensure consideration. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to receiving comments in writing and by telephone (
Displays and other forms of information about the proposed agency action and the demonstration plant will be available, and DOE personnel will be present at the informal session to discuss the proposed project and the EIS process.
Written comments on the proposed EIS scope and requests to participate in the public scoping meeting should be addressed to the NEPA Document Manager for the Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Project: Mr. Lloyd Lorenzi, National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940.
Individuals who would like to otherwise participate in the public scoping process should contact Mr. Lloyd Lorenzi directly by telephone: 412-386-6159; toll free number: 1-800-276-9851; fax: 412-386-4604; or electronic mail:
For information regarding the Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Project or to receive a copy of the draft EIS for review when it is issued, contact Mr. Lloyd Lorenzi as described above. Those seeking general information on the DOE NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119. Telephone: (202) 586-4600. Facsimile: (202) 586-7031, or leave a toll-free message at 1-800-472-2756.
Since the early 1970s, DOE and its predecessor agencies have pursued research and development programs that include long-term, high-risk activities that support the development of innovative concepts for a wide variety of coal technologies through the proof-of-concept stage. However, the availability of a technology at the proof-of-concept stage is not sufficient to ensure continued development and subsequent commercialization. Before any technology can be considered seriously for commercialization, it must be demonstrated. The financial risk associated with technology demonstration is, in general, too high for the private sector to assume in the absence of strong incentives. The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) was established in 2002 as a government/industry partnership to implement the President's National Energy Policy recommendation to increase investment in clean coal technology. This recommendation addresses a national challenge of ensuring the reliability of electric supply while simultaneously protecting the environment.
The goal of the CCPI program is to accelerate commercial deployment of advanced coal technologies that provide the United States with clean, reliable, and affordable energy. Through cooperative agreements established pursuant to the CCPI program, DOE would accelerate deployment of innovative technologies to meet near-term energy and environmental goals; to reduce technological risk to the business community to an acceptable level; and to provide private sector incentives required for continued activity in innovative research and development directed at providing solutions to long-range energy supply problems.
The proposed action is for DOE to provide, through a cooperative agreement with WMPI, financial assistance for the proposed Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Project (hereafter termed the “Gilberton Project”). The Gilberton Project would be designed for long-term commercial operation following completion of an approximately 27-month demonstration period under a 6-year cooperative agreement with DOE, and would cost a total of approximately $612 million; DOE's share would be approximately $100 million (16%) in the form of a repayable loan.
The Gilberton Project would result in design, construction, and operation of a new plant to co-produce approximately 41 MW of electricity for export to the local grid at extremely high environmental performance, about 5,000 barrels-per-day of high quality, ultra-clean liquid hydrocarbon products, and
The liquid hydrocarbon products would include clean diesel fuel and naphtha. The new plant would use four major technology systems: (1) Gasification technology from Shell, which would be particularly suitable for processing the high ash (40%), low cost, anthracite coal waste that would provide the primary feed to the plant. The gasification process would produce raw synthesis gas consisting primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen; (2) raw synthesis gas treatment and cleaning technology systems to remove solid particulate matter and gaseous contaminants to trace concentrations; (3) indirect liquefaction for converting cleaned synthesis gas into synthetic hydrocarbon liquids using Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) technology from SASOL Technology, Ltd., and (4) combustion of cleaned, unconverted synthesis gas in a gas turbine/combined cycle power plant to produce electricity and steam.
The Gilberton Project would be located on an approximately 50-acre site near Gilberton, PA, north of Interstate 81 and east of Pennsylvania State Highway 61, off Morea Road. The site for the Gilberton Project would be adjacent to the eastern boundary of the existing 80 MW Gilberton Power Plant, which has been operating continuously since 1986 using circulating fluidized-bed combustion technology to process anthracite coal waste. Site preparation would require grading, clearing of vegetation, and addition of infrastructure improvements, such as roads, fencing, and drainage. Construction preparations would include installation of concrete piers and foundations for the plant equipment and structures.
The primary feed material for the Gilberton Project would be up to approximately 4,700 dry tons-per-day of anthracite coal waste, which is abundant locally in legacy waste piles from old mining practices. These anthracite tailings, which are potential sources of soil and water contamination, would be reclaimed for the Gilberton Project from the surrounding area, although the plant would also be capable of processing feed containing a blend of anthracite waste with petroleum coke, other coals, or biomass.
Air separation would be used to produce a high purity oxygen stream for the Shell gasification process. The anthracite waste, combined with about 400 tons-per-day of a fluxing agent such as limestone to assist with maintaining ash in a molten form, would be processed through a Shell gasifier to produce a raw synthesis gas that would be cleaned to produce approximately 200 million standard cubic-feet-per-day blend of primarily hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The mineral content of the anthracite waste and the fluxing agent fed to the Shell gasifier would produce about 2,000 tons-per-day of molten slag and 160 tons-per-day of collected dry particulate that could be used as construction materials.
Cleaning of gas from the Shell gasifier would be achieved using a combination of initial quenching to remove any entrained molten slag, filtration to remove dry particulate, scrubbing to remove any residual solid particles and alkali salts, catalytic removal of sulfur compounds, and treatment in a Rectisol unit to remove carbon dioxide. The gas cleaning processes would remove impurities and produce a carbon dioxide stream that could be used for future sequestration if economics permit, although sequestration is not part of the proposed project.
The cleaned synthesis gas would be processed through a low-temperature F-T unit and downstream product treatment units to produce about 5,000 barrels-per-day of ultra-clean diesel fuel and naphtha, which would be virtually free of sulfur, nitrogen, and aromatic compounds and superior in both end-use and environmental properties compared with liquid hydrocarbon products produced from petroleum refining. Operations could be altered to change the distribution of products, including kerosene that would service specialty jet fuel markets, and to produce alcohols and liquefied petroleum gas. The F-T liquid products would be readily marketable to the refining industry. Diesel product from F-T synthesis possesses a high Cetane value and has demonstrated significantly reduced engine emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide, while meeting all current fuel specifications and the expected future (2006) Environmental Protection Agency specification for low sulfur fuels. Naphtha product can either be readily upgraded to a high-octane, clean reformulated gasoline or used as an on-board, sulfur-free feed to a reformer to produce hydrogen for fuel-cell-powered vehicle applications.
Unconverted, cleaned synthesis gas from the F-T unit would be combusted in a gas turbine/combined-cycle power plant to produce electricity for the Gilberton Project and for export to the local power grid. High pressure and medium pressure steam produced in the plant would be used to produce additional power using steam turbo-generators. Excess steam from the power plant system would be marketed to local customers. Other potentially marketable byproducts from the plant would include elemental sulfur and a vitrified material resembling coarse sand that could be used in the construction and building industries.
Wastewater, including contaminated runoff from the project site, would be handled using a combination of storm water retention, wastewater treatment, oil recovery, biological treatment and solids removal, and disposal. Water treatments would include equalization, API separator treatment for oil removal and recovery, dissolved air flotation for additional oil removal, and biological treatment.
Construction of the proposed plant would be expected to require approximately 30 months. Plant start-up, system and feedstock testing, and long-term performance and reliability demonstration under the cooperative agreement with DOE would require approximately 27 months, after which the plant could continue in commercial operation.
Successful demonstration of technology in the Gilberton Project would generate opportunities for a broad range of commercial applications, especially in coal producing and consuming regions of the United States. Commercial applications would result in substantial socioeconomic benefits to the coal regions, including direct and indirect job stimulation and the related benefits of enhanced productivity and tax revenues; environmental benefits of abandoned mine land reclamation as coal waste is converted into high value products; and increasing energy independence.
NEPA requires that agencies evaluate the reasonable alternatives to the proposed action in an EIS. The purpose for agency action determines the range of reasonable alternatives.
The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) was established to help implement the President's National Energy Policy (NEP) recommendation to increase investment in clean coal technology by addressing national challenges of ensuring the reliability of domestic electric and energy supplies while simultaneously protecting the environment. The CCPI program was structured to achieve NEP goals by promoting private sector initiatives to invest in demonstrations of advanced technologies that could be widely deployed commercially to ensure that the United States has clean, reliable, and affordable energy. Private sector investments and deployment of energy
The range of reasonable options to be considered in the EIS for the proposed Gilberton Project is determined in accordance with the overall NEPA strategy. Because of DOE's limited role of providing cost-shared funding for the proposed Gilberton Project, DOE currently plans to give primary emphasis to the proposed action and the no-action alternative. Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not provide partial funding for the design, construction, and operation of the project.
In the absence of DOE funding, the Gilberton Project probably would not be constructed. Alternatives considered by WMPI, in developing the proposal for the Gilberton Project, including alternative sites and technologies for the proposed project also will be presented in the EIS. DOE will consider other reasonable alternatives that may be suggested during the public scoping period.
Under the proposed action, project activities would include equipment design and fabrication, process engineering, plant permitting and construction, and testing and demonstration of the technology. DOE plans to complete the EIS within 15 months following publication of this Notice of Intent and to subsequently issue a Record of Decision. Upon completing the demonstration effort for DOE, WMPI could continue commercial operation of the plant constructed under the Gilberton Project.
The following environmental issues have been tentatively identified for analysis in the EIS. This list, which was developed from analyses of the proposed technology, the scope of the proposed project, and similar projects, and which is presented to facilitate public comment on the planned scope of the EIS, is neither intended to be all-inclusive nor a predetermined set of potential impacts. Additions to or deletions from this list may occur as a result of the public scoping process.
The environmental issues include:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8) Safety and health impacts, including construction-related safety, process safety, and management of chemicals and catalysts;
(9)
(10) Community impacts, including potential impacts from local traffic patterns, socioeconomic impacts on public services and infrastructure, and environmental justice;
(11) Visual impacts associated with plant structures and plant operations;
(12)
(13) Cumulative effects that result from the incremental impacts of the proposed project when added to the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, including the existing 80 MW Gilberton power plant;
(14) Connected actions, including processing of gasifier slag into aggregate for use in construction applications, use of heat and energy from the plant, and both processing and use of liquid hydrocarbon products;
(15) Compliance with regulatory requirements and environmental permitting; and
(16) Environmental monitoring.
To ensure that all issues related to this proposal are addressed, DOE will conduct an open process to define the scope of the EIS. The public scoping period will end on May 19, 2003. Interested agencies, organizations, and the general public are encouraged to submit comments or suggestions concerning the content of the EIS, issues and impacts to be addressed in the EIS, and alternatives that should be considered. Scoping comments should identify specific issues or topics that the EIS should address in order to assist DOE in identifying significant issues. Written, e-mailed, or faxed comments should be communicated by May 19, 2003 (see
DOE will conduct a public scoping meeting at D.H.H. Lengel Middle School, 1541 West Laurel Boulevard, in Pottsville, PA, on May 5, 2003, at 7 p.m. In addition, the public is invited to an informal session at this location beginning at 4 p.m., to learn more about the proposed action. Displays and other information about the proposed agency action and the demonstration plant will be available, and DOE personnel will be present to discuss the proposed action and the NEPA process.
The formal scoping meeting will begin on May 5, 2003, at 7 p.m. DOE asks people who wish to speak at this public scoping meeting to contact Mr. Lloyd Lorenzi, either by phone, fax, computer, or in writing (
People who do not arrange in advance to speak may register at the meeting (preferably at the beginning of the meeting) and will be provided opportunities to speak following previously scheduled speakers. Speakers who need more than five minutes should indicate the length of time desired in their request. Depending on the number of speakers, DOE may need to limit speakers to five-minutes initially but will provide additional opportunities as time permits. Speakers may also provide written materials to supplement their presentations. Oral
DOE will begin the meeting with an overview of the proposed Gilberton Project. The meeting will not be conducted as an evidentiary hearing, and speakers will not be cross-examined. However, speakers may be asked questions to help ensure that DOE fully understands their comments or suggestions. A presiding officer will establish the order of speakers and provide any additional procedures necessary to conduct the meeting.
Take notice that on March 28, 2002, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Fifth Revised Sheet No. 161A.02, with an effective date of April 30, 2003.
ANR states that it is tendering the revised tariff sheet in order to clarify its rights to allow contractual rights of first refusal pursuant to Section 22.2.
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 385.314 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 the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c. Date filed: October 7, 2002.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
j.
k. 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
l. Competing Preliminary Permit—Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (
m. Competing Development Application—Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
n. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit
o. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.
p. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
q. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing an original and eight copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper;
r.
Take notice that on March 31, 2003, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) tendered for filing and approval an amendment to a Service Agreement between ANR and CoEnergy Trading Company, which adds additional secondary points at which the negotiated rate shall be charged. ANR requests that the Commission accept and approve the amendment to be effective April 1, 2003.
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 385.314 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 March 31, 2003, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) tendered for filing and approval amendments to two Service Agreements between ANR and PCS Nitrogen Ohio, L.P. ANR states that these amendments effectuate an increase in the Maximum Daily Quantity under one agreement, and a decrease in the Maximum Daily Quantity under the other agreement. ANR requests that the Commission accept and approve the amendments to be effective April 1, 2003.
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 385.314 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 March 31, 2003, Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP (Cove Point) tendered for filing workpapers supporting the calculation of Cove Point's retention percentages for the annual period beginning May 1,2003.
Cove Point states that the tariff sheet sets forth the restatement and adjustment to its retainage percentages for both the peaking services and transportation services, to go into effect May 1, 2003.
Cove Point states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its affected customers and interested State Commissions.
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 on or before the comment date. 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
Protest Date: April 10, 2003.
Take notice that on March 31, 2003, Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. (Iroquois) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets proposed to become effective May 15, 2003:
Iroquois asserts that the purpose of this filing is to correct and update minor inconsistencies in the tariff including, various grammatical errors, removal of obsolete language associated with the Pro Forma contracts, update changes to technical terms to reflect new industry technologies, updates to the reference of industry standards boards, time extensions for contract acceptance for ITS and PALS contracts, an updated system map and other non substantive syntax and format revisions.
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 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 385.314 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 March 31, 2003, Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective April 1, 2003.
Kern River states that the purpose of this filing is to implement a negotiated rate transaction between Kern River and Sempra Energy Trading Corporation, in accordance with the Commission's
Kern River states that it has served a copy of this filing upon its customers and interested state regulatory 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 385.314 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 March 31, 2003, Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) tendered for filing a report supporting its gas compressor fuel and lost and unaccounted-for gas factors for 2002.
Kern River states that it has served a copy of this filing upon its customers and interested state regulatory 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 385.314 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on before the comment date. 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 March 28, 2003, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company (Midwestern) tendered for filing to become part of Midwestern's FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Sixth Revised Sheet No. 273, to become effective April 1, 2003.
Midwestern states that it has entered into a Negotiated Rate Agreement with Northern Illinois Gas Company, d/b/a Nicor Gas (Nicor). Contract No. FA0166 provides the following information: (1) The exact legal name of the shipper; (2) the total charges (the negotiated rate and all applicable charges); (3) the receipt and delivery points; (4) the volume of gas to be transported; and (5) the applicable rate schedule for the service. In addition, Midwestern states that it is filing Sheet No. 273 to reflect that the Negotiated Rate contains non-conforming terms.
Midwestern further states that the information set forth in this negotiated rate agreement fully discloses the essential conditions involved in the negotiated rate transaction, including a specification of all consideration. In addition, in accordance with the orders approving Midwestern's negotiated rate option, Midwestern will keep its negotiated rate information in such form that it can be filed, separately identified, and separately totaled as part of and in the format of Statements G, I, and J in Midwestern's future section 4 rate case filings.
Midwestern states that copies of this filing have been sent to all of Midwestern's contracted shippers and interested state regulatory 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 385.314 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 March 31, 2003, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to be effective April 1, 2003.
Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to revise Natural's Tariff by providing the incremental Storage Expansion 2003 recourse rates under Rate Schedule NSS pursuant to orders issued in Docket No. CP02-391-000.
Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its customers and state regulatory agencies.
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 385.314 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 March 31, 2003, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, certain tariff sheets, to be effective April 1, 2003.
Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to implement six (6) new negotiated rate transactions entered into by Natural and various shippers under Natural's Rate Schedule NSS pursuant to Section 49 of the General Terms and Conditions of Natural's Tariff. Natural states that these negotiated rate agreements support the expansion of the North Lansing Storage Field as authorized by the Commission in Docket No. CP02-391-000.
Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to all parties set out on the Commission's official service list in Docket No. RP99-176.
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 385.314 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 March 31, 2003, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, certain tariff sheets to be effective April 1, 2003.
Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to implement a new negotiated rate transactions between Natural and Occidental Energy Marketing, Inc. under Rate Schedule FTS pursuant to section 49 of the General Terms and Conditions of Natural's Tariff.
Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to all parties set out on the Commission's official service list in Docket No. RP99-176.
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 385.314 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 March 31, 2003, North Baja Pipeline, LLC (NBP) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the filing, with an effective date of February 28, 2003.
NBP states that the tariff sheets are being filed to comply with the Commission's February 28, 2003, Order Granting Rehearing and Modifying Prior Order in the instant docket.
NBP further states that a copy of this filing has been served on NBP's jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory agencies.
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 March 31, 2003, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, 29 Revised Sheet No. 66 and 25 Revised Sheet No. 66A, proposed to be effective on April 1, 2003.
Northern states that the above sheets are being filed to implement specific negotiated rate transactions with Occidental Energy Marketing, Inc. and WPS Energy Services, Inc. in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement on Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines.
Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of 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 385.314 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 March 31, 2003, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) tendered for filing to become part of Northern's FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, 30 Revised Sheet No. 66 and 26 Revised Sheet No. 66A, to be effective on April 1, 2003.
Northern states that the above sheets are being filed to implement specific negotiated rate transaction with United Energy Trading, LLC in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement on Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines.
Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of 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 385.314 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 March 31, 2003, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company (Panhandle) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A attached to the filing to become effective May 1, 2003.
Panhandle states that this filing is made in accordance with Section 25.1 (Flow Through of Cash-Out Revenues in Excess of Costs) of the General Terms and Conditions in Panhandle's FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1.
Panhandle further states that copies of this filing are being served on all affected customers and applicable state regulatory agencies.
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 385.314 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 March 31, 2003, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company (Panhandle) tendered for filing its Annual Report of Flow Through of Penalty Revenues.
Panhandle states that this filing is made in accordance with section 25.2(c)(i) of the General Terms and Conditions in Panhandle's FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1.
Panhandle further states that copies of this filing are being served on all affected customers and applicable state regulatory agencies.
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 385.314 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 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 March 31, 2003, Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC (Pine Needle) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Third Revised Tariff Sheet No. 4, with an effective date of May 1, 2003.
Pine Needle states that the instant filing is being submitted pursuant to section 18 and section 19 of the General Terms and Conditions (GT&C) of Pine Needle's FERC Gas Tariff.
Pine Needle states that it is serving copies of the instant filing to its affected customers, interested State Commissions and other interested parties.
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 385.314 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 March 31, 2003, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No.1, Original Sheet No. 0 through Original Sheet No. 514, to become effective April 30, 2003.
Southern Star states that the purpose of this filing is to restate Southern Star's FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1 to reflect its name change to Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, LLC rather than Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc. as currently on file with the Commission. Southern Star states that the instant filing reflects the change to Southern Star, the repagination of tariff sheets and minor modifications to the text of various tariff sheets to reflect the repagination. Southern Star also states that the instant filing makes no changes to the Rates, Rate Schedules, General Terms and Conditions or Form of Service Agreements.
Southern Star further states that copies of the transmittal letter and appendices (excluding Appendix C) are being mailed to Southern Star's jurisdictional 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 385.314 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 March 31, 2003, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee), tendered for filing its Negotiated Rate Tariff Filing.
Tennessee requests that the Commission approve a March 17, 2003, negotiated rate arrangement between Tennessee and Kerr McGee Corporation. Tennessee requests that the Commission grant such approval effective May 1, 2003.
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 385.314 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 March 31, 2003, Trailblazer Pipeline Company (Trailblazer) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1 (Tariff), First Revised Sheet No. 8, to be effective May 1, 2003.
Trailblazer states that the purpose of this filing is to make a periodic adjustment under Section 41 of the General Terms and Conditions of its Tariff which revises the level of the Expansion Fuel Adjustment Percentage in Trailblazer's Tariff.
Trailblazer 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 385.314 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 March 31, 2003, TransColorado Gas Transmission Company (TransColorado) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 21, First Revised Sheet No. 22 and Second Revised Sheet No. 22A, to be effective April 1, 2003.
TransColorado states that the filing is being made in compliance with the Commission's letter order issued March 20, 1997, in Docket No. RP97-255-000.
TransColorado states that the tendered tariff sheets propose to revise TransColorado's Tariff to reflect an amended negotiated-rate contract with ChevronTexaco Natural Gas, a division of Chevron USA, Inc.
TransColorado further states that a copy of this filing has been served upon all parties to this proceeding, TransColorado's customers, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission and the New Mexico Public Utilities Commission.
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 March 31, 2003, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing executed service agreements that contain negotiated rates under Transco's Rate Schedule FT between Transco and the following Customers: Cardinal FG Company; Cargill Inc.; Chattahoochee EMC (successor to Oglethorpe Power Corporation under the Precedent Agreement); City of Buford, Georgia; City of Covington, Georgia; City of Elberton, Georgia; City of Lawrenceville, Georgia; City of Madison, Georgia; City of Sugar Hill, Georgia; City of Winder, Georgia; Clinton-Newberry Natural Gas Authority; Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Fort Hill Natural Gas Authority; Progress Ventures (successor to Carolina Power & Light Company under the Precedent Agreement); and Sylacauga Utilities Board.
Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to comply with requirements specified in the Commission's Order issued February 14, 2002, “Order Issuing Certificate,” which required Transco, among other things, to file 30 to 60 days prior to the commencement of service of the Momentum Expansion Project, the negotiated rate agreements or tariff sheets reflecting the essential elements of its negotiated rate agreements. Transco states that the effective date of these negotiated rate transactions is May 1, 2003, which is the anticipated in-service date of Phase I of the Momentum Expansion Project.
Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its affected 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 385.314 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 March 31, 2003, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin or Company), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, with a proposed effective date of May 1, 2003.
Williston Basin states that the revised tariff sheets will give Williston Basin
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 385.314 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 March 28, 2003, the above-referenced entities, collectively the “Constellation Entities,” submitted for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a triennial market power update pursuant to the Commission orders granting them market-based rate authorizations.
Take notice that on March 28, 2003, Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC (Bayswater), with its principal office at 700 Universe Blvd., Juno Beach, Florida 33408, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission) a Change of Status regarding its Market-based Rate application.
Take notice that on March 25, 2003, Nevada Power Company (Nevada Power) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) in accordance with 18 CFR part 35 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, a Notice of Cancellation of Service Agreement No. 101, Long-Term Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service between Nevada Power Company and Reliant Energy Services, Inc. Nevada Power has requested an effective date for the cancellation of September 17, 2002.
Nevada Power states that this Notice of Cancellation is filed pursuant to the Commission's February 21, 2003 order in Docket No. ER03-340-000, and appropriate to Service Agreement No. 101 and the termination notice given by Reliant Energy Services, Inc. Nevada Power also states that copies of the filing were served upon Reliant Energy Services, Inc., and the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada.
Take notice that on March 25, 2003, Nevada Power Company (Nevada Power) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) in accordance with 18 CFR part 35 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, a Notice of Cancellation of Service Agreement No. 100, Long-Term Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service between Nevada Power Company and Pinnacle West Energy Corporation. Nevada Power has requested an effective date for the cancellation of September 17, 2002.
Nevada Power states that this Notice of Cancellation is filed pursuant to the Commission's February 21, 2003 Order in Docket No. ER03-340-000, and appropriate to Service Agreement No. 100 and the termination notice given by Pinnacle West Energy Corporation. Nevada Power also states that copies of the filing were served upon Pinnacle West Energy Corporation and the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada.
Take notice that on March 28, 2003, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) tendered for filing proposed revisions to the Midwest ISO Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, in
The Midwest ISO states that it has electronically served a copy of this filing, without attachments, 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, Midwest ISO states that the filing has been electronically posted on the Midwest ISO's Web site at www.midwestiso.org under the heading “Filings to FERC” for other interested parties in this matter. The Midwest ISO will provide hard copies to any interested parties upon request.
Take notice that on March 28, 2003, Jamaica Bay Peaking Facility, LLC (Jamaica Bay) tendered for filing an amendment to its application for authorization to sell wholesale power at market-based rates, and certain ancillary services at market-based rates into the New York market.
Jamaica Bay states that copies of this filing have been served on the New York State Public Service Commission, the Long Island Power Authority, and the Florida Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on March 28, 2003, Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy), on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (Entergy Arkansas), tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a Notice of Termination of the Interconnection and Operating Agreement and Generator Imbalance Agreement between Entergy Arkansas and AES River Mountain L.P.
Take notice that on March 28, 2003, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) submitted for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an unexecuted Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement and an unexecuted Network Operating Agreement with Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (KEPCO). SPP seeks an effective date of March 1, 2003 for these agreements. SPP states that the parties have agreed to all the terms and conditions for the underlying service, and SPP will submit executed signature pages to the Commission when obtained.
SPP states that KEPCO and Western Resources, the host transmission owner, were served with a copy of this filing.
Take notice that on March 28, 2003, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an executed Interconnection Agreement between NYSEG and Innovative Energy Systems, Inc. (Innovative) that sets forth the terms and conditions governing the interconnection between Innovative's generating facility in Seneca County, New York and NYSEG's transmission system.
NYSEG states that copies of this filing have been served upon Innovative, the New York State Public Service Commission, and the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Take notice that on March 28, 2003, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an executed Interconnection Agreement between NYSEG and Seneca Energy II, LLC (Seneca), that sets forth the terms and conditions governing the interconnection between the Seneca 11.2 MW generating plant and appurtenant facilities located in Seneca County, NY (the Plant) and NYSEG's transmission system.
NYSEG states that copies of this filing have been served upon Seneca, the New York State Public Service Commission, and the New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Take notice that on March 28, 2003, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) submitted for filing an executed service agreement for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service with Western Resources d.b.a. Westar Energy (Western Resources). SPP seeks an effective date of March 1, 2003 for this service agreement.
SPP states that Western Resources was served with a copy of this filing.
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 March 27, 2003, Reliant Energy Bighorn, LLC (Reliant Bighorn) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to section 32(a)(1) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA).
Take notice that on March 26, 2003, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) submitted for filing proposed revisions to Schedule 10 (ISO Cost Recovery Adder) and Schedule 10-A (Alternative Administrative Cost Adder) of the Midwest ISO Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT), FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, pursuant to Order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc., 102 FERC ¶ 61,193.
Pursuant to the Settlement reached in these proceedings, the Midwest ISO requests an effective date of March 1, 2003.
The Midwest ISO has requested waiver of the service requirements set forth in 18 CFR 385.2010. The Midwest ISO states it has electronically served a copy of this filing, with attachments, upon all Midwest ISO Members, Member representatives of Transmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee participants, Policy Subcommittee participants, as well as all state commissions within the region. In addition, Midwest ISO states that the filing has been electronically posted on the Midwest ISO's Web site at
Take notice that on March 27, 2003, the American Electric Power Service Corporation, on behalf of the operating companies of the American Electric Power System (collectively AEP) filed proposed amendments to the Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement originally filed in Docket No. ER02-913-000 on January 30, 2002. AEP states that the proposed amendments are intended to implement a Settlement Agreement also filed by AEP on March 27, 2003.
AEP requests an effective date of January 1, 2002. AEP states that copies of the AEP Companies' filing were served upon the parties to Docket No. ER02-913-000 and State Commissions.
Take notice that on March 27, 2003, Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) submitted for filing, in compliance with the requirements of the Commission's February 25, 2003, Letter Order in Docket No. ER02-2313-000, revised sheets to its First Revised FERC Rate Schedule No. 72.
SWEPCO states that a copy of this filing has been served on each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.
Take notice that on March 25, 2003, ISO New England Inc., (the ISO) tendered an Errata Filing to correct a Compliance Report filed on March 20, 2003. The ISO states that copies of the Errata Filing have been served upon the parties in Docket No. ER02-2330-012.
Take notice that on March 27, 2003, Southern Company Services, Inc. (SCS), acting on behalf of Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Savannah Electric and Power Company (collectively, Southern Companies), resubmitted First Revised Service Agreement No. 451 for long-term firm point-to-point transmission service under the Open Access Transmission Tariff of Southern Companies (FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 5) (Tariff) in compliance with the Commission's Order in this proceeding dated February 25, 2003.
Take notice that on March 27, 2003, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an amendment to its February 20, 2003 filing by submitting revised tariff sheets to the unexecuted wholesale distribution service agreements of SCE.
Take notice that on March 27, 2003, Jersey Central Power & Light Company (Jersey Central) tendered for filing an amendment to the Interconnection Agreement between Jersey Central and Atlantic City Electric Company (Atlantic City), which corrects the effective date listed on the agreement.
Jersey Central states that a copy of this filing has been served upon the service list maintained by the Secretary for this proceeding, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities and Atlantic City.
Take notice that on March 27, 2003, Kansas Gas & Electric Company (KGE) (d/b/a Westar Energy) tendered for filing a change in its Federal Power Commission Electric Service Tariff No. 93. KGE states that the change is to reflect the amount of transmission capacity requirements required by Westar Energy, Inc., (WE) under Service Schedule M to FPC Rate Schedule No. 93 for the period from June 1, 2003 through May 31, 2004. KGE requests an effective date of June 1, 2003.
KGE states that notice of the filing has been served upon the Kansas Corporation Commission.
Take notice that on March 27, 2003, LMP Capital, LLC (LMP Capital) petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) for acceptance of LMP Capital's Rate Schedule FERC No. 1; the granting of certain blanket approvals, including the authority to sell electricity at market-based rates; and the waiver of certain Commission regulations.
LMP Capital intends to engage in wholesale electric power and energy purchases and sales as a marketer. LMP Capital states that it is not in the business of generating or transmitting electric power. LMP Capital states that it is an independent electricity marketer with a sole purpose of buying and selling electricity in the wholesale electricity market.
Take notice that on March 27, 2003, DB Energy Trading LLC (DB Energy) tendered for filing an application for an order accepting its rate schedule to permit sales of power and capacity at market-based rates and granting certain waivers and blanket approvals. DB Energy requests waiver of the 60-day prior notice rule and requests that its rate schedule become effective April 1, 2003.
Take notice that on March 27, Black Rock Group, LLC (Black Rock) petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) for acceptance of Black Rock Rate Schedule FERC No. 1; the granting of certain blanket approvals, including the authority to sell electricity at market-based rates; and the waiver of certain Commission regulations.
Black Rock states that it intends to engage in wholesale electric power and energy purchases and sales as a marketer. Black Rock states that it is not in the business of generating or transmitting electric power. Black Rock also states that it is a limited liability company in Nebraska with no current affiliates or subsidiaries.
Take notice that on March 27, 2003, the American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC) tendered for filing an executed Interconnection and Operation Agreement between Ohio Power Company and Lawrence Energy Center LLC (First Revision to Service Agreement 433). AEPSC states that the agreement is pursuant to the AEP Companies' Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (OATT) that has been designated as the Operating Companies of the American Electric Power System FERC Electric Tariff Third Revised Volume No. 6, effective July 31, 2001. AEPSC requests an effective date of May 25, 2003.
AEPSC states that a copy of the filing was served upon Lawrence Energy Center and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
Take notice that on March 27, 2003, the American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC) tendered for filing an executed Interconnection and Operation Agreement between Ohio Power Company and Lawrence Energy Center LLC (First Revision to Service Agreement 516). AEPSC states that the agreement is pursuant to the AEP Companies' Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (OATT) that has been designated as the Operating Companies of the American Electric Power System FERC Electric Tariff Third Revised Volume No. 6, effective July 31, 2001. AEP requests an effective date of May 25, 2003.
AEPSC states that a copy of the filing was served upon Lawrence Energy Center and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
Take notice that on March 27, 2003, Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL), tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) the Modification to the Interconnection Agreement, dated December 2, 1968, between IPL and the Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company (SIGECO) and the restated Interconnection Agreement in conformance with Order No. 614.
IPL requests an effective date for the tendered Modification of sixty (60) days from the date of filing. IPL states that a copy of the filing was served upon SIGECO.
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 the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
j.
k. 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
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper;
r.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
j.
k. 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
l. Competing Preliminary Permit—Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (
m. Competing Development Application—Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
n. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
o. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.
p. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
q. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing an original and eight copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper;
r.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l. 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
m. Competing Preliminary Permit—Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (
n. Competing Development Application—Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
o. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
p. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.
q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing an original and eight copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper;
s.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing a document with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
l.
m. 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
n. Preliminary Permit—Public notice of the filing of the initial preliminary permit application, which has already been given, established the due date for filing competing preliminary permit applications or notices of intent. Any competing preliminary permit or development application or notice of intent to file a competing preliminary permit or development application must be filed in response to and in compliance with the public notice of the initial preliminary permit application. No competing applications or notices of intent to file competing applications may be filed in response to this notice. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
o. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.
p. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
q. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing an original and eight copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
Comments, protests, and motions to intervene may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper;
r.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l. 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
m. Competing Preliminary Permit—Anyone desiring to file a competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified comment date for the particular application (
n. Competing Development Application—Any qualified development applicant desiring to file a competing development application must submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the particular application, either a competing development application or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
o. Notice of Intent—A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary permit application or a development application (specify which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
p. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit—A preliminary permit, if issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts. Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to construct and operate the project.
q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION”, “COMPETING APPLICATION”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing an original and eight copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper;
s.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Ms. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project.
Additional study requests may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. The existing Portal Project consists of: (1) A 795-foot-long compacted earth and rock-fill dam; (2) Portal Forebay, with a 325 acre-foot useable storage capacity at elevation 7,185 feet; (3) an open channel spillway at the left abutment of the dam, discharging into Camp 61 Creek; (4) an outlet channel consisting of (a) the Adit 2 tunnel and shaft between Portal Forebay and Ward Tunnel, (b) Ward Tunnel for a distance of about 32,000 feet from Adit 2 to the base of the surge chamber on the tunnel, (c) a rock trap immediately downstream of the surge chamber, and (d) a 1,180-foot-long penstock from the rock trap to where it bifurcates just upstream of the Portal Powerhouse; (5) a 10.8-MW turbine located in the concrete powerhouse; and (6) a 2.5-mile-long 480 kV transmission line.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
n. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by § 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.
o.
Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Ms. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-2496-070) on any comments or motions filed. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
p.
q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
p.
q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
Take notice the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing a document with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the documents on that resource agency.
k.
l. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—-Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents—-Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing an original and eight copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
Comments, protests, and motions to intervene may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper;
p. Agency Comments—-Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before June 9, 2003.
Follow the detailed instructions in
Alan D. Margolis, Collection Stategies Division, Office of Information Collection (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-1644; fax number: 202-566-1639; e-mail address:
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OEI-2003-0003, which is available for public viewing at the OEI Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752; FAX (202) 566-1753. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to
EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket,
EPA is proposing to use an updated Request for Substantiation letter (“proposed letter”). The proposed letter consists of two samples to address separate factual situations: Sample Letter A and Sample Letter B. The use of two letters is a clarification of existing EPA procedures. Some of the information requested differs slightly from the current Request for Substantiation letter, concerning the possible voluntary nature of the submission and the issue of substantial competitive harm, and takes into account the vast amount of information now available electronically. Nevertheless, EPA estimates that the overall burden is the same. The proposed letter would apply to any context where a final confidentiality determination is needed, either in response to FOIA requests or in other situations (
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
EPA is soliciting comments to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In addition, when EPA utilizes the services of contractors/subcontractors under the authority of 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, all contractor/subcontractor employees who may be given access to confidential information must first sign confidentiality agreements stating that they will honor the terms of the contract/subcontract which requires the protection of CBI. Contractor/ subcontractor businesses must maintain a file of all such agreements. EPA estimates that there are about 129 contractor/subcontractor businesses that handle CBI in connection with their work for EPA each year. These 129 contractor/subcontractor businesses together have a total of approximately 658 employees who must sign confidentiality agreements each year. Each employee would need approximately 0.1 hour to review and sign an agreement, at a cost of $3.34 in labor; employees' review and signature of all agreements would require approximately 65.8 hours at a cost of $2,197.72 in labor per year. In addition, each subcontractor/contractor business would need approximately 0.5 hour at a cost of $8.07 in labor per year to maintain a file of employee confidentiality agreements; the 129 contractor/subcontractor businesses together would require a total of 64.5 hours at a labor cost of $1,041.03 to maintain a file of confidentiality agreements. The total burden for signing and maintaining confidentiality agreements would thus be 130.3 hours at a cost of $3,238.75.
The overall burden for handling confidentiality claims—including the substantiation process and the signing and maintaining of confidentiality agreements—would be 6,432.3 hours at a total labor cost of $212,185.24 per year. EPA estimates that no capital costs or operation and maintenance costs would be incurred as a result of this information collection.
EPA is soliciting the following additional information to assist in its assessment of the Agency's burden statement:
1. How many substantiation requests do you receive from EPA per year? How many CBI substantiations do you submit per year in response?
2. What is the average number, type, and level of staff involved in preparing a substantiation of CBI claims?
3. What is the average number of hours per staff type and level required to prepare a substantiation of CBI claims? How does this hour estimate breakdown by the following activities:
a. Read/review EPA's substantiation request.
b. Review information claimed confidential.
c. Prepare substantiation.
4. What is the average wage per hour for each staff type and level involved in preparing substantiations?
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) has released two lists, the first contains legal matters with a filing date prior to March 25, 2002 where the applicant/licensee (or petitioner, if the petitioner is not the applicant or licensee) did not respond to the October Public Notice. Accordingly, any items on the first list are dismissed with prejudice. The second list contains all the current pending legal matters that are in WTB's records in the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS), the Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS), and the Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS). This Public Notice ensures that the WTB has a complete and accurate listing of all pending legal matters in the ITFS, the MDS, and the MMDS, which will enable the WTB to act on these pending legal matters.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.
Gregory Vadas, Esq., Policy and Rules Branch, at (202) 418-0680.
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. On October 18, 2002, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) released a Public Notice (
2. Appendix A to this Public Notice contains a list of those legal matters with a filing date prior to March 25, 2002 where the applicant/licensee (or petitioner, if the petitioner is not the applicant or licensee) did not respond to the
3. WTB also requested petitioners of legal matters pending before the Bureau to review the list of pending matters in the
4. With respect to other requests to add legal matters to its list of pending legal matters, the WTB notes that in many instances, the respondent, but not the petitioner, submitted legal matters. In those cases, we are not adding those matters to our list of pending legal matters because the petitioner did not express interest in prosecuting the matter.
The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, effective on the corresponding date shown below:
Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR 515.
Office of Management Services, GSA.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury revised part D of the SF 329, Administrative Wage Garnishment to:
a. Collect additional information on the employer; and
b. Authorize form for local reproduction.
You can obtain the updated camera copy in two ways:
On the Internet. Address:
From Form-CAP, Attn.: Barbara Williams, (202) 501-0581
Ms. Barbara Williams, General Services Administration, (202) 501-0581 for availability of the form and Lois Holland, Department of the Treasury, (202) 622-1563 for any other information.
Effective April 10, 2003.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 498-1210. Send written comments to CDC, Desk Officer, Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.
The proposed study will be conducted through the implementation of a survey which will be mailed to a random sample of providers known to possess flexible sigmoidoscopes and colonoscopes in three states. The sampling frame includes all types of physician specialists and health care providers who own lower endoscopic equipment and may be screening for CRC. The survey will provide information on the types of health care providers who are performing CRC screening and follow-up examinations, the equipment currently being used for screening and follow-up examinations, and current reimbursement rates for these tests. The results of the analysis will be used to (1) identify state-level deficits in the medical infrastructure, (2) guide the development of state-level training initiatives and educational programs for health care providers, and (3) provide critical baseline information for state policy makers for the planning of state-level initiatives to increase colorectal cancer screening. CDC is currently in the process of selecting participating states through a competitive process. The annualized estimated burden is 688 hours.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer on (404) 498-1210. CDC is requesting an emergency clearance for this data collection with a two week public comment period. CDC is requesting OMB approval of this package 7 days after the end of the public comment period.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments to Seleda M. Perryman, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written comments should be received within 14 days of this notice.
In order to investigate this outbreak in the U.S., several collections of information are required. Currently, CDC is collecting this information under an Epidemic Aid (epi-aid) which will expire in 30 days. To preserve continuity in the surveillance information collected by public health investigators, CDC is requesting a 6-month emergency clearance on the current surveillance forms. The information collected includes contact information for travelers on a flight with a person or persons suspected of having SARS, health care work exposures, and
A notice announcing the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2003 funds for a cooperative agreement program for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Programs published in the
This program is authorized under sections 301 and 311 of the Public Health Service Act, [42 U.S.C. sections 241, 242, and 243], as amended. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.283.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2003 funds for a cooperative agreement for Collaborating Centers for Public Health Law. This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus area Public Health Infrastructure.
The purpose of this program is to establish two or more centers for public health preparedness in public health law (“centers”) to improve the contribution that law makes to the health of the public and to the performance of the public health system. The highest priority will be on the contribution law makes to preventing, preparing for, and responding to terrorism, outbreaks of infectious disease, and other major public health threats and emergencies.
Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with the following performance goal for the CDC Public Health Practice Program Office (PHPPO): Prepare state and local health systems, departments and laboratories to respond to current and emerging public health threats.
Applications may be submitted by public and private nonprofit organizations and by governments and their agencies; that is, universities, colleges, technical schools, research institutions, public health and healthcare organizations, community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, and other public and private nonprofit organizations, 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 the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau, federally recognized Indian tribal governments, Indian tribes, or Indian tribal organizations. CDC specifically encourages applications from consortia that include accredited schools of public health or medicine, accredited schools of law, and organizations that serve the legal and/or law enforcement communities.
Title 2 of the United States Code section 1611 states that an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal
Approximately $500,000 is available in FY 2003 to fund approximately two or more awards. It is expected that the average award will be approximately $165,000 ranging from $100,000 to $250,000. It is expected that the awards will begin on or about September 1, 2003, and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to three 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.
Matching funds are not required for this program.
Specific goals of the centers will be to:
1. Provide law-related information to public health practitioners, policy makers, and the legal community in at least two ways: (a) by conducting analyses of public health legal issues; and, separately, (b) by improving the quality, accessibility, and utility of information relevant to public health practitioners and maintained in standardized, electronic databases.
2. Improve the competencies of public health practitioners, public policy makers, the legal community, and others to apply law as an effective tool for public health.
3. Foster partnerships between the public health practice community and the legal community (including health attorneys, law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, legal education and training institutions; legal professional associations; and related organizations) to improve their contribution to applying law as an effective tool for public health.
CDC anticipates making awards to two or more centers. The centers will not necessarily conduct the same type of activities. An eligible applicant may apply to conduct activities that address goal 1, goal 2, goal 3, or any combination thereof. However, an applicant that proposes to conduct activities in more than one goal area must submit a separate application for each goal area. For example, if an applicant chooses to apply to conduct activities in both goal area 1 and goal area 2, the applicant must submit one application for each goal area. Each such application will be evaluated separately. CDC reserves the right to make an award to an applicant for activity in one goal area, but not in another.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities listed in 1. Recipient Activities, and CDC will be responsible for the activities listed in 2. CDC Activities.
With respect to goal 1, recipient activities will be to:
a. Conduct analyses of public health legal issues (see guidance in the Content section of this announcement).
b. Implement the information improvement plan submitted in your application to improve the quality, accessibility, and utility for public health practitioners of information relevant to public health and maintained in standardized, electronic, databases (see guidance in the Content section of this announcement); and revise that plan as needed thereafter.
c. Assist other organizations to conduct activities like those identified in (a) and (b) above.
d. Evaluate the impact of the activities annually.
With respect to goal 2, recipient activities will be to:
a. Review existing statements of core competencies in public health law for public health practitioners, public policy makers, the legal community, and others whose actions affect the health of the public, and assess the need for revision of those statements.
b. Assess the extent to which the groups listed above possess those core competencies.
c. Develop a plan (no later than December 31, 2003) for a self-sustaining program of training, education, and continuing education suitable for implementation at multiple jurisdictional levels to improve the achievement of public health law-related competencies by the current and future public health workforce, the legal community, and others whose actions affect the health of the public; revise that plan as needed thereafter.
d. Develop curricula, courses, and materials, (beginning no later than March 31, 2004) and disseminate training, education, and continuing education consistent with that plan.
e. Assist other organizations in developing and disseminating such training, education and continuing education consistent with that plan.
f. Evaluate the impact of the recipient's activities annually.
With respect to goal 3, recipient activities will be to:
a. Identify organizations in the legal community currently or potentially active in improving the contribution law makes to the health of the public; for this purpose the “legal community” includes health attorneys, law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, legal education and training institutions, legal professional associations, and related organizations.
b. Assess the capacity of those organizations to make such contributions and identify gaps between their existing and needed capacities.
c. Develop (by December 31, 2003) a plan to assist those organizations in improving their capacity; and revise that plan as needed thereafter.
d. Assist those organizations to improve their capacity through consultation, technical assistance, training, and other activities.
e. Evaluate the impact of the activities annually.
a. Provide scientific, technical, and legal assistance.
b. In goal area 1, Provide technical assistance in identifying public health legal issues for analysis, in implementing the plan for improving information, and in developing approaches to assisting other organizations.
In goal area 2, Provide technical assistance in identifying existing statements of competencies, in setting priorities for a plan for a program to improve achievement of competencies, in setting priorities for training materials, and in developing approaches to assisting other organizations.
In goal area 3, Provide technical assistance in identifying organizations in the legal community suitable for partnerships, in developing methods for assessing their capacity, in setting priorities for assisting them, and in developing approaches to improving their capacity.
c. Collaborate in identifying constituencies to be served and in establishing goals, priorities, strategies, timelines, and training materials.
d. Identify and establish partnerships between the grantees and other organizations.
e. Collaborate in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the collaborative activities supported under this cooperative agreement.
A LOI is required for this program. The Program Announcement title and
The Program Announcement title and number must appear in the application. Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. Your PHS 398 (OMB Number 0925-0001) application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them in laying out your program plan. The narrative should be no more than 25 pages, single-spaced, printed on one side, with one-inch margins, and 12-point unreduced font.
The narrative should consist of, at a minimum, the following sections: Background and Need; Goals and Objectives; Project Management and Staffing; Methods and Plan of Operation; Collaboration Plan; Evaluation Plan; and Requested Budget.
In addition, the narrative contained in applications for activities that address goal 1 must include the following information:
a. A description of the public health legal issues the applicant tentatively proposes to analyze, reasons for selecting those issues, and a description of ways public health practitioners, policy makers, and the legal community would apply the results of those analyses.
b. A detailed plan for activities the recipient would conduct to improve the quality, accessibility, and utility for public health practitioners of information relevant to public health and maintained in standardized, electronic databases. (This is the “information improvement plan” referred to in the Program Requirements section of this announcement.) This type of information consists, in part, of information stemming from scholarly legal research and analysis and review, as well as information maintained in compilations of statutory and regulatory law and of judicial rulings. This body of information currently is largely inaccessible to public health practitioners. The information improvement plan will identify the types and sources of such information the recipient will include in these activities, the methods the recipient will use to improve the quality, accessibility, and utility of that information, the resources the recipient will use to conduct these activities, and a calendar showing when improved information would be made available to public health practitioners.
On or before May 12, 2003, submit the LOI to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
Submit the original and two copies of PHS 398 (OMB Number 0925-0001) (Errata Instruction Sheet for PHS 398 attached). Forms are available 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. Applications can be mailed to you.
The application must be received by 4 p.m. Eastern Time June 9, 2003.
Submit the application to:
Applications 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 shall be considered as meeting the deadline if they are received before 4 p.m. Eastern Time on the deadline date. Any applicant who sends their application 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.
Any application that does not meet the above criteria will not be eligible for competition, and will be discarded. The applicant will be notified of their failure to meet the submission requirements.
The required Letter of Intent will not be evaluated or scored.
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 goals stated in the Program Requirements section 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.
A review group appointed by CDC will evaluate each application against the following criteria:
a. The extent to which the applicant presents documented evidence of past or current experience and collaboration, or capacity to collaborate, with partners active in public health practice and public health law, the legal community, and other relevant entities.
b. The extent to which the applicant proposes relevant and feasible collaborations with other organizations in conducting the Recipient Activities and methods for fostering collaboration among such organizations.
c. The extent to which the application includes signed agreements specifying the roles and responsibilities of each organization that will collaborate with the applicant.
a. The extent to which the project staff is clearly identified, possesses appropriate skills and knowledge, and has clearly described roles.
b. The extent to which the application provides details regarding the level of effort and allocation of time for each staff position.
c. The extent to which the applicant possesses management and other
d. The applicant's experience in the management of resources and production of successful outcomes.
a. The soundness of the methods the applicant proposes to use to conduct each of the Recipient Activities.
b. The specificity, relevance, and feasibility of the plan of action the applicant proposes to take to develop and conduct each of the Recipient Activities.
a. The extent to which the application addresses the center goals listed in the Program Requirements section of this announcement.
b. The extent to which the application specifies objectives, activities, work projects, and timelines, which are supportive of the goals, measurable, and feasible.
The extent to which the applicant clearly describes the need for, and benefits of, the proposed center, including delineation of target audiences and benefits that they would realize from the center's activities.
The extent to which the applicant provides a detailed description of the methods to be used to evaluate program effectiveness, including identification of the variables to be evaluated, identification of the person(s) or organization(s) that will conduct evaluations, and specification of the time line for evaluations.
The extent to which the budget is clearly explained, adequately justified, reasonable, sufficient for the proposed project activities, and consistent with the intended use of the cooperative agreement funds.
Does the application adequately address the requirements of title 45 CFR part 46 for the protection of human subjects: Not scored; however, an application can be disapproved if the research risks are sufficiently serious and protection against risks is so inadequate as to make the entire application unacceptable.
Does the application adequately address the CDC Policy requirements regarding the inclusion of women, ethnic, and racial groups in the proposed research. This includes:
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.
Provide CDC with original plus two copies of:
1. Interim progress report, no less than 90 days before the end of the budget period. The progress report will serve as your non-competing continuation application, and must contain the following elements:
a. Current budget period activities and objectives.
b. Current budget period financial progress.
c. New budget period program proposed activities and objectives.
d. Detailed line-item budget and justification.
e. 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 the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment I of this announcement as posted on the CDC Web site.
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:
For Business management and budget assistance, contact:
For program technical assistance, contact:
Sam Martinez, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd., NE., M/S E-58, Atlanta, GA 30333, telephone (404) 639-5219,
The Director, Management and Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following subcommittee and committee meetings.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Ms. Louise Galaska, Executive
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting.
1.
a. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
b. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
c. Malaria
2. Bioterrorism Update
3. Institute of Medicine Emerging Infections Report
4. Global Health Activities
5. Emerging Infectious Diseases Journal
6. Updates
a. Pneumococcal Disease
c. Hepatitis
7. Infections and Chronic Diseases
8. Board meets with Director, CDC
9. Discussions and Recommendations
Other agenda items include announcements/introductions; follow-up on actions recommended by the Board in December 2002; consideration of future directions, goals, and recommendations.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Written comments are welcome and should be received by the contact person listed below prior to the opening of the meeting.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces the following meeting:
Requests to make presentations at the public meeting should be mailed to the NIOSH Docket Officer, Robert A. Taft Laboratories, M/S C34, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, Telephone 513-533-8303, Fax 513-533-8285, E-mail
After reviewing the requests for presentations, NIOSH will notify each presenter of the approximate time that their presentation is scheduled to begin. If a participant is not present when his or her presentation is scheduled to begin, the remaining participants will be heard in order. At the conclusion of the meeting, an attempt will be made to allow presentations by any scheduled participants who missed their assigned times. Attendees who wish to speak but did not submit a request for the opportunity to make a presentation may be given this opportunity at the conclusion of the meeting, at the discretion of the presiding officer. Comments on the topics presented in this notice and at the meeting should be mailed to the NIOSH Docket Office, Robert A. Taft Laboratories, M/S C34, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, Telephone 513-533-8303, Fax 513-533-8285. Comments may also be submitted by e-mail to
Recent acts of terrorism have created an urgent awareness of domestic security and preparedness issues. Municipal, state, and federal responder groups, particularly those in locations considered potential targets, have been developing and modifying response and consequence management plans. Since the World Trade Center and anthrax incidents, most emergency response agencies have operated with a heightened appreciation of the potential scope and sustained resource requirements for coping with such events. The Federal Interagency Board for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability (IAB) has worked to identify personal protective equipment that is already available on the market for responders' use. The IAB has identified the development of standards or guidelines for respiratory protection equipment as a top priority. NIOSH, NIST, National Fire Protection Association, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding defining each agency's or organization's role in developing, establishing, and enforcing standards or guidelines for responders' respiratory protective devices. NIST has initiated Interagency Agreements with NIOSH and SBCCOM to aid in the development of appropriate protection standards or guidelines. NIOSH has the lead in developing standards or guidelines to test, evaluate, and approve respirators.
NIOSH, SBCCOM, and NIST have hosted public meetings on April 17 and 18, 2001; June 18 and 19, 2002; and October 16 and 17, 2002, presenting their progress in assessing respiratory protection needs of responders to CBRN incidents. The methods or models for developing hazard and exposure estimates, and the status of evaluating test methods and performance standards that may be applicable in future CBRN respirator standards or guidelines, were discussed at these meetings.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for emergency processing under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA). FDA is preparing a guidance document intended to notify the public of procedures being implemented by the agency to assist U.S. firms that wish to export dairy products to Chile. FDA is taking this action in response to trade discussions with Chile that have been adjunct to the negotiations of the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement. FDA is requesting this emergency processing under the PRA because a normal clearance is likely to impede completion of the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement.
Fax or electronically mail written comments on the collection of information by May 12, 2003.
OMB is still experiencing significant delays in the regular mail, including first class and express mail, and messenger deliveries are not being accepted. To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be electronically mailed to sshapiro@omb.eop.gov or faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Stuart Shapiro, Desk Officer for FDA, FAX 202-395-6974. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Peggy Robbins, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
FDA is preparing a guidance document intended to notify the public of procedures being implemented by the agency to assist U.S. firms that wish to export dairy products to Chile. FDA is taking this action in response to trade
FDA has requested emergency processing of this proposed collection of information under section 3507(j) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)) and 5 CFR 1320.13. This information is needed immediately because it will take time to establish a list of U.S. firms that wish to export dairy products to Chile. Immediate collection of the information will reduce the length of delay before any U.S. firm can actually export their dairy products to Chile without submitting to prior individual inspections from Chile. The use of normal clearance procedures would prolong the time needed to provide guidance on the process for firms to seek inclusion on the referenced list. Delay in resolution of this agricultural trade issue is likely to impede completion of the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement.
FDA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Section 701(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 371(h)) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to develop guidance documents with public participation presenting the views of the Secretary on matters under the jurisdiction of FDA.
At a later date, FDA will announce the availability of a final guidance entitled “Establishing and Maintaining a List of U.S. Dairy Product Manufacturers With Interest in Exporting to Chile.” The guidance will provide voluntary recommendations on the process for firms that wish to export dairy products to Chile. Under this guidance, FDA recommends that U.S firms that want to be placed on the list send information to FDA (i.e., name and address of the firm and the manufacturing plant, name and telephone number of contact person, list of products presently shipped and expected to be shipped in the next 3 years, identities of agencies that inspect the plant and date of last inspection, plant number and copy of last inspection notice and, if other than an FDA inspection, copy of last inspection report).
The burden estimates presented below considered the number of U.S. firms that FDA believes produce dairy products and which will be interested in exporting to Chile, which is estimated to total 50. After the first year, FDA believes that approximately five new firms each year will be interested in exporting dairy products to Chile, and thus, being placed on the list.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The estimate of the number of firms that will seek to be on the list is based on FDA's current knowledge of the number of U.S. firms that produce dairy products and that will be interested in exporting to Chile. The estimate of the number of hours that it will take a firm to gather the information needed to be placed on the list is based on FDA's experience with firms submitting similar requests. FDA believes that the information to be submitted will be readily available to the firms. We estimate that for the first year a firm will require 1.5 hours to read the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that Alcide Corp. has filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to expand the permitted use concentration and to
Submit written or electronic comments on the petitioner's environmental assessment by May 12, 2003.
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
Mical E. Honigfort, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 202-418-0714.
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sec. 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 3A4743) has been filed by Alcide Corp., 8561 154th Ave. NE., Redmond, WA 98052-3557. The petition proposes to amend the food additive regulations in § 173.325
The potential environmental impact of this petition is being reviewed. To encourage public participation consistent with regulations issued under the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1501.4(b)), the agency is placing the environmental assessment submitted with the petition that is the subject of this notice on public display at the Dockets Management Branch (address above) for public review and comment. Interested persons may, on or before, May 12, 2003, submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written or electronic comments. Submit a single copy of electronic comments to
Notice of meeting.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Office of Science is announcing the following meeting entitled “9th Annual FDA Science Forum—FDA Science: Protecting America's Health.” The Science Forum is FDA's key scientific meeting that seeks to communicate and promote scientific issues relating to scientific development and associated regulatory concerns. Open to the public, the 2003 Forum is designed to bring FDA scientists together with representatives from industry, academia, government agencies, consumer and patient advocacy groups, and international constituents to explore emerging public health issues and to learn and share knowledge and ideas of the science-based mission of the agency.
The Science Forum will focus on three plenary tracks with corresponding break-out sessions in the areas of:
• Risk management & risk assessment
• Novel science initiatives at FDA
• FDA's mission post- 9/11/01 and beyond
A poster session featuring all areas of FDA regulatory science will be presented to provide an opportunity for interested scientists to engage in information exchange with FDA scientists.
An exhibition of scientific products, services, and professional societies sponsored by Williamsburg BioProcessing Foundation will be held during the entire event. Interested exhibitors should contact:
This event is co-sponsored by the FDA Office of Science & Health Coordination, Williamsburg BioProcessing Foundation, AOAC International, California Separation Science Society, and the FDA Chapter of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society.
The Office Dietary Supplements (ODS) was established in the Office of the Director, NIH, in 1995 as a major provision of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). A key early activity was the
The Strategic Plan was intended to guide ODS activities and programs for 5 years and it has served this purpose. Since its publication in 1998, there have been increases in the ODS budget each year, and this meant both considerable progress and expanded programs beyond those contemplated in the original Plan. Therefore it is appropriate to re-visit the original Plan this year and to develop an updated ODS Strategic Plan for 2004-2009.
The Office of Dietary Supplements is re-examining its 1998 Strategic Plan and desires public comment on the progress of its programs and on future needs and opportunities for research activities. As a part of this effort, we are holding a meeting for interested parties. The major focus of the meeting is to solicit views and suggestions on the future directions and programs of the ODS.
We have prepared a background paper that summarizes progress in key areas of ODS activity identified in the 1998 Strategic Plan and solicits comments and suggestions on future ODS activities. The background paper and related information are available on the ODS Web site at
In addition, the ODS will hold an open public meeting on May 8 and 9, 2003 at the time and address listed below to hear additional comments and suggestions on needs and opportunities for possible inclusion in the 2004-2009 ODS Strategic Plan. Information about the meeting, including the tentative agenda, is available on ODS Web site
We may use all written comments received by 5 p.m. EST, on June 27, 2003 from this request as well as those received at the meeting in the preparation of a revised Strategic Plan for 2004-2009. We will complete the strategic planning process the end of calendar year 2003. We will publish and disseminate the revised ODS Strategic Plan as the “roadmap” for programs of the Office of Dietary Supplements in 2004-2009.
The overall purpose of this strategic planning effort is to identify both new opportunities and emerging needs for possible incorporation in the programmatic efforts of the Office. To address this purpose, guidance is being requested from all interested parties on these important issues:
• Is there a need or opportunity for additional overarching goals for ODS? As a corollary, are there reasons or justification for modifying the priorities for allocation of resources to the five original goals?
• Is there a need or opportunity to re-examine the original 33 objectives individually in order to address the following issues:
(a) Are there objectives where current knowledge, opportunities, or needs that suggest expanded efforts or changes in priority for study are appropriate? If so, documentation and justification should be provided.
(b) Are there additional aspects of specific topics that should be added? If so, documentation and justification should be provided.
(c) Beyond the original 33 objectives, are there newly identified needs and opportunities that suggest additional objectives for increased emphasis in ODS programs in the future? If so, documentation and justification should be provided.
• An additional purpose of this current strategic planning effort is to seek comments and suggestions about the various approaches that ODS has utilized in addressing the goals of its 1998 Strategic Plan?
(a) Among the approaches used by ODS, should there be greater emphasis on certain ones in regard to research support, communication and information dissemination, database development, and training and career development?
(c) Are there other methods and techniques that ODS should consider in implementing its goals and objectives in the future?
The meeting is open to the public with attendance limited by the availability of space on a first come, first serve basis. Members of the public who wish to present oral comment should indicate this when registering on the ODS Web site at
Oral comments will be limited to three minutes. Individuals who register to speak will be assigned in the order in which they registered. Due to time constraints, only one representative from each organization will be allotted time for oral presentation. We may limit the number of speakers and the time allotted depending on the number of registrants. All requests to register should include the name, address, telephone number, and business or professional affiliation of the interested party. If time permits, we will allow any person attending the meeting who has not registered to speak in advance of the meeting to make a brief oral statement during the time set aside for public comment, and at the chairperson's discretion.
We encourage individuals unable to attend the meeting and all interested parties to send written comments to the Office of Dietary Supplements by mail, fax, or electronically. When mailing or faxing written comments provide, if possible, an electronic version on diskette.
Persons needing special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other special accommodations at the meeting should indicate this when registering or contact the Office of Dietary Supplements at the address or telephone number listed no later than April 25, 2003.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NHLBI.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's Home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. as amended. The grant applications and the discussion could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5. U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set for in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of meetings of the National Advisory Allergy and Infectious Diseases Council.
The meetings will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into the building by non-government employees. Persons without a government I.D. will need to show a photo I.D. and sign-in at the security desk upon entering the building.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the AIDS Research Advisory Committee, NIAID.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into the building by non-government employees. Persons without a government I.D. will need to show a photo I.D. and sign-in at the security desk upon entering the building.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 20, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C. as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDDK.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into the building by non-government employees. Persons without a government I.D. will need to show a photo I.D. and sign-in at the security desk upon entering the building.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), DHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC).
The meeting will take place on April 30, 2003, from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Dan Mullarkey, Office of Transportation Security Policy, TSA Headquarters (West Tower, Floor 11), 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC, 20590; telephone 571-227-2635, e-mail
This meeting is announced pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.). The agenda for the meeting will include a discussion of cargo security and general aviation initiatives. In addition, cargo working groups will be formed. This meeting, from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., is open to the public but attendance is limited to space available.
The newly formed cargo working groups will hold follow-on meetings on April 30, 2003, and all day on May 1, 2003. These working group meetings will be closed to the public.
Members of the public must make advance arrangements to present oral statements at the open ASAC meeting. Written statements may be presented to the committee by providing copies of them to the Chair prior to or at the meeting. Anyone in need of assistance or a reasonable accommodation for the meeting, should contact the person listed under the heading
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Development and Research, 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: Reports Liaison Officer, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 8226, Washington, DC 20410-6000.
Barbara Haley, 202-708-5537, ext. 5708 (this is not a toll-free number), for copies of the proposed forms and other available documents.
The Department will submit 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 from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In order to evaluate the impact of its current programs and to measure its dissemination efforts, PD&R will study the opinions of stakeholders and people who request PD&R products regarding the extent to which PD&R research makes a difference and contributes to the development of best practices.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt.
The following applicant has applied for a permit to conduct certain activities with an endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Written data or comments on this application must be received at the address given below by May 12, 2003.
Documents and other information submitted with this application are available for review by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035. Attention: Diane Lynch, Regional Endangered Species Permits Coordinator, telephone: (413) 253-8628; facsimile: (413) 253-8482.
Diane Lynch, telephone: (413) 253-8628; facsimile (413) 253-8482.
You are invited to comment on the application from the University of Maine, PRT-TE069510. This application requests authorization to take (harass, in the form of stress, and kill) Gulf of Maine, distinct population segment, Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) stocks, for scientific purposes. DPS stocks for this study include stock from the: Denny's, Machias, East Machias, Pleasant, Sheepscot, and Narraguagus Rivers. No wild fish will be used in this study only stocks currently propagated at the Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery.
National Park Service, Interior.
Publication of draft report for public comment.
The National Park Service is publishing for public review and comment a draft study report on designating additional miles to the Westfield River, Massachusetts, National Wild and Scenic River. The National Park Service has found that the Westfield River, Massachusetts (Upper East Branch and Tributaries: Drowned Land Brook; Center Brook; Windsor Jambs Brook—Towns of Savoy and Windsor; Headwater Tributaries of the West Branch: Shaker Mill Brook; Depot Brook; Savery Brook; Watson Brook; Center Pond Brook—Towns of Becket and Washington; Lower Middle Branch, East Branch and Main Stem—Town of Huntington) is eligible for the national system and is recommending that this section of the river be designated.
Submit comments on or before May 27, 2003.
Copies of the draft report are available for public inspection at: National Park Service, Boston Support Office, 15 State Street, Boston, MA 02109; National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240-0001. Hours of availability are between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Additional copies for review are located in the Huntington, Savoy, Washington, and Windsor Town Halls; during normal hours of operation. Copies of the draft report may be obtained from Jamie Fosburgh, National Park Service, Boston Support Office, 15 State Street, Boston, MA, 617-223-5191. The full draft report may be viewed at
Comments should be directed to the National Park Service, Boston Support Office, attention Jamie Fosburgh at the address above.
Jamie Fosburgh, National Park Service, Boston Support Office, 15 State Street, Boston, MA, 617-223-5191.
On April 26, 2002, Acting Governor Jane Swift of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts petitioned the Secretary of the Interior to extend the Westfield River's Wild and Scenic designation to include additional segments of the river and its headwaters (34.8 miles) under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The sections of river under consideration includes the Upper East Branch and Tributaries: Drowned Land Brook; Center Brook; Windsor Jambs Brook in the Towns of Savoy and Windsor; the Headwater Tributaries of the West Branch: Shaker Mill Brook; Depot Brook; Savery Brook; Watson Brook; Center Pond Brook in the Towns of Becket and Washington; and the Lower Middle Branch, East Branch and Main Stem in the Town of Huntington. Under section 2(a)(ii) of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Pub. L. 90-542, as amended), the Secretary has the authority to add a river to the National System at the request of a state, provided the state has met certain prior conditions and the river meets eligibility criteria, based upon an evaluation of natural and cultural resources.
These conditions are:
(1) The river must have been designated as a component of a states wild or scenic rivers system by, or pursuant to, an act of the legislature of that state.
(2) Management of the river must be administered by an agency or political subdivision of the state, except for those lands administered by an agency of the Federal government.
(3) The river meets National Wild and Scenic River eligibility criteria, that is, that the river is free-flowing and possesses one or more outstanding resources of significance to the region or nation.
(4) There must be effective mechanisms and regulations in place— local, state or federal—to provide for the long-term protection of those resources for which the river was deemed eligible.
Upon the request of a state governor to the Secretary of the Interior, the National Park Service, acting for the Secretary, undertakes an evaluation of the state's request.
As a result of the evaluation, the National Park Service has concluded that all requirements were fully met for the designation extension for the Westfield River.
The National Park Service recommends that the following segments of the Westfield River be classified as:
International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation and scheduling of public hearing.
April 4, 2003.
Following receipt of a request on March 18, 2003, from the Committee on Ways and Means (Committee), U.S. House of Representatives, the Commission instituted investigation No. 332-452, Steel-Consuming Industries: Competitive Conditions with Respect to Steel Safeguard Measures, under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)).
On March 5, 2003, the Commission instituted an investigation under section 204(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (Inv. No. TA-204-9) in order to prepare a report on the results of its monitoring of developments relating to the domestic steel industry since the President imposed tariffs and tariff-rate quotas on imports of certain steel products (68 FR 12380, March 14, 2003). In its letter, the Committee on Ways and Means requests that the Commission provide its report in this section 332 investigation and its monitoring report in the section 204(a) investigation in a single document. In a March 27, 2003 letter to the Commission, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) referenced the format requested by the Committee and informed the Commission that USTR has no objection to receiving the section 204(a)(2) report and the section 332(g) report in a single document. Accordingly, the Commission will transmit to the President and the Congress these two separate reports in the requested format.
Information specific to this investigation may be obtained from James Fetzer, Project Leader (202-708-5403;
As requested by the Committee, the Commission will investigate the current competitive conditions facing the steel-consuming industries in the United States, with respect to tariffs and tariff-rate quotas imposed by the President on March 5, 2002, and with respect to foreign competitors not subject to such measures. As requested, the Commission will conduct its analysis along sectoral lines in order to assess the impact on differing segments of the U.S. manufacturing sector; and also examine the data as related to steel products on which the President imposed steel safeguard measures. To the extent possible, the investigation will address the effects of the safeguard measures on steel consuming industries and on industries that rely on steel imports such as the ports, including the following:
(1) Changes in employment, wages, profitability, sales, productivity, and capital investment of steel-consuming industries;
(2) An examination of the reported effects of the safeguard remedies on factors such as steel prices paid by consuming industries, steel shortages/availability, the ability of steel consumers to obtain required products or quality specifications, lead times and delivery times, contract abrogation, sourcing of finished parts from overseas by customers of steel consumers, and the relocation or shift of U.S. downstream production to foreign plants or facilities;
(3) The impact of international competitive factors, such as relative differences in steel costs to foreign steel-consuming industries, on steel consumers' exports and imports of steel-containing products;
(4) An examination of any shifts in steel-consuming patterns in the United States,
(5) A discussion of the likely impact on employment, profitability, capital investment, and international competitiveness of steel-consuming industries of (i) continuation of the safeguard measures for the period September 2003-March 2005 and (ii) termination of the safeguard measures effective September 20, 2003.
In addition, as requested, the Commission will provide an analysis of the potential economy-wide effects of these safeguard measures (
The Committee asked that the Commission furnish its report by September 20, 2003, along with the Commission's section 204 steel monitoring report in a single document. The Committee also requested that the Commission make its report available to the public, consistent with procedures set forth in section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 concerning the release of confidential business information.
A public hearing in connection with this investigation is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on June 19, 2003, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC. All persons have the right to appear by counsel or in person, to present information, and to be heard. Persons wishing to appear at the public hearing should file a letter with the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E St., SW, Washington, DC 20436, not later than the close of business (5:15 p.m.) on June 2, 2003. In addition, persons appearing should file prehearing briefs (original and 14 copies) with the Secretary by the close of business on June 4, 2003. Posthearing briefs should be filed with the Secretary by the close of business on June 27, 2003. In the event that no requests to appear at the hearing are received by the close of business on June 2, 2003, the hearing will be canceled. Any person interested in attending the hearing as an observer or non-participant may call the Secretary to the Commission (202-205-1816) after June 4, 2003 to determine whether the hearing will be held.
In lieu of or in addition to appearing at the public hearing, interested persons are invited to submit written statements concerning the investigation. Written statements should be received by the close of business on June 27, 2003. Commercial or financial information which a submitter desires the
By order of the Commission.
30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Extension of a currently approved collection; Certification of compliance with eligibility requirements of grants to reduce crimes against women.
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
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until May 12, 2003. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-7285.
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)
(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.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the U.S. Department Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on May 9, 2002, applicable to workers of BASF Corporation, Vitamin Division, a subsidiary of BASFIN Corporation, Wyandotte, Michigan. The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. Information provided by the State shows that leased workers of Adecco were employed at BASF Corporation, Vitamin Division, a subsidiary of BASFIN Corporation to produce vitamin E, vitamin A and food blends/mixes at the Wyandotte, Michigan location of the subject firm.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending the certification to include leased workers of Adecco who were working at BASF Corporation, Vitamin Division, a subsidiary of BASFIN Corporation, Wyandotte, Michigan.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of BASF Corporation, Vitamin Division, a subsidiary of BASFIN Corporation who were adversely affected by increased imports.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-40,947 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of BASF Corporation, Vitamin Division, a subsidiary of BASFIN Corporation, Wyandotte, Michigan, and leased workers of Adecco producing of vitamin E, vitamin A and food blends/mixes at BASF Corporation, Vitamin Division, a subsidiary of BASFIN Corporation, Wyandotte, Michigan, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 14, 2001, through May 9, 2004, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on December 2, 2002, applicable to workers of Emess Design Group, LLC, located in Ellwood City, Pennsylvania. The notice was published in the
At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers produce lamps and lamp products. Information provided by company shows that on April 12, 2002, Emess Design Group, LLC, purchased the assets of another company.
Since the Emess Design Group, LLC did not exist prior to April 12, 2002, the Department is changing the impact date from July 15, 2001 to April 12, 2002.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-41,916 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Emess Design Group, LLC, Ellwood City, Pennsylvania, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after April 12, 2002 through December 2, 2004, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
On February 19, 2003, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application on Reconsideration applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice will soon be published in the
The Department initially terminated the investigation on behalf of workers of FCI USA, Inc., Communications, Data, and Consumer Division (CDC), Fiber Optics Group, a member of the Areva Group, Etters, Pennsylvania because the Department had recently issued negative determinations applicable to the petitioning group of workers on September 20, 2002 (TA-W-41,571).
On reconsideration, the Department conducted a survey of the major customers of the subject firm regarding their purchases of electrical and fiber optic connectors during the relevant period. The survey revealed that a major customer increased their imports, while decreasing their purchases from the subject firm during the relevant period.
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I conclude that increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with electrical and fiber optic connectors, contributed importantly to the declines in sales or production and to the total or partial separation of workers of FCI USA, Inc., Communications, Data, and Consumer Division (CDC), Fiber Optics Group, a member of the Areva Group, Etters, Pennsylvania. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification:
All workers of FCI USA, Inc., Communications, Data, and Consumer Division (CDC), Fiber Optics Group, a member of the Areva Group, Etters, Pennsylvania, engaged in the production of electrical and fiber optic connectors, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after November 14, 2001 through two years from date of certification are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
By application of February 21, 2003, petitioners requested administrative reconsideration regarding the Department's Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to the workers of the subject firm.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination issued on February 13, 2003, based on the finding that imports of plastic bags did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the Lolita plant. The denial notice was published in the
To support the request for reconsideration, the petitioner supplied additional information to supplement that which was gathered during the initial investigation. Upon further review and contact with the company, it was revealed that sales and production did decline in the relevant period. As a result of this finding, a customer survey which was conducted in the original investigation became relevant to establishing import impact. Results from this survey revealed that a major declining customer increased their imports of plastic bags while decreasing their purchases from the subject firm in the relevant period.
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I conclude that increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at Inteplast Group, LTD., Integrated Bagging Systems, Lolita, Texas, contributed importantly to the declines in sales or production and
All workers of Inteplast Group, LTD., Integrated Bagging Systems, Lolita, Texas, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 7, 2001 through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on April 13, 2001, applicable to workers of Motorola, Inc., Personal Communications Sector, Harvard, Illinois. The notice was published in the
At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of cellular phones.
New company information shows that worker separations will continue to occur at the Harvard, Illinois location of the subject firm after the current certification expires April 13, 2003. The workers will remain at the Harvard, Illinois location until August 15, 2003 to decommission equipment and to physically close the property.
Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to extent the expiration date to August 15, 2003.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Motorola, Inc., Personal Communication Sector, Harvard, Illinois who were adversely affected by increased imports.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-38,928 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Motorola, Inc., Personnel Communications Sector, Harvard, Illinois who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 14, 2000, through August 15, 2003, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on January 17, 2003, applicable to workers of Nortel Networks, Department #2446, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The notice was published in the
At the request of the petitioner, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that worker separations occurred involving an employee of Department #2446, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina facility of Nortel Networks located in New York. This employee provided verification testing and turnup for the production of fiber optic backbone telecommunications network at Department #2446, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina location of the subject firm.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include an employee of the Research Triangle Park, North Carolina facility of Nortel Networks, Department #2446 located in New York.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Nortel Networks, Department #2446 who were adversely affected by increased imports.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-50,036 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Nortel Networks, Department #2446, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (TA-W-50,036), including an employee of Nortel Networks, Department #2446, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, located in New York (TA-W-50,036A), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after November 5, 2001, through January 17, 2005, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) remanded to the Labor Department for further investigation of the negative determination in
The Department's initial denial of the petition for employees of Spinnaker Coating Maine, Inc., Incorporated, Westbrook, Maine was issued on August 23, 2001 and published in the
On administrative reconsideration, the Department issued a “Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration,” on December 26, 2001 for the employees of Spinnaker Coating Maine, Inc., Incorporated, Westbrook, Maine. The notice was published in the
On remand, the Department examined the results of a survey response conducted during the initial investigation, with additional clarification from the customer during reconsideration. The survey showed
Since the two products EDP and thermal transfer paper appeared to be two different types of paper, the Department did not consider the increased imports as impacting the subject plant. On remand, the Department contacted a company official and followed up with an industry expert at the United States International Trade Commission. Both indicated that the two products were directly competitive with each other. Therefore on further review of that survey response, the customer increased their purchases of imported thermal transfer paper, a product “like or directly competitive” with EDP during the relevant period. The customer simultaneously reduced their purchases of EDP, while increasing their imports of thermal transfer paper during the relevant period.
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on remand, I conclude that there were increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm that contributed importantly to the worker separations and sales or production declines at the subject facility. In accordance with the provisions of the Trade Act, I make the following certification:
All workers of Spinnaker Coating Maine Incorporated, Westbrook, Maine who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 4, 2000, through two years from the issuance of this revised determination, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
By letter postmarked November 13, 2002, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration regarding the Department's Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to the workers of the subject firm.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination issued on October 11, 2002, based on the finding that imports of commercial door products did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the Red Oak plant. The denial notice was published in the
To support the request for reconsideration, the petitioner supplied additional information to supplement that which was gathered during the initial investigation. Upon further review and contact with the major declining customer, it was revealed that this customer increased its imports of like or directly competitive products in the relevant period.
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I conclude that increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at Trego Industries, Inc., Red Oak, Texas, contributed importantly to the declines in sales or production and to the total or partial separation of workers at the subject firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification:
All workers of Trego Industries, Inc., Red Oak, Texas, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 2, 2001 through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
On March 24, 2003, the Department on its own motion reviewed the initial determination for workers and former workers of the subject firm engaged in the production of solid-state motor speed controls.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination issued on January 29, 2003 because imports did not contribute importantly to the worker separations. The notice was published in the
New information submitted to the Department by the company and additional information supplied by a primary customer of the subject firm revealed that the customer has increased purchases of imported solid-state motor speed controls while reducing purchases from the subject firm.
After careful consideration of the new facts obtained on reopening, it is concluded that increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with solid-state motor speed controls produced by the subject firm contributed importantly to the decline in sales and to the total or partial separation of workers of the subject firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, I make the following revised determination:
All workers of Unitek Electronics, Inc., Portland, Oregon, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after November 29, 2001 through two years from the date of this certification are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
By letter of August 14, 2002, the company requested administrative reconsideration regarding the Department's Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to the workers of the subject firm.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination issued on July 11, 2002, based on the finding that imports of electrical process heaters and controls did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the Shelbyville, Indiana plant. The denial notice was published in the
To support the request for reconsideration, the company attempted to provide information to illustrate that foreign competition impacted the subject workers. On further clarification from the company it was discovered that a competitor purchased certain assets of Wellman's industrial grade electrical process business and inventory. The company indicated that the foreign company was attempting to penetrate the U.S. marketplace. As a result of the asset sale, workers engaged in the production of electrical process heaters and controls at the subject firm were impacted.
The Department contacted the foreign company for further clarification. The company indicated that they did purchase the assets from Wellman and inventory from the subject firm. The foreign company indicated that shortly after the asset purchase they increased their U.S. imports of products “like and directly” competitive with what the subject plant produced during the relevant period. The products were also simultaneously imported to some of the subject firm's domestic customers.
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I conclude that increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at Wellman Thermal Systems, Inc., Shelbyville, Indiana contributed importantly to the declines in sales or production and to the total or partial separation of workers at the subject firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification:
All workers of Wellman Thermal Systems, Inc., Shelbyville, Indiana, engaged in the production of electrical process heaters and controls, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 13, 2001 through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of data collection using the ETA Form 9023, Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)/North American Free Trade Agreement Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) Program Financial Status Report/Request for Funds (1205-0275, expires 4/31/2003). Efforts are currently underway to transition financial reporting on the TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs to the Standard Form 269. This transition will make financial reporting uniform across all ETA programs. It should be noted that the ETA-9023 will continue to be used by States to request supplemental funding for both the TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs.
A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before June 9, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210. Phone (202) 693-3577 (this is not a toll-free number), fax (202) 693-3584, e-mail
The Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002 consolidated the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and North American Free Trade Agreement—Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) programs into one program for trade affected workers. However; earlier amendments to the Trade Act of 1974, contained in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (OTCA) of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-418) and Title 5 of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) of 1993 made some significant changes and additions to the way worker adjustment assistance programs for trade-affected workers are funded and administered. These changes made enrollment in training an entitlement for workers adversely affected by imports (TAA program) or by imports from Canada or Mexico (NAFTA-TAA program). The TAA and NAFTA-TAA trade programs provide monies for trade readjustment allowances, job search allowances, job relocation allowances and training. In order for workers to receive trade readjustment allowances for the maximum amount of time permitted, they must be enrolled in a training program approved by the Secretary of Labor (section 423 of OTCA) for the TAA program and (section 250 of the NAFTA Implementation Act) for the NAFTA-TAA program. Although training becomes an entitlement under both programs if certain regulatory criteria are met, the OTCA imposed a training cap in section 236 of the TAA program and under subchapter D for the NAFTA-TAA program. Under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002, the statutory cap for training dollars is $220 million. The purpose of the collection of this information on the form ETA-9023 is to be able to monitor
The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:
* Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
* Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
* Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
* Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
The ETA-9023 has been successfully utilized by the ETA and the States with only minor modifications since Fiscal Year 1989. The
The total costs is $26.00 x 100 hours = $26,000. Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a forthcoming meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, Aerospace Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC), Pioneer Revolutionary Technology Subcommittee (PRTS).
Tuesday, May 20, 2003, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Wednesday, May 21, 2003, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center, Building 258, Conference Room 221, Moffett Field, California 94035-1000.
Ms. Mary-Ellen McGrath, Office of Aerospace Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001, 202/358-4729.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID, before receiving an access badge. Foreign Nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide the following information: full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa/green card information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, phone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees can provide identifying information in advance by contacting Ms. Pat A. Elson via e-mail at
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the
Institute of Museum and Library Services; National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of proposed guidance.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) publishes for public comment proposed policy guidance on Title VI's prohibition against national origin discrimination as it affects limited English proficient persons.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 12, 2003. IMLS will review all comments and will determine what modifications, if any, to this policy guidance are necessary.
Interested persons should submit written comments to Office of the General Counsel, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 802, Washington, DC 20506. Comments may also be submitted to facsimile at 202-606-1077 or by e-mail at
Nancy Weiss at the above address or by telephone at 202-606-5414; TDD: 202-606-8636. Arrangements to receive the policy in an alternative format may be made by contacting the named individual.
Under IMLS regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq. (Title VI), recipients of federal financial assistance from the IMLS (“recipients”) have a responsibility to ensure meaningful access by persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) to their programs and activities. See 45 CFR 1170. Executive Order 13166, reprinted at 65 FR 50121 (August 16, 2000), directs each Federal agency that extends assistance subject to the requirements of Title VI to publish, after review and approval by the Department of Justice, guidance for its recipients clarifying that obligation. The Executive Order also directs that all such guidance be consistent with the compliance standards and framework detailed in DOJ Policy Guidance entitled “Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—National Origin Discrimination Against Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” See 65 FR 50123 (August 16, 2000).
On March 14, 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Report To Congress titled “Assessment of the Total Benefits and Costs of Implementing Executive Order No. 13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” Among other things, the Report recommended the adoption of uniform guidance across all federal agencies, with flexibility to permit tailoring to each agency's specific recipients. Consistent with this OMB recommendation, the Department of Justice (DOJ) published LEP Guidance for DOJ recipients which was drafted and organized to also function as a model for similar guidance by other Federal grant agencies. See 67 FR 41455 (June 18, 2002). The proposed guidance is based upon and incorporates the legal analysis and compliance standards of the model June 18, 2002, DOJ LEP Guidance for Recipients.
It has been determined that the guidance does not constitute a regulation subject to the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. It has also been determined that this guidance is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
The text of the complete proposed guidance document appears below.
Nancy E. Weiss, General Counsel, Institute of Museum and Library Services.
Most individuals living in the United States read, write, speak and understand English. There are many individuals, however, for whom English is not their primary language. For instance, based on the 2000 census, over 26 million individuals speak Spanish and almost 7 million individuals speak an Asian or Pacific Island language at home. If these individuals have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English, they are limited English proficient, or “LEP.”
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq. and its implementing regulations provide that no person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity that receives federal financial assistance. Language for LEP individuals can be a barrier to accessing important benefits or services, understanding and exercising important rights, complying with applicable responsibilities, or understanding other information provided by federally funded programs and activities.
In certain circumstances, failure to ensure that LEP persons can effectively participate in or benefit from federally assisted programs and activities may violate the prohibition under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d and Title VI regulations against national origin discrimination.
The purpose of this policy guidance is to clarify the responsibilities of recipients of federal financial assistance from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), and assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities to limited English proficient (LEP) persons pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the IMLS implementing regulations. The policy guidance reiterates IMLS's longstanding position that, in order to avoid discrimination against LEP persons on the grounds of national origin, recipients must take reasonable steps to ensure that such persons have meaningful access to the programs, services, and information those recipients provide.
This policy guidance is modeled on and incorporates the legal analysis and compliance standards and framework set out in Section I through Section VIII of Department of Justice (DOJ) Policy Guidance titled “Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons,” published at 67 FR 41455, 41457-41465 (June 18, 2002) (DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance). To the extent additional clarification is desired on the obligation under Title VI to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons and how recipients can satisfy that obligation, a recipient should consult the more detailed discussion of the applicable compliance standards and relevant factors set out in DOJ Recipient LEP Guidance. The DOJ Guidance may be viewed and downloaded at
Many commentators have noted that some have interpreted the case of
This policy guidance provides a legal framework to assist recipients in developing appropriate and reasonable language assistance measures designed to address the needs of LEP individuals. The IMLS Title VI implementing regulations prohibit both intentional discrimination and policies and practices that appear neutral but have a discriminatory effect. Thus, a recipient entity's policies or practices regarding the provision of benefits and services to LEP persons need not be intentional to be discriminatory, but may constitute a violation of Title VI if they have an adverse effect on the ability of national origin minorities to meaningfully access programs and services.
Recipient entities have considerable flexibility in determining how to comply with their legal obligation in the LEP setting and are not required to use the suggested methods and options that follow. However, recipient entities must establish and implement policies and procedures for providing language assistance sufficient to fulfill their Title VI responsibilities and provide LEP persons with meaningful access to services.
All entities that receive Federal financial assistance from IMLS, either directly or indirectly, through a grant, cooperative agreement, contract or subcontract, are covered by this policy guidance. Title VI applies to all Federal financial assistance, which includes but is not limited to awards and loans of Federal funds, awards or donations of Federal property, details of Federal personnel, or any agreement, arrangement or other contract that has as one of its purposes the provision of assistance.
Title VI prohibits discrimination in any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance. In most cases, when a recipient receives Federal financial assistance for a particular program or activity, all operations of the recipient are covered by Title VI, not just the part of the program that uses the Federal assistance. Thus, all parts of the recipient's operations would be covered by Title VI, even if the Federal assistance were used only by one part.
Finally, some recipients operate in jurisdictions in which English has been declared the official language. Nonetheless, these recipients continue to be subject to federal non-discrimination requirements, including those applicable to the provision of federally assisted services to persons with limited English proficiency.
Title VI and the IMLS implementing regulations require that recipients take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to the information, programs, and services they provide. Recipients of federal assistance have considerable flexibility in determining precisely how to fulfill this obligation.
It is also important to emphasize that museums and libraries are in the business of maintaining, sharing, and dissemination vast amounts of information and items, most of which are created or generated by third parties. In large measure, the common service provided by these recipients is
What constitute reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access in the context of federally-assisted programs and activities in the area of museums and library services will be contingent upon a balancing of four factors: (1) The number and proportion of eligible LEP constituents; (2) the frequency of LEP individuals' contact with the program; (3) the nature and importance of the program; and (4) the resources available, including costs. Each of these factors is summarized below. In addition, recipients should consult Section V of the June 18, 2002 DOJ LEP Guidance for Recipients, 67 FR 41459-41460 or
The appropriateness of any action will depend on the size and proportion of the LEP population that the recipient serves and the prevalence of particular languages. Programs that serve a few or even one LEP person are still subject to the Title VI obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful opportunities for access. The first factor in determining the reasonableness of a recipient's efforts in the number or proportion of people who will be effectively excluded form meaningful access to the benefits or services if efforts are not made to remove language barriers. The steps that are reasonable for a recipient who serves one LEP person a year may be different than those expected from a recipient that serves several LEP persons each day.
Frequency of contact between the program or activity and LEP individuals is another factor to be weighed. If LEP individuals must access the recipient's program or activity on a daily basis, a recipient has greater duties than if such contact is unpredictable and infrequent. Recipients should take into account local or regional conditions when determining frequency of contact with the program, and should have the
The importance of the recipient's program to beneficiaries will affect the determination of what reasonable steps are required. More affirmative steps must be taken in programs where the denial or delay of access may have serious, or even life or death implications than in programs that are not crucial to one's day-to-day existence, economic livelihood, safety, or education. For example, the obligations, of a federally assisted school or hospital differ from those of a federally assisted museum or library. This factor implies that the obligation to provide translation services will be highest in programs providing education, job training, medical/health services, social welfare services, and similar services. As a general matter, it is less likely that museums and libraries receiving assistance from the IMLS will provide services having a similar immediate and direct impact on a person's life or livelihood. Thus, in large measure, it is the first factor (number or proportion of LEP individuals) that will have the greatest impact in determining the initial need for language assistance services.
In assessing the effect on individuals of failure to provide language services, recipients must consider the importance of the benefit to individuals both immediately and in the long-term. Another aspect of this factor is the nature of the program itself. Some museum content may be extremely accessible regardless of language. In these instances, little translation might be required.
IMLS is aware that its recipients may experience difficulties with resource allocation. Many of the organizations' overall budgets, and awards involved are quite small. The resources available to a recipient of federal assistance may have an impact on the nature of the steps that recipient must take to ensure meaningful access. For example, a small recipient with limited resources may not have to take the same steps as a larger recipient to provide LEP assistance in programs that have a limited number of eligible LEP individuals, where contact is infrequent, where the total cost of providing language services is relatively high, and/or where the program is not providing an important service or benefit from, for instance, a health, education, economic, or safety perspective. Translation and interpretation costs are appropriately included in award budget requests.
This four-factor analysis necessarily implicates the “mix”of LEP services required. The correct mix should be based on what is both necessary and reasonable in light of the four-factor analysis. Even those award recipients who serve very few LEP persons on an infrequent basis should use a balancing analysis to determine whether the importance of the services(s) provided and minimal costs make language assistance measures reasonable even in the case of limited and infrequent interactions with LEP persons. Recipients have substantial flexibility in determining the appropriate mix.
Museums and libraries have a long history of interacting with people with varying language backgrounds and capabilities within the communities where they are located. The agency's goal is to continue to encourage these efforts and share practices so that other museums and libraries can benefit from other institutions' experiences.
The following are examples of language assistance strategies that are potentially useful for all recipients. These strategies incorporate a variety of options and methods for providing meaningful access to LEP beneficiaries and provide examples of how recipients should take each of the four factors discussed above into account when developing an LEP strategy. Not every option is necessary or appropriate for every recipient with respect to all of its programs and activities. Indeed, a language assistance plan need not be intricate; it may be as simple as being prepared to use a commercially available “language line” to obtain immediate interpreting services and/or having bilingual staff members available who are fluent in the most common non-English languages spoken in the area. Recipients should exercise the flexibility afforded under this Guidance to select those language assistance measures which have the greatest potential to address, at appropriate levels and in reasonable manners, the specific language needs of the LEP populations they serve.
Finally, the examples below are not intended to suggest that if services to LEP populations aren't legally required under Title VI and Title VI regulations, they should not be undertaken. Part of the way in which libraries and museums build communities is by cutting across barriers like language. A small investment in outreach to a linguistically diverse community may well result in a rich cultural exchange that benefits not only the LEP population, but also the library or museum and the community as a whole.
• Identification of the languages that are likely to be encountered in, and the number of LEP persons that are likely to be affected by, the program. This information may be gathered through review of census and constituent data as well as data from school systems and community agencies and organizations;
• Posting signs in public areas in several language, informing the public of its right to free interpreter services and inviting members of the public to identify themselves as persons needing language assistance;
• Use of “I speak” cards for public-contact personnel so that the public can easily identify staff language abilities;
• Employment of staff, bilingual in appropriate languages, in public contact positions;
• Contracts with interpreting services that can provide competent interpreters in a wide variety of languages in a timely manner;
• Formal arrangements with community groups for competent and timely interpreter services by community volunteers;
• An arrangement with a telephone language interpreter line for on-demand service;
• Translations of application forms, instructional, informational and other key documents into appropriate non-English languages and provide oral interpreter assistance with documents for those persons whose language does not exist in written form;
• Procedures for effective telephone communication between staff and LEP persons, including instructions for English-speaking employees to obtain assistance from bilingual staff or interpreters when initiating or receiving calls to or from LEP persons;
• Notice to and training of all staff, particularly public contact staff, with respect to the recipient's Title VI obligation to provide language assistance to LEP persons, and on the language assistance policies and the procedures to be followed in securing such assistance in a timely manner;
• Insertion of notices, in appropriate languages, about access to free interpreters and other language assistance, in brochures, pamphlets, manuals, and other materials disseminated to the public and to staff; and
• Notice to and consultation with community organizations that represent LEP language groups, regarding
In identifying language assistance measures, recipients should avoid relying on an LEP person's family members, friends, or other informal interpreters to provide meaningful access to important programs and activities. However, where LEP persons so desire, they should be permitted to use, at their own expense, an interpreter of their own choosing (whether a professional interpreter, family member, or friend) in place of or as a supplement to the free language services expressly offered by the recipient. But where a balancing of the four factors indicate that recipient-provided language assistance is warranted, the recipient should take care to ensure that the LEP person's choice is voluntary, that the LEP person is aware of the possible problems if the preferred interpreter is a minor child, and that the LEP person knows that a competent interpreter could be provided by the recipient at no cost.
The use of family and friends as interpreters may be an appropriate option where proper application of the four factors would lead to a conclusion that recipient-provided language assistance is not necessary. An example of this might be a bookstore or cafeteria associated with a library or archive. There, the importance and nature of the activity may be relatively low and unlikely to implicate issues of confidentiality, conflict of interest, or the need for technical accuracy. In addition, the resources needed and costs of providing language services may be high. In such a setting, an LEP person's use of family, friends, or other informal ad hoc interpreters may be appropriate.
As noted throughout this guidance. IMLS award recipients have a great deal of flexibility in addressing the needs of their constituents with limited English skills. That flexibility does not diminish, and should not be used to minimize, the obligation that those needs be addressed. IMLS recipients should apply the four factors outlined above to the various kinds of contacts that they have with the public to assess language needs and decide what reasonable steps they should take to ensure meaningful access for LEP persons. By balancing the number or proportion of people with limited English skills served, the frequency of their contact with the program, the importance and nature of the program, and the resources available, IMLS awardees' Title VI obligations in many cases will be satisfied by making available oral language assistance or commissioning translations on an as-requested and as-needed basis. There are many circumstances where, after an application and balancing of the four factors noted above, Title VI would not require translation. For example, Title VI does not require a library to translate its collections, but it does require the implementation of appropriate language assistance measures to permit an otherwise eligible LEP person to apply for a library card and potentially to access appropriate-language materials through inter-library loans or other reasonable methods. The IMLS views this policy guidance as providing sufficient flexibility to allow the IMLS to continue to fund language-dependent programs in both English and other languages without requiring translation that would be inconsistent with the nature of the program. Recipients should consult Section VI of the June 18, 2002 DOJ LEP Guidance for Recipients, 67 FR at 41461-41464 or
The key to ensuring meaningful access for people with limited English skills is effective communication. A library or museum can ensure effective communication by developing and implementing a comprehensive language assistance program that includes policies and procedures for identifying and assessing the language needs of its LEP constituents. Such a program should also provide for a range of oral language assistance options, notice to LEP persons of the right to language assistance, periodic training of staff, monitoring of the program and, in certain circumstances, the translation of written materials.
Each recipient should, based on its own volume and frequency of contact with LEP clients and its own available resources, adopt a procedure for the resolution of complaints regarding the provision of language assistance and for notifying the public of their right to and how to file a complaint under Title VI. State recipients, who will frequently serve large numbers of LEP individuals, may consider appointing a senior level employee to coordinate the language assistance program and to ensure that there is regular monitoring of the program.
Executive order 13166 requires that each federal department or agency extending federal financial assistance subject to Title VI issue separate guidance implementing uniform Title VI compliance standards with respect to LEP persons. Where recipients of federal financial assistance from IMLS also receive assistance from one or more other federal departments or agencies, there is no obligation to conduct and document separate but identical analyses and language assistance plans for IMLS. IMLS, in discharging its compliance and enforcement obligations under Title VI, looks to analyses performed and plans developed in response to similar detailed LEP guidance issued by other federal agencies. Recipients may rely upon guidance issued by those agencies.
IMLS's regulations implementing Title VI contain compliance and enforcement provisions to ensure that a recipient's policies and practices overcome barriers resulting from language differences that would deny LEP persons an equal opportunity to participate in and access to programs, services and benefits offered by IMLS.
The Title VI regulations provide that IMLS will investigate (or contact its State recipient of funds to investigate, if appropriate) whenever it receives a complaint, report or other information that alleges or indicates possible noncompliance with Title VI. If the investigation results in a finding of compliance, IMLS will inform the recipient in writing of this determination, including the basis for the determination. If the investigation results in a finding of noncompliance, IMLS must inform the recipient of the noncompliance through a Letter of Findings that sets out the areas of noncompliance and the steps that must be taken to correct the noncompliance, and must attempt to secure voluntary compliance through informal means. If the matter cannot bed resolved informally, the IMLS will secure compliance through (a) the suspension of termination of Federal assistance after the recipient has been given an opportunity for an administrative hearing, (b) referral to the Department of Justice for injunctive relief or other enforcement proceedings, or (c) any other means authorized by federal, state, or local law.
Under the Title VI regulations, the IMLS has a legal obligation to seek voluntary compliance in resolving cases and cannot seek the termination of funds until it has engaged in voluntary compliance efforts and has determined
In determining a recipient's compliance with Title VI, the IMLS's primary concern is to ensure that the recipient's policies and procedures overcome barriers resulting from language differences that would deny LEP persons a meaningful opportunity to participate in and access programs, services, and benefits. A recipient's appropriate use of the methods and options discussed in this policy guidance will be reviewed by the IMLS as evidence of a recipient's willingness to comply voluntarily with its Title VI obligations. If implementation of one or more of these options would be so financially burdensome as to defeat the legitimate objectives of a recipient/covered entity's program, or if there are equally effective alternatives for ensuring that LEP persons have meaningful access to programs and services (such as timely effective oral interpretation of vital documents), IMLS will not find the recipient/covered entity in noncompliance.
If you have any questions related to this policy, please contact the IMLS Office of the General Counsel.
Notice is hereby given that the Railroad Retirement Board will hold a meeting on April 16, 2003, 9 a.m., at the Board's meeting room on the 8th floor of its headquarters building, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611. The agenda for this meeting follows:
(1) Employer Status Determination—Rail Temps, Inc.
(2) Employer Status Determination—Southern Gulf Railway Company.
(3) Occupational Disability Task Force Report.
(4) Management Information Report—Strategic Initiatives Related to the President's Management Agenda.
The entire meeting will be open to the public. The person to contact for more information is Beatrice Ezerski, Secretary to the Board, Phone No. 312-751-4920.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form S-11 is the registration statement form used to register securities issued in real estate investment trusts by issuers whose business is primarily that of acquiring and holding investment interest in real estate under the Securities Act of 1933. The information filed with the Commission permits verifications of compliance with securities law requirements and assures public availability. Approximately 150 issuers file Form S-11 annually and it takes approximately 473 hours per response for a total burden of 283,800 hours. It is estimated that 25% of the total burden hours (70,950 reporting burden hours) is prepared by the company.
Written 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 collection of information collection information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Kenneth A. Fogash, Acting Associate Executive Director/CIO, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.
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 April 28, 2003 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 April 29, 2003, the application(s) and/or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, may be granted and/or permitted to become effective.
National Grid Group plc (“National Grid”), National Grid Holdings One plc
By order dated March 15, 2000, the Commission authorized Holdings One (formerly known as National Grid) to acquire all of the issued and outstanding common stock of the New England Electric System (“NEES”), a registered holding company.
By order dated January 16, 2002, the Commission authorized Holdings One and National Grid (formerly known as New National Grid Group plc) to acquire Niagara Mohawk Holdings, Inc. (“NiMo”).
Prior to the acquisition of NiMo, under the authority granted by the NEES Order, Holdings One restructured its intermediate registered holding company subsidiaries. Specifically, U.S. Investments, Ireland 1, and Ireland 2 (collectively, “Former Intermediate Holding Companies”) were removed as intermediate holding companies.
Applicants state that, as a result of the transactions described above, Holdings One and the Former Intermediate Holding Companies no longer, directly or indirectly, own, control, or hold the power to vote ten percent or more of the outstanding voting securities of any public-utility company or holding company. Correspondingly, Applicants request that the Commission declare that Holdings One and the Former Intermediate Holding Companies are no longer public-utility holding companies.
For the Commission by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”).
Notice of Application for an order pursuant to section 11(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) approving the terms of certain offers of exchange, and for an order under section 6(c) of the Act granting exemptions from the provisions of sections 2(a)(32), 22(c) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and rule 22c-1 thereunder to permit the recapture of certain bonus credits.
Applicants seek an order approving the terms of a proposed offer of exchange of the “Discovery Plus”, “Variable Investment Plan” and “Qualified Variable Investment Plan” individual variable annuity contracts (the “Old Contracts”) for a version of the Strategic Partners Annuity One individual variable annuity (the “New Contracts”) to be offered by Pruco Life Insurance Company and Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey. Applicants also seek an order approving the terms of a proposed exchange program under their Strategic Partners FlexElite variable annuity contract. In addition, Applicants seek an order to permit the recapture of any bonus credits granted with respect to purchase payments under the New Contracts (a) if the New Contract is cancelled during the applicable free-look period or (b) for credits granted within one year prior to death where the death benefit is equal to contract value.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Applicants: The Prudential Insurance Company of America, 213 Washington Street, Newark, NJ 07102.
Joyce M. Pickholz, Senior Counsel, or William J. Kotapish, Assistant Director, at (202) 942-0670, Office of Insurance Products, Division of Investment Management.
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application is available for a fee from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. (202) 942-8090).
1. Prudential Life is a stock life insurance company founded in 1875 under the laws of New Jersey. It is licensed to sell life insurance and annuities in the District of Columbia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and in all states. Pruco Life is a stock life insurance company organized in 1971 under the laws of the State of Arizona and is licensed to sell life insurance and annuities in the District of Columbia, Guam, and in all states except New York. PLNJ is a stock life insurance company organized in 1982 under the Laws of the State of New Jersey and is licensed to sell life insurance and annuities in the states of New Jersey and New York. PLNJ is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pruco Life, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Prudential Life. PIMS is registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. PIMS is the principal underwriter for the Old Contracts and the New Contracts and for certain other of Prudential Life's variable insurance products, including the Strategic Partners FlexElite variable annuity. PIMS is an affiliate of Prudential Life.
2. Each Old Prudential Account was established on October 12, 1982, in accordance with authorization by the Board of Directors of Prudential Life and registered under the Act as a unit investment trust (File Nos. 811-03622 and 811-03625). The Prudential Individual Variable Contract Account is the separate account through which Prudential Life issues the Discovery Plus individual variable annuity contracts (“Discovery Plus Contracts”) and the Variable Investment Plan Contracts. The Prudential Qualified Individual Variable Contract Account is the separate account through which Prudential Life issues the Qualified Variable Investment Plan Contracts (collectively with the Variable Investment Plan Contracts, the “VIP Contracts”).
3. The New Pruco Life Account was established on June 16, 1995, in accordance with authorization by the Board of Directors of Pruco Life and registered under the Act as a unit investment trust (File No. 811-07325). It is the separate account in which Pruco Life will set aside and invest assets attributable to the New Contracts.
4. The New PLNJ Account was established on May 20, 1996, in accordance with authorization by the Board of Directors of PLNJ and registered under the Act as a unit investment trust (File No. 811-07975). It is the separate account in which PLNJ will set aside and invest assets attributable to PLNJ's version of the New Contracts.
5. The Exchange Offer proposed by the Applicants will be made only to owners of the Old Contracts whose current account value equals or exceeds $ 20,000, whose Old Contract is no longer subject to a withdrawal charge, and who are aged 80 or younger on the date of the exchange.
6. The New Contracts will be registered with the SEC and will be offered as individual tax-deferred flexible premium variable annuity contracts. They will permit contract values to be accumulated on a variable, fixed, or combination of variable and fixed basis. They require a minimum initial premium payment of $20,000. Subsequent purchase payments generally must be at least $500.
7. On the day the exchange is effected (the “Exchange Date”) eligible owners would receive a bonus based on the contract value of each Old Contract surrendered in exchange for an enhanced New Contract (the “New Credit”). The New Credit would be equal to 1.5%, 2%, 2.5%, or 3%, depending on the amount exchanged and the age of the owner. Specifically, the New Credit percentage is 2% for purchase payments less than $250,000, 2.5% for purchase payments of $250,000 or more (but less than $1 million), and 3% with respect to a purchase payment of $1 million or more if the contract owner is age 80 or younger (for jointly-owned contracts, if the older owner is 80 or younger). The New Credit percentage is 1.5% for contract owners aged 81 or older (for jointly-owned contracts, if the older owner is 81 or older), regardless of the amount of the purchase payment. Under the New Contracts, the New Credit will vest upon the expiration of the free look period (except for New Credits applied within 12 months of death where the death benefit amount is equal to contract value). Specifically, if a New Credit is applied to a purchase payment within one year of death and the death benefit amount is equal to contract value, then any Credit attributable to that purchase payment will be recaptured in calculating the death benefit.
8. The New Contracts will provide for a base death benefit equal to the greater of (a) contract value or (b) total purchase payments (less withdrawals). The guaranteed minimum death benefit option (“GMDB”) guarantees that the death benefit will be no lower than a certain “protected value” equal to the “step-up value” or the “roll-up value” or the greater of the “step-up value” or the “roll-up value”. The step-up value equals the highest value of the contract on any contract anniversary date (on each contract anniversary, the new step-up value becomes the higher of the previous step-up value and the current contract value). Between anniversary dates, the step-up value is only increased by additional purchase payments and reduced proportionally by withdrawals. The roll-up value equals the total of all invested purchase payments compounded daily at an effective annual rate of 5.0%. The New Contract will offer a minimum of three annuity payment options, including annuity payments for a fixed period, life income annuity option, and an interest payment settlement option.
9. Contract values under the New Contracts may be invested in several different investment company portfolios (“Underlying Funds”). New Underlying Funds may be added in the future. All but one of the Underlying Funds are portfolios of The Prudential Series Fund (“Series Fund Portfolios”). The other Underlying Fund is a portfolio of Janus Aspen Series. In addition, contract values under the New Contracts may be allocated to certain companion fixed options and market value adjustment options.
10. Contract values may be transferred among the subaccounts funding the New Contracts without charge for the first twelve such transfers per contract year. After the twelfth, a charge of up to $30 for each additional transfer will be imposed. New Contract owners may enroll in a dollar-cost averaging transfer program (the “DCA Program”). Contract owners who enroll under the DCA Program may then systematically transfer either a fixed dollar amount or a percentage out of any variable investment option and into any other variable investment option. The New Contracts also will offer an auto-rebalancing feature. The contract owner may choose an allocation among the
11. Contract values under the New Contracts may be accessed at any time prior to the annuity commencement date by means of partial surrenders or full surrender. The New Contracts will permit withdrawal of up to 10% of purchase payments per contract year without charge. This annual withdrawal amount, which is not subject to the contingent deferred sales charge (“CDSC”), is also referred to herein as the “charge-free-amount”. Earnings (the contract value in excess of purchase payments) are also not subject to the CDSC when withdrawn. No CDSC is imposed on amounts withdrawn to meet minimum distribution requirements. Purchase payments are deemed to be withdrawn before any earnings. The CDSC under the New Contracts will be as follows:
12. Some versions of the New Contracts may offer lower withdrawal charges. In no event, however, will the withdrawal charge after a given number of contract anniversaries exceed the charge shown in the above schedules.
13. Other charges under the New Contract will include the following: (a) Asset-based insurance and administrative charges of 1.20%, 1.45%, and 1.55% for the base death benefit, Roll-up or Step-up guaranteed minimum death benefit, and greater of Roll-up or Step-up guaranteed minimum death benefit, respectively; (b) where the guaranteed minimum income benefit feature (“GMIB”) has been elected, a charge at an annual rate of 0.45% of the Roll-Up value, which is deducted proportionally from the net assets of each sub-account on each contract anniversary and pro-rata upon partial withdrawals (when the remaining contract value is less than the amount of the charge), annuitization, the contract owner's election to discontinue the feature, and surrender of the contract; (c) where the Earnings Appreciator supplemental death benefit feature has been elected, a charge at an annual rate of 0.30% of the contract value which is deducted from the contract value on the contract anniversary and upon annuitization, death of the sole or last surviving owner prior to annuitization, surrender of the contract, and partial withdrawal if the contract value remaining is insufficient to cover the then applicable charge; (d) in those jurisdictions in which premium taxes are assessed, a charge to cover these taxes, either when the contract is issued or when annuity payments begin; and (e) for each transfer among subaccounts after the twelfth in a single contract year, a charge up to $30 assessed pro rata from the subaccounts involved in the transfer; and (f) a charge equal to .25% of contract value for the optional Income Appreciator benefit that pays a benefit designed to help the owner defray the taxes that will be owed on annuity payments.
14. The Discovery Plus Contract is offered pursuant to a registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”) (File No. 33-25434), and permits contract values to be accumulated on a variable, fixed or combination variable and fixed basis. The Discovery Plus Contract requires a minimum initial premium payment of $10,000, and each subsequent premium payment must be at least $1000. Contract values of the Discovery Plus Contracts currently may be allocated to 13 subaccounts, each of which corresponds to a portfolio of the Prudential Series Fund, Inc. Contract values may also be accumulated on a guaranteed basis by allocation to Prudential Life's general account.
15. Contract values may be transferred among the Discovery Plus subaccounts without charge for the first four such transfers per contract year. The contract owner does not have a contractual right to more than four transfers a year, although Prudential Life currently permits such excess transfers. The Discovery Plus Contract offers a DCA Program similar to the one available under the New Contracts. Unlike the New Contracts, however, the Discovery Plus Contract's DCA Program permits transfers to come only out of the Money Market Portfolio.
16. The Discovery Plus Contract provides a bonus credit of 1% of each purchase payment during the first three contract years, up to a maximum credit of $ 1,000 per contract year. Prudential Life has the contractual discretion to grant the 1% bonus for purchase payments made after the third contract year, and currently does so. The credit does not vest at all until the end of the surrender charge period, at which point the entire credit vests. Applicants represent that each owner of a Discovery Plus Contract to whom an Exchange Offer is extended will be fully vested in his/her bonus amounts. Any withdrawal or surrender during the surrender charge period results the in recapture of any credit corresponding to the amount withdrawn. Contract values under the Discovery Plus Contracts may be accessed at any time prior to the annuity commencement date by means of partial surrenders or full surrender. The Discovery Plus Contract permits a charge-free withdrawal of all earnings and up to 10% of the contract value each contract year less any prior withdrawals of purchase payments (“net premium payments”).
17. The Discovery Plus Contract provides for a death benefit equal to the greater of (a) the contract value and (b) net premium payments. In addition, the death benefit is subject to a one-time step-up on the sixth contract anniversary, at which time the minimum death benefit is guaranteed to be the greater of (a) the contract value on the sixth contract anniversary, increased by any additional premium payments and reduced by any withdrawals, (b) the contract value, and (c) net premium payments. The Discovery Plus Contract offers the same annuity options available under the New Contracts.
18. The Discovery Plus Contracts assess a CDSC against partial or full surrenders in excess of the free withdrawal amount. The length of time from receipt of a premium payment to the time of surrender determines the percentage of the CDSC. During the first five contract years after each premium payment, a CDSC will be assessed against the surrender of premium payments. The CDSC is a percentage of the amount surrendered (not to exceed the aggregate amount of the premium payments made) and equals:
Prudential Life deducts an M&E charge and an administration fee from contract value at an aggregate annual rate equal to 1.20% of amounts invested in the contract's variable investment options. A charge for administrative expenses relating to the maintenance of the Discovery Plus Contract is deducted annually on each contract anniversary and upon surrender from the contract value. This maintenance fee is $30, and is waived on contracts with a $10,000 contract value or greater on the contract anniversary or full surrender. Charges for the Underlying Funds of the Discovery Plus Contracts (as of December 31, 2002) ranged on an annual basis from 0.37% to 0.82% of average daily net assets.
19. The VIP Contracts are individual, flexible premium variable annuity contracts that allow the contract owner to allocate purchase payments to 13 portfolios of The Prudential Series Fund, Inc., to the Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Account and to a fixed interest-rate option. These contracts are registered under the 1933 Act on Form N-4 (File No. 2-80897). The Qualified Variable Investment Plan Contracts (“QVIP Contracts”) are also registered under the 1933 Act on Form N-4 (File No. 2-81318) and generally have the same features as the VIP contracts, except that they are sold only to certain retirement arrangements. Except as indicated, the discussion herein concerning the VIP Contracts applies equally to the Qualified Variable Investment Plan Contracts, and references to the VIP contracts encompass both VIP and QVIP Contracts. The total expenses of the Prudential Series Fund portfolios available under the VIP contracts (as of December 31, 2002) ranged from 0.37% to 0.82% annually.
20. The VIP Contracts also offer a DCA Program, under which the contract owner can systematically transfer amounts from the money market sub-account into any other variable investment option. During the first three years of the contract, Prudential Life adds an additional 1% bonus to each purchase payment made by an owner. This 1% bonus vests over a period of eight contract anniversaries. Prudential Life has the contractual discretion to grant the 1% bonus for purchase payments made after the third contract year, and currently does so. Applicants represent that each owner of a VIP Contract to whom an exchange offer is extended will be fully vested in his/her bonus amounts. The VIP Contract offers several annuity and settlement options, including life annuity with 10 years certain and an interest payment option. If the annuitant under a VIP Contract dies, the beneficiary will receive the total value of the contract, or, depending on the age of the annuitant, the total amount invested in the contract (reduced proportionately by withdrawals), whichever is greater.
21. Each day, Prudential Life deducts a mortality and expense risk charge under the VIP contracts equal, on an annual basis, to 1.20% of the daily value of the contract invested in the variable investment options. During the accumulation phase, Prudential Life deducts an annual contract fee of $30 if the contract value is less than $10,000 on the contract anniversary date. Each contract year, the contract owner can withdraw earnings, plus up to 10% of the owner's total contract value without paying a withdrawal charge. With respect to contracts issued in states that impose a premium tax, Prudential Life makes a deduction from the contract value to pay some or all of these taxes. There is a CDSC under the VIP Contracts according to the following schedule:
22. Prudential proposes to offer eligible owners of Old Contracts the opportunity to exchange their Old Contracts for New Contracts by means of the Exchange Offer. To be eligible for the Exchange Offer, Old Contract owners must not be subject to a CDSC on their contract, have a minimum contract value of $ 20,000, and not be older than 80 on the date of the exchange. Only Old Contracts held in IRAs and outside any tax-qualified arrangement will be eligible for the Exchange Offer. Pruco Life and PLNJ, as applicable will provide from their general accounts a Credit to each owner of an Old Contract who accepts the offer (equal to either 1.5%, 2%, 2.5%, or 3% as discussed above). The Exchange Offer will provide that, upon acceptance of the offer, a New Contract will be issued with a contract value equal to the contract value of the Old Contract surrendered in the exchange, increased by the amount of the applicable Credit. Any such Credit will be recaptured if the New Contract is surrendered during the free look period or if the Credit was granted within 12 months prior to death and the death benefit amount is equal to the contract value.
23. After an initial notification of the Exchange Offer to Old Contract owners and contacts made by Prudential's registered representatives, the Exchange Offer will be made by providing eligible owners of Old Contracts who express an interest in learning the details of the offer a prospectus for the New Contracts, accompanied by a letter explaining the offer and a piece of sales literature that compares the applicable contracts. The offering letter will advise owners of an Old Contract that the Exchange Offer is specifically designed for those contract owners who intend to continue to hold their contracts as long-term investment vehicles. The letter will state that the offer is not intended for all contract owners, and that it is especially not appropriate for any contract owner who anticipated surrendering all or a significant part (
24. The contract value of an Old Contract (“Exchange Value”) together with the New Credit and any additional premium payments submitted with an internal Exchange Application Form for the New Contract will be applied to the New Contract as of the Exchange Date. Because only Old Contract owners who are no longer subject to a CDSC charge will be eligible for the Exchange Offer, no CDSC will be deducted upon the surrender of an Old Contract in connection with an exchange. If a contract owner surrenders his New Contract prior to the completion of the
25. To accept the Exchange Offer, an owner of an Old Contract must complete an Internal Exchange Application Form. Contract values will be allocated to the New Contract investment options selected by the owner. Contract values may subsequently be reallocated under the New Contract pursuant to contract owner instructions. Payments submitted with the Internal Exchange Application Form will be assumed to be payments under the New Contract as of the date of issue of the New Contract.
26. No adverse tax consequences generally will be incurred by those Old Contract owners who accept the Exchange Offer. The exchanges will constitute tax-free exchanges pursuant to Section 1035 of the Internal Revenue Code (for nonqualified annuities) or tax-free transfers (in connection with Old Contracts held under IRAs). Prudential designed the terms of the Exchange Offer (particularly the New Credit) in response to similar offers currently being made by its competitors as a means to maintain the existing Old Contract business.
27. The following chart summarizes the salient features of the Old Contracts and the New Contracts.
28. Applicants submit that the Exchange Offer is meant to encourage existing Old Contract owners who might otherwise surrender their contracts in exchange for a competitor's product offering a similar bonus to remain with Prudential instead. If imposing the New Contract's CDSC on the New Contract is not permitted, Applicants believe some contract owners might exchange their New Contracts with the intent to take advantage of the New Credit and then surrender the New Contract without a CDSC. Without the CDSC, Prudential would have no assurance that a contract owner who accepted the Exchange Offer would persist for long enough for the New Credit and any payments to registered representatives to be recouped through standard fees from the ongoing operation of the New Contracts. Old Contract owners will be informed in the offering letter that Prudential reserve the right to terminate the Exchange Offer at any time, and will be referred to a toll-free telephone number to call for information concerning the current status of the Exchange Offer.
29. In addition to seeking an order under section 11(a) with respect to the Exchange Offer described above, PLIC, PLNJ, the New PLIC Account, the New PLNJ Account, and PIMS also seek Commission approval of an exchange offer to be made with respect to each of PLIC's and PLNJ's Strategic Partners FlexElite variable annuity contract (such exchange offer is referred to hereinafter as the “FlexElite Exchange Program”). PLIC currently offers a Strategic Partners FlexElite variable annuity contract through the New PLIC Account. (File
30. PLNJ has filed with the Commission a Form N-4 registration statement to register its version of the Strategic Partners FlexElite variable annuity (File No. 333-99275). The 1% Credit, surrender charges, and re-imposition of surrender charge provisions of the PLNJ version are substantially similar in all material respects to those under the PLIC version of Strategic Partners FlexElite. PLNJ's version of Strategic Partners FlexElite otherwise is substantially similar in all material respects to the PLIC version.
31. PLIC and PLNJ seek Commission approval of the FlexElite Exchange Program under section 11(a) of the Act. To the extent described below, Applicants would adhere to the conditions set forth below with respect to the Exchange Offer. By adhering to those conditions, Applicants believe that contract owners will be fully apprised of the fact that the economic benefits of accepting the 1% Credit would be negated if the owner surrenders his/her contract during the ensuing three-year surrender charge period. Specifically, Applicants represent that they will adhere to the offering letter requirements set forth in condition 1 below, except that (a) they will not contrast an old contract with a new contract because no new contract will be issued and (b) they will not reserve any right to terminate the FlexElite Exchange Program. Applicants also will adhere to the terms of condition 2 below. Applicants will adhere to the terms of condition 3 below, except as respects the reference in that condition to the contract number of the old and new contracts (
If the requested order is granted, Applicants consent to the following conditions:
1. The offering letter will contain concise plain English statements that (a) the Exchange Offer is suitable only for contract owners who expect to hold their contracts as long term investments, and (b) if the New Contract is surrendered during the initial CDSC period, a contract owner may be worse off than if he or she had rejected the Exchange Offer, because the amount of the CDSC will exceed the amount of the New Credit, and (c) disclose each aspect of the New Contract that will be less favorable than the Old Contracts, and (d) Applicants reserve the right to terminate the Exchange Offer at any time, and contract owners can call a toll-free telephone number for information concerning the current status of the Exchange Offer.
2. Prudential will provide a means of confirming that a contract owner choosing to make an exchange was told the statements in the offering letter (stated in Condition No. 1). Prudential will send the offering letter directly to eligible contract owners. A contract owner choosing to exchange will then complete and sign an internal exchange form, which will prominently restate in concise plain English the statements required in condition No. 1, and return it to Prudential. If the internal exchange form is more than two pages in length, Prudential will use a separate document to obtain contract owner acknowledgement of the statements required in condition No. 1.
3. Prudential will maintain the following separately identifiable records in an easily accessible place, for the time periods specified below in this condition No. 3, for review by the Commission upon request (a) records showing the level of exchange activity and how it relates to the total number of contract owners eligible to exchange (quarterly as a percentage of the number eligible), (b) copies of any form of offering letter and other written materials or scripts for presentations by representatives regarding the Exchange Offer (if Prudential prepared or approved the materials), including the date(s) used; (c) records showing information about each exchange transaction that occurs, including the name of the contract owner, Old and New Contract number(s), Credit paid, registered representative's name, CRD number, firm affiliation, branch office address and telephone number, and name of the registered representative's broker-dealer, commission paid, internal exchange form (and separate document, if any, used to obtain contract owner acknowledgement of the statements required in condition No. 1) showing the name, date of birth, address and telephone number of the contract owner, and date internal exchange form (or separate document) was signed, amount of contract value exchanged, and persistency information relating to the New Contract (date surrendered and CDSC paid), and (d) logs showing any contract owner complaints about the exchange, state insurance department inquiries about the exchange, or litigation, arbitration or other proceedings regarding any exchange. The following information will be included on the log's date of complaint or commencement of proceedings, name, address of the person making the complaint or commencing the proceeding, nature of the complaint or proceeding, and persons named or involved in the complaint or proceeding.
Records specified in conditions No. 3(a) and (d) will be retained for six years from creation of the record. Records specified in condition No. 3(b) will be retained for six years after the date of last use, and records specified in condition No. 3(c) will be retained for two years from the end of the initial CDSC period of the New Contract.
4. The offering letter will disclose in concise plain English each aspect of the New Contracts that will be less favorable than the Old Contracts.
1. Section 11(a) of the Act makes it unlawful for any registered open-end company, or any principal underwriter for such a company, to make or cause to be made an offer to the holder of a security of such company, or any other
2. As noted by the Commission when proposing rule 11a-3 under the Act, the purpose of section 11 of the Act is to prevent “switching”. “Switching is a term of art that refers to the practice of inducing security holders of one Investment Company to exchange their securities for those of a different investment company “solely for the purpose of exacting additional selling charges.” That type of practice was found by Congress to be widespread in the 1930's prior to adoption of the Act.
3. Rule 11a-2 adopted in 1983 under section 11 of the Act, by its express terms provides blanket Commission approval of certain types of offers of exchange of one variable annuity contract for another or of one variable life insurance contract for another. Variable annuity exchanges are permitted by rule 11a-2, provided that the only variance from a relative net asset value exchange is an administrative fee disclosed in the offering account's registration statement and a sales load or sales load differential calculated according to method prescribed in the rule. No exchange is permitted under rule 11a-2 that involves a security acquired or exchanged that has both a front-end and a deferred sales load. Adoption of rule 11a-3, which takes a similar approach to that of rule 11a-2, represents the most recent Commission action under section 11 of the Act. As with rule 11a-2, the focus of rule 11a-3 is primarily on sales or administrative charges that would be incurred by investors for effecting exchanges.
4. Applicants submit that the terms of the proposed Exchange Offer do not represent the abuses against which section 11 was intended to protect. The Exchange Offer was not created “solely for the purpose” of exacting additional sales charges. Rather, the Exchange Offer was designed to allow Prudential to compete on a level playing field with its competitors who are making bonus offers to its current Old Contract owners. No additional sales load or other fee will be imposed at the time of exercise of the Exchange Offer. In stark contrast with the 9-10% front-end commissions deducted in the “switching” exchanges that led to the adoption of section 11, each contract owner accepting the Exchange Offer will be provided with a New Credit, funded from Pruco Life's or PLNJ's general account. The effect of this Credit is to add the New Credit to the Old Contract value at the time of exchange to the New Contract value. An owner of an Old Contract who intends to continue to hold the contract as a long-term retirement planning vehicle will be significantly advantaged by the Exchange Offer because this New Credit will automatically be added to his or her contract value upon receipt of an enhanced New Contract. No sales charge will ever be paid on the amounts rolled over in the exchange unless the New Contract is surrendered before expiration of the New Contract's CDSC period.
5. Given the terms of the exchange, Applicants are precluded from relying on rule 11a-2. Accordingly, section 11(a) requires that Applicants submit the terms of the offer to the Commission for approval. Although section 11 does not prescribe specific standards for Commission approval of exchange offers, Applicants believe that the Exchange Offer presents less potential for the type of abuses that led to the adoption of section 11 than in connection with exchanges that would be permitted under rule 11a-2.
6. Applicant submit that the Exchange Offer is available to all eligible Old Contract owners on an entirely voluntary basis. While the Exchange Offer would not be in the interests of all contract owners (
7. Applicants represent that the description of the proposed Exchange Offer in letters to owners of Old Contracts and in the New Contracts' prospectus will provide full disclosure of the material differences in the applicable contracts. Assuming no premature surrender, the New Contracts should be no more expensive than the Old Contracts for contract owners unless they affirmatively choose to add additional features. In each case, existing contract owners would be offered a better contract and a Credit under terms that would be on an equal footing with similar offers made daily by Prudential's competitors.
8. Far from being a way to extract additional charges from investors, as contemplated by the prohibitions of section 11, Applicants state that the proposed Exchange Offer would provide an immediate and enduring economic benefit to investors. The New Credit would be applied immediately and the fact that asset-based charges would not be increased by the Exchange Offer, and that no contract maintenance charge would apply, also would contribute significantly to this enduring economic benefit. To the extent that a contract owner ultimately did not benefit from accepting the offer, it would most likely be as a result of his or her own subsequent decision to surrender the New Contract during the new CDSC period. The Exchange Offer will provide much more explicit disclosure about the inadvisability of accepting the Exchange Offer if the owner may require access to a significant portion of the amount invested in the contract during the CDSC period than would be the case with competitors' offers that pose the identical risk. The disclosure provided
9. Applicants submit that the legal rationale supporting the FlexElite Exchange Program is comparable to that posited for the Exchange Offer. The FlexElite Exchange Program was not designed “solely for the purpose” of exacting additional sales charges. Rather, that Program is designed to allow investors who do not anticipate making a withdrawal within the succeeding three years to receive a 1% addition to their contract value. As required by the conditions set forth above, Applicants will give investors ample notice of the fact that acceptance of the 1% Credit carries with it the reimposition of the three year surrender charge. Applicants anticipate that through that notice, investors who envision needing to make a significant withdrawal within the succeeding three years will be steered away from accepting the 1% Credit. On the other hand, investors who accept the 1% Credit and make no withdrawals during the succeeding three year period will receive an immediate monetary benefit in the form of the Credit, but will avoid any withdrawal charge.
10. According to the Applicants, approval of the FlexElite Exchange Program also is warranted because it will promote competition in the variable annuity marketplace. The promotion of competition is a relevant consideration in evaluating whether the terms of an exchange offer are consistent with the protection of investors. Applicants state that several of their competitors currently offer variable annuity products featuring a “persistency bonus” coupled with a reimposition of the withdrawal charge. By granting the requested relief, the Commission will permit Applicants to offer and operate the Strategic Partners FlexElite contract as described herein—adding that product to the menu of such variable annuities already available in the marketplace.
11. Applicants submit that the Exchange Offer does not present any duplication of sales loads or administrative fees to those Contract owners who intend to hold their Contracts as long-term retirement vehicles. Similarly, the FlexElite Exchange Program will entail no reassessment of surrender charges on a contract owner who accepts the 1% Credit, so long as the owner holds the contract longer than the three-year surrender charge period. Applicants also submit that the Exchange Offer and FlexElite Exchange Program are consistent with the protections provided by section 11 of the Act, do not involve any of the switching abuses that led to the adoption of section 11, and assure an immediate and enduring economic benefit to persisting Contract owners. Furthermore, permitting Contract owners to evaluate the relative merits of the Old and New Contracts under the Exchange Offer and to select the one that best suits their circumstances and preferences fosters competition and is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Accordingly, approval of the terms of the Exchange Offer and the FlexElite Exchange Program is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and provisions of the Act.
12. Section 6(c) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from the provisions of the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants request that the Commission, pursuant to section 6(c) of the Act, grant the exemptions requested below with respect to the New Contracts. Applicants believe that the requested exemptions are appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protections of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
13. Applicants seek exemption pursuant to section 6(c) from sections 2(a)(32), 22(c), and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and rule 22c-l thereunder to the extent necessary to permit Pruco Life and PLNJ to recapture all or the unvested portion of certain Credits in the following instances: (a) The contract is canceled under the free look provision; or (b) death occurs within one year of a purchase payment where the death benefit amount is equal to contract value. Applicants represent that it is not administratively feasible to track the Credit amount in the subaccounts after the Credit is applied. Accordingly, the asset-based charges applicable to the subaccounts will be assessed against the entire amounts held in the respective subaccounts, including the Credit amount, during the period when the owner's interest in the credit is not completely vested. As a result, during such periods, the aggregate asset-based charges assessed against an owner's contract value will be higher than those that would be charged if the owner's contract value did not include the Credit. Applicants note, however, that any earnings attributable to Credit amounts vest immediately and are not subject to recapture.
14. Section 27 of the Act provides that such section does not apply to any registered separate account funding variable insurance contracts, or the sponsoring insurance company and principal underwriter of such account, except as provided in paragraph (2) of the subsection. Paragraph (2) provides that it shall be unlawful for such a separate account or sponsoring insurance company to sell a contract funded by the registered separate account unless such contract is a redeemable security.
15. Section 2(a)(32) defines “redeemable security” as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately his proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent thereof. Applicants submit that the recapture of the credit amount in the circumstances set forth in this Application would not deprive an owner of his or her proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets. With respect to Credit recaptures upon exercise of the free-look privilege, it would be unfair to allow an owner exercising that privilege to retain a Credit amount under a contract that has been returned for a refund after a period of only a few days. If Pruco Life and PLNJ could not recapture the Credit, individuals could purchase a contract with no intention of retaining it, and simply return it for a quick profit. Furthermore, the recapture of Credits relating to purchase payments made within one year prior to death or after death is designed to provide Pruco Life and PLNJ with a measure of protection against “anti-selection”. The risk here is that, rather than holding the New Contract for a number of years, an owner will exchange an existing contract for a New Contract shortly before death, thereby leaving Pruco Life and PLNJ less time to recover the cost of the Credits applied, to their financial detriment. Again, the amounts recaptured equal the Credits provided by Pruco Life and PLNJ from their own general account assets and any gain would remain as part of the New Contract's value when annuity payments begin. For the foregoing
16. Section 22(c) of the Act authorizes the Commission to make rules and regulations applicable to registered investment companies and to principal underwriters of, and dealers in, their redeemable securities to accomplish the same purposes as contemplated by section 22(c). Rule 22c-1 thereunder prohibits a registered investment company issuing any redeemable security, a person designated in such issuer's prospectus as authorized to consummate transactions in any such security, and a principal underwriter of, or dealer in, such security, from selling, redeeming or repurchasing any such security except at a price based on the current net asset value of such security which is next computed after receipt of a tender of such security for redemption or of an order to purchase or sell such security.
17. Applicants state that Pruco Life's and PLNJ's recapture of the Credit might arguably be viewed as resulting in the redemption of redeemable securities for a price other than the one based on the current net asset value of the Accounts. Applicants contend, however, that the recapture of the Credit does not violate section 22(c) and rule 22c-1.
For the reasons summarized above, Applicants submit that the Exchange Offer and the FlexElite Exchange Program are consistent with the protections provided by section 11 of the Act and that their approval is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and provisions of the Act. Applicants further submit that their request for exemptions from sections 2(a)(32), 22(c) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and rule 22c-1 thereunder meet the standards set out in section 6(c) of the Act. Applicants submit that the requested order should therefore be granted.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order pursuant to Section 26(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) approving certain substitutions of securities.
National Life Insurance Company (“NLIC”), National Variable Annuity Account II (“Annuity Account”), and National Variable Life Insurance Account (“Life Account”).
The application was filed on December 19, 2002, and amended and restated on April 3, 2003.
Applicants request an order to permit NLIC to substitute securities issued by two series of the Sentinel Variable Products Trust (“SVPT”) to support variable annuity contracts or variable life insurance contracts (collectively, the “Contracts”) issued by NLIC, for securities issued by two series of the Market Street Fund (“MSF”), and currently held by either the Annuity Account or the Life Account (each, an “Account,” together, the “Accounts”).
An order granting the amended and restated 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 must be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on April 29, 2003, 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 20549-0609. Applicants, c/o D. Russell Morgan, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, National Life Insurance Company, National Life Drive, Montpelier, Vermont 05604. Copy to David S. Goldstein, Esq., Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004-2415.
Ellen J. Sazzman, Senior Counsel, or Lorna J. MacLeod, Branch Chief, Office of Insurance Products, Division of Investment Management, at (202) 942-0670.
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. MSF has eleven investment portfolios, two of which are the subject of this application (each, a Portfolio). SVPT currently has five investment portfolios, but is adding two more that are the subject of this application (each, a Fund).
2. NLIC was a mutual life insurance company originally chartered by the State of Vermont in 1848. It is now a stock life insurance company, all of the outstanding stock of which is indirectly owned by National Life Holding Company, a mutual insurance holding company, established under Vermont law in 1999. All owners of NLIC contracts, including the Contracts, are voting members of National Life Holding Company. NLIC is authorized to transact life insurance and annuity business in Vermont and in 50 other jurisdictions. For purposes of the Act, NLIC is the depositor and sponsor of the Annuity Account and the Life Account as those terms have been interpreted by the Commission with respect to variable life insurance and variable annuity separate accounts.
3. NLIC established the Annuity Account on November 1, 1996, and the Life Account on February 1, 1985, as segregated investment accounts under Vermont law. Under Vermont law, the assets of each Account attributable to the Contracts through which interests in that Account are issued are owned by NLIC but are held separately from all other assets of NLIC for the benefit of the owners of, and the persons entitled to payment under, those Contracts. Consequently, such assets in each Account equal to the reserves and other liabilities with respect to such Account are not chargeable with liabilities arising out of any other business that NLIC may conduct. Income, gains and losses, realized or unrealized, from assets allocated to each Account are credited to or charged against that Account without regard to the other income, gains or losses of NLIC. Each Account is a “separate account” as
4. The Annuity Account is divided into twenty-eight subaccounts. Each subaccount invests exclusively in a corresponding investment portfolio of one of twelve series-type management investment companies. The assets of the Annuity Account support variable annuity contracts, and interests in the Account offered through such contracts have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”).
5. The Life Account is divided into eighty-six subaccounts. Each subaccount invests exclusively in shares representing an interest in a corresponding investment portfolio of one of fourteen series-type management investment companies. The assets of the Life Account support variable life insurance contracts, and interests in this Account offered through such contracts have been registered under the 1933 Act.
6.
7. The investment objective of the MSF Bond Portfolio is to seek a high level of current income consistent with prudent investment risk. This Portfolio invests in a diversified portfolio of fixed-income securities of U.S. and foreign issuers. The Portfolio's subadviser uses active fixed-income management techniques by focusing on four key areas: (1) Sector and sub-sector allocation, (2) issue selection, (3) duration, and (4) term structure.
8. The investment objective of the MSF Balanced Portfolio is to realize as high a level of long-term total rate of return as is consistent with prudent investment risk. The MSF Balanced Portfolio's equity portion is invested primarily in equity securities, such as common or preferred stocks, which are listed on U.S. exchanges or traded in the over-the-counter markets. The Portfolio's subadviser uses a growth-oriented strategy. Growth-oriented investments involve seeking securities of issuers with above-average recent earnings growth rates and what the subadviser views as a reasonable likelihood of maintaining these rates in the foreseeable future. The subadviser focuses on stocks of companies with growth potential and fixed-income securities, with emphasis on income-producing securities that appear to have some potential for capital appreciation. Normally, the Portfolio invests in common stocks and fixed-income securities that include commercial paper and bonds rated within the four highest rating categories by an established rating agency or if not rated, that are determined by the subadviser to be of comparable quality. Ordinarily, at least 25% of the Portfolio's net assets are invested in fixed-income securities.
9.
10. The investment objective of the SVPT Bond Fund is to seek high current income while seeking to control risk, by investing mainly in investment grade bonds. The Fund will invest exclusively in fixed-income securities. At least 80% of the Fund's assets will normally be invested in the following types of bonds: (1) corporate bonds which at the time of purchase are rated within the four highest rating categories of Moody's, Standard & Poor's, or any other nationally recognized statistical rating organization, (2) debt securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities, including mortgage-backed securities, (3) debt securities (payable in U.S. dollars) issued or guaranteed by Canadian governmental entities, and (4) debt obligations of domestic banks or bank holding companies, even though not rated by Moody's or Standard & Poor's, that NLCM believes have investment qualities comparable to investment grade corporate securities. The remainder of the Fund's assets may be invested in other fixed-income securities, such as straight or convertible debt securities and straight or convertible preferred stocks. The Fund will invest no more than 20% of its total assets in lower quality bonds.
11. The investment objective of the SVPT Balanced Fund is to seek a combination of growth of capital and current income, with relatively low risk and relatively low fluctuations in value. It will seek this goal by investing in common stocks similar to those in the SVPT Common Stock Fund. NLCM tries to select stocks of leading companies that are financially strong and are selling at attractive prices in relation to their values and in investment grade bonds similar to those in the SVPT Bond Fund, with at least 25% of its total assets in bonds. When determining this percentage, convertible bonds and/or preferred stocks will be considered common stocks, unless these securities are held primarily for income. NLCM will divide the Fund's investments among stocks and bonds based on whether it believes stocks or bonds offer a better value at the time.
12. The Contracts are flexible premium variable life insurance Contracts and individual flexible premium deferred variable annuity Contracts. The Contracts provide for the accumulation of values on a variable basis, fixed basis, or both, during the accumulation period, and provide settlement or annuity payment options on a fixed basis. Under each of the Contracts, NLIC reserves the right to substitute shares of one Fund or Portfolio for shares of another, including a fund or portfolio of a different investment company.
13. Under all of the variable life insurance Contracts, a Contract owner may make unlimited transfers of accumulated value in a contract year between and among the subaccounts of the Life Account and NLIC's general account. Currently there is no charge for transfers, however, NLIC reserves the right to assess a $25 charge for each transfer in excess of twelve in any Contract year. Under the variable annuity Contracts, a Contract owner may make unlimited transfers of Contract value between and among the subaccounts of the Annuity Account and NLIC's general account. Currently there is no charge for transfers, however, NLIC reserves the right to assess a $25 charge for each transfer in excess of twelve in any Contract year.
14. NLIC, on its behalf and on behalf of the Accounts, proposes to substitute shares of the SVPT Bond Fund for shares of the MSF Bond Portfolio, and shares of the SVPT Balanced Fund for shares of the MSF Balanced Portfolio. NLIC believes that by making the proposed substitutions in each of the Accounts, they can better serve the interests of owners of the Contracts.
15. During 2000, NLIC and the Accounts applied for and received an order approving a number of substitutions of SVPT Funds for MSF Portfolios. At the time of that application, Sentinel Advisors Company (“SAC”) served as the investment manager and adviser to a number of the MSF Portfolios, including the Bond and Balanced Portfolios. SAC is a general partnership which at that time was owned and controlled by affiliates of NLIC, Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company (“PMLIC”), and The Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company (“Penn Mutual”). NLIC's affiliate controls the managing general partner and is entitled to a majority of the profits earned by SAC. NLIC, PMLIC, and Penn Mutual are not affiliated persons of each other. Effective June 30, 2002, NLCM (affiliated with NLIC) purchased all the stock of PMLIC's affiliates which owned PMLIC's interests in SAC, and as a result, NLIC's affiliates are now entitled to more than 90% of the profits of SAC. SAC's officers and investment personnel are all employees of NLCM, and they are the same officers and investment personnel who provide investment management services to the SVPT Funds. SAC, like NLCM, is located at NLIC's premises, in Montpelier, Vermont.
16. With the substitutions applied for in the previous order, PMLIC and NLIC intended to end their joint use of MSF as an investment vehicle for both companies' variable life insurance and variable annuity contracts (including the Contracts). NLIC originally intended to substitute independently managed funds for the MSF Bond and Balanced (then Managed) Portfolios, at the time of the substitutions effected in late 2000. However, the available independently managed funds did not meet the conditions that the SEC would impose on the substitutions and SVPT did not have the Bond or Balanced Funds to receive the Accounts' assets in the MSF Bond and Balanced Portfolios. NLIC chose to proceed with the substitutions that the SEC would approve at the time and the Accounts have continued to invest in the MSF Bond and Balanced Portfolios.
17. After the initial substitutions, SAC stepped down as investment adviser to all of the MSF Portfolios of which it had been the investment adviser. Market Street Investment Management Company (“MSIM”) became the investment manager to the MSF Portfolios, and selected subadvisers to manage the assets on a day-to-day basis, including Western Asset Management Company for the Bond Portfolio and Fred Alger Management, Inc., for the Balanced Portfolio. New investment advisory contracts were approved by the shareholders, and management fees and overall expense ratios rose significantly.
18. In addition, effective September 30, 2002, PMLIC was acquired by Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. (“Nationwide”), in a sponsored demutualization transaction. PMLIC's name changed to Nationwide Life Insurance Company of America (“NLICA”) as part of this transaction. Also, effective October 1, 2002, Gartmore, an affiliate of Nationwide Financial, replaced MSIM as the MSF investment adviser. NLICA, under Nationwide's control, has proposed another reorganization of MSF, under which the MSF Balanced and Bond Portfolios would be acquired by series of the GVIT Trust, another series investment company offering shares to variable insurance product separate accounts, for which Gartmore also serves as investment adviser. Specifically, the MSF Balanced Portfolio would be acquired by the J.P. Morgan GVIT Balanced Fund, a series of the GVIT Trust, and the MSF Bond Portfolio would be acquired by the Gartmore GVIT Government Bond Fund. As a result of this proposed reorganization, the subadviser to the MSF Balanced Portfolio would be J.P. Morgan Investment Management, Inc. and Gartmore would directly manage the MSF Bond Portfolio.
19. NLIC continues to desire to end the joint use of the remaining MSF Portfolios by separate accounts of both companies. NLIC continues to believe that the manner of accomplishing this separation which would involve the least confusion and disruption to owners of the Contracts would be for it to substitute shares of new SVPT Funds for those of the MSF Bond and Balanced Portfolios held by the Accounts. This would avoid the possibility that MSF may propose future changes which NLIC and NLICA could not support. Such a disagreement could create unnecessary expense and confusion for owners of both the Contracts and NLICA contracts, and could result in one or more material irreconcilable conflicts between the interests of Contract owners and owners of other NLICA contracts. NLIC had no role in the selection of the current subadvisers to the MSF Balanced and Bond Portfolios, no role in the planning for the reorganization now proposed by NLICA, and does not anticipate that it would have any role in future decisions to continue to engage or to replace such subadvisers.
20. The majority of the assets in the MSF Bond and Balanced Portfolios belong to owners of variable annuity and variable life insurance contracts issued by NLICA and its affiliates and only relatively small portions of each consist of assets beneficially owned by owners of the Contracts.
21. NLIC believes that many of the owners of the Contracts who invested in the MSF Bond and Balanced Portfolios did so at the time these Portfolios were managed by SAC, and that most would prefer to invest in funds or portfolios selected by NLIC and over which NLIC has some influence.
22. Projected expense levels for the SVPT Bond and Balanced Funds are the same as those currently experienced by the MSF Bond and Balanced Portfolios because each will be capped by NLIC for two years at levels equal to the percentage expense levels experienced by its corresponding MSF Portfolio for the 2002 fiscal year. Likewise, the management fee rates (including breakpoints) of the SVPT Bond and Balanced Funds are the same as that of their corresponding MSF Portfolios. In addition, for those Contract owners who were Contract owners on the date of the proposed substitutions, NLIC will not increase Account or other asset-based expenses under the Contracts for a period of 24 months following the date of the proposed substitutions.
23. NLIC notes that the equity portion of the SVPT Balanced Fund would be managed in a different style from that currently employed by the MSF Balanced Portfolio, utilizing a more value-oriented style similar to that employed by Sentinel Balanced Fund, as contrasted with the more growth-oriented style employed by Fred Alger Management. It expects that the fixed-income portion of the SVPT Balanced Fund would be comparable to the fixed-income portion of the MSF Balanced Portfolio, as currently managed. However, if the Portfolio is acquired by
24. NLIC expects that the SVPT Bond Fund would be similar in investment style and categories of investments to the MSF Bond Portfolio as currently operated, and certainly similar to the MSF Bond Portfolio as managed by SAC prior to 2001. In contrast, if the proposed reorganization occurs, the Gartmore GVIT Government Bond Fund will be limited to investments in U.S. government and agency bonds, bills, and notes, while the SVPT Bond Fund would, like the current MSF Bond Portfolio, be able to invest in investment grade corporate issuers.
25. As the two new SVPT Portfolios will initially be relatively small in size (the SVPT Bond Fund is expected to initially have net assets of approximately $19 million, and the SVPT Balanced Fund is expected to initially have net assets of approximately $12 million), NLIC does not anticipate earning material profits from the management of these assets in the first few years after the proposed substitutions. Rather, its motivation is to complete the termination of the joint use of the MSF Portfolios which it initially sought in 2000, and to regain a level of control over its Contract owner assets which it lost as its joint venture with PMLIC ended.
26. In light of the significant beneficial ownership position of NLICA (and affiliate) contract owners, Contract owners and future NLIC contract owners cannot expect to command a majority voting position in either of the MSF Bond or Balanced Portfolios in the event that they, as a group, desire that a Portfolio move in a direction different from that generally desired by owners of NLICA (or its affiliates”) contracts. In addition, unless the growth in the number of Contracts or the assets supporting them increases at a much greater rate than those of similar contracts issued by PMLIC and its affiliates, owners of Contracts have no prospects of ever gaining a position capable of influencing the future direction of these Portfolios.
27. NLIC also notes that it has had no prior business relationship with Nationwide, which now controls NLICA and the investment advisor to MSF. NLIC has never selected a Nationwide-controlled entity to provide investment advisory services to its Contract owners, and while it has no particular problem with Nationwide, NLIC feels that it should not be forced into a position of offering investment portfolios managed by Nationwide-affiliated entities simply because Nationwide has acquired PMLIC.
28. The following charts show the approximate year-end size (in net assets), expense ratio (ratio of operating expenses as a percentage of average net assets), and annual total returns for each of the past three years for each of the Funds and Portfolios involved in the proposed substitutions.
29. The following charts show the approximate annual management fees, other expenses and total expenses of each of the Funds or Portfolios involved in the proposed substitutions both before and after any reimbursement or fee waivers. The management fees and expenses shown for the MSF Bond and Balanced Portfolios are for the last complete fiscal year, 2002.
30. By disclosure added to supplements to the various May 1, 2002 prospectuses for the Contracts and the Accounts, all owners of the Contracts have been notified of NLIC's intention to take the necessary actions, including seeking the order requested by this application, to substitute shares of the SVPT Bond and Balanced Funds for the MSF Bond and Balanced Portfolios as described herein.
31. The additional prospectus disclosure (and any subsequent supplements) about the proposed substitutions will advise Contract owners that from the date of the supplement until the date of the proposed substitution, owners are permitted to make one transfer of all amounts under a Contract invested in either of the affected subaccounts to another subaccount available under a Contract other than one of the other affected subaccounts without that transfer counting as a “free” transfer permitted under a Contact. The prospectus disclosure also informs (and any subsequent supplements will inform) Contract owners that NLIC will not exercise any rights reserved under any Contract to impose additional restrictions on transfers until at least 30 days after the proposed substitutions. The supplements will also advise Contract owners that if the proposed substitutions are carried out, then each Contract owner affected by a substitution will be sent a written notice (described below) informing them of the fact and details of the substitutions.
32. The proposed substitutions will take place at relative net asset value with no change in the amount of any Contract owner's account value or death benefit or in the dollar value of his or her investment in any of the Accounts. Contract owners will not incur any fees or charges as a result of the proposed substitutions, nor will their rights or NLIC's obligations under the Contracts be altered in any way. All applicable expenses incurred in connection with the proposed substitutions, including brokerage commissions, legal, accounting and other fees and expenses, will be paid by NLIC. In addition, the proposed substitutions will not impose any tax liability on Contract owners. The proposed substitutions will not cause the Contract fees and charges currently being paid by existing Contract owners to be greater after the proposed substitutions than before the proposed substitutions.
33. The proposed substitutions will not, of course, be treated as a transfer of Contract value or an exchange of annuity units for the purpose of assessing transfer charges or for determining the number of remaining “free” transfers or exchanges in a Contract year. NLIC will not exercise any right it may have under the Contracts to impose restrictions on or charges for Contract value transfers or annuity unit exchanges under the Contracts for a period of at least 30 days following the substitutions. One exception to this is that NLIC may impose restrictions on transfers to prevent or limit “market timing” activities by Contract owners or agents of Contract owners.
34. NLIC will permit Contract owners to make one transfer of Contract value (or annuity unit exchange) out of the MSF Bond Portfolio subaccount to another subaccount, and out of the MSF Balanced Portfolio subaccount to another subaccount, without the transfer (or exchange) being treated as one of a limited number of transfers (or exchanges) permitted without a transfer charge. Likewise, for at least 30 days following the proposed substitutions, NLIC will permit Contract owners affected by the substitutions to make one transfer of Contract value (or annuity unit exchange) out of the SVPT Bond Portfolio subaccount to another subaccount, and out of the SVPT Balanced Portfolio subaccount to another subaccount, without the transfer (or exchange) being treated as one of a limited number of transfers (or exchanges) permitted without a transfer charge. All Contract owners, even those who are “market timers,” may avail themselves of the “free” transfer privilege both before and after the proposed substitutions.
35. To the extent that the annualized expenses of the SVPT Bond and Balanced Portfolios exceeds, for each fiscal period (such period being less than 90 days) during the twenty-four months following the substitutions, the 2002 net expense level of the MSF Bond and Balanced Portfolios, NLIC will, for each Contract outstanding on the date of the proposed substitutions, make a corresponding reduction in separate account (or subaccount) expenses on the last day of such fiscal period, such that the amount of the SVPT Balanced and Bond Portfolios' net expenses, together with those of the corresponding separate account (or subaccount) will, on an annualized basis, be no greater than the sum of the net expenses of the MSF Balanced and Bond Portfolios' and the expenses of the separate account (or
36. In addition to the prospectus disclosure (and supplements) distributed to owners of Contracts, within five days after the proposed substitutions, any Contract owners who were affected by the substitution will be sent a written notice informing them that the substitutions were carried out and that they may make one transfer of all accumulation or contract value under a Contract invested in any one of the affected subaccounts on the date of the notice to another subaccount available under their Contract without that transfer counting as one of a limited number transfers permitted in a Contract year free of charge. The notice will also reiterate the fact that NLIC will not exercise any rights reserved by it under any of the Contracts to impose additional restrictions on transfers until at least 30 days after the proposed substitutions. The notice as delivered in certain states also may explain that, under the insurance regulations in those states, Contract owners who are affected by the substitutions may exchange their Contracts for fixed-benefit life insurance contracts or annuity contracts, as applicable, issued by NLIC during the 60 days following the proposed substitutions. Current prospectuses for the new Funds will precede or accompany the notices.
37. NLIC also is seeking approval of the proposed substitutions from any state insurance regulators whose approval may be necessary or appropriate.
1. The proposed substitutions appear to involve substitutions of securities within the meaning of section 26(c) of the Act.
2. Applicants state that the Contracts expressly reserve for NLIC the right, subject to compliance with applicable law, to substitute shares of one Portfolio or Fund held by a subaccount of an Account for another. The prospectuses for the Contracts and the Accounts contain appropriate disclosure of this right.
3. Applicants state that NLIC reserved this right of substitution both to protect themselves and their Contract owners in situations where either might be harmed or disadvantaged by circumstances surrounding the issuer of the shares held by one or more of their separate accounts and to afford the opportunity to replace such shares where to do so could benefit itself and Contract owners. The prospectuses for the Contracts and Accounts contain appropriate disclosure of this right.
4. In the case of the proposed substitutions, the MSF Portfolios would be replaced by funds with substantially similar investment objectives, and management would return to the investment management team which managed the MSF Portfolios prior to the reorganization in late 2000 (in the case of many of the Contract owners, the management team that was in place at the time they made the decision to allocate Contract value to the MSF Portfolios). The substitutions would also prevent Contract owners from being affected by any additional reorganization of MSF as it adapts to Nationwide's acquisition of PMLIC.
5. In addition to the foregoing, Applicants generally submit that the proposed substitutions meet the standards that the Commission and its staff have applied to similar substitutions that have been approved in the past.
6. Applicants anticipate that Contract owners will be at least as well off with the proposed array of subaccounts offered after the proposed substitutions as they have been with the array of subaccounts offered prior to the substitutions. The proposed substitutions retain for Contract owners the investment flexibility which is a central feature of the Contracts. If the proposed substitutions are carried out, all Contract owners will be permitted to allocate purchase payments and transfer accumulated values and contract values between and among the same number of subaccounts as they could before the proposed substitutions.
7. Applicants argue that each of the proposed substitutions is not the type of substitution which Section 26(c) was designed to prevent. Unlike traditional unit investment trusts where a depositor could only substitute an investment security in a manner which permanently affected all the investors in the trust, the Contracts provide each Contract owner with the right to exercise his or her own judgment and transfer accumulation and contract values into other subaccounts. Moreover, the Contracts will offer Contract owners the opportunity to transfer amounts out of the affected subaccounts into any of the remaining subaccounts without cost or other disadvantage. The proposed substitutions, therefore, will not result in the type of costly forced redemption which Section 26(c) was designed to prevent.
8. In addition, Applicants argue that the proposed substitutions are unlike the type of substitution which Section 26(c) was designed to prevent in that by purchasing a Contract, Contract owners select the specific type of insurance coverage offered by NLIC under their Contract as well as numerous other rights and privileges set forth in the Contract. Therefore, Applicants contend that Contract owners may also have considered NLIC's size, financial condition, type and its reputation for service in selecting their Contract. These factors will not change as a result of the proposed substitutions.
9. Applicants submit that, for all the reasons stated above, the proposed substitutions are consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 9, 2000, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposed rules governing CBOE
The Exchange commenced operating CBOE
Any CBOE member that chooses to participate on the SBT System must apply with the Exchange to act as an SBT market maker, SBT broker, or proprietary trader (collectively, “SBT traders”).
A concept central to the operation of CBOE
These widths are as follows:
A legal width market on CBOE
The legal width market feature is designed to prevent executions from occurring at unfair or unreasonable prices. For example, a market order for a particular option series would execute immediately only if a legal width market existed in that series at the moment the order was entered. If a legal width market in that series did not exist when the market order was entered, the SBT System would generate a request for quote (“RFQ”)
CBOE
When the SBT System eventually is so enabled, CBOE
CBOE anticipates that, during regular trading hour (“RTH”) sessions,
An SBT market maker is a CBOE member who is either an SBT standard market maker, an SBT designated primary market maker (“DPM”), or an SBT lead market maker (“LMM”). An applicant for registration as an SBT market maker must file an application with the Exchange's Membership Department; the Exchange's Membership Committee may approve or disapprove the applicant's registration as an SBT market maker.
With respect to each class of options for which it holds an appointment, an SBT market maker has a continuous obligation to engage, to a reasonable degree under the existing circumstances, in dealings for its own account when there exists or it is reasonably anticipated that there will exist, a lack of price continuity, a temporary disparity between the supply of and demand for a particular option contract, or a temporary distortion of the price relationships between option contracts of the same class. An SBT market maker is expected to perform the following activities in the course of maintaining a fair and orderly market:
• Competing with other SBT market makers to improve markets in all series of options class in which the SBT market maker holds an appointment;
• Making markets which, absent changed market conditions, will be honored for the number of contracts entered into the SBT System in all series of options classes in which the SBT market maker holds an appointment; and
• Updating market quotations in response to changed market conditions in all series of options classes in which the SBT market maker holds an appointment.
Furthermore, SBT market makers are required to respond to a certain percentage of RFQs that they receive. The appropriate Market Performance Committee has the authority to determine the percentage of RFQs to which an SBT standard market maker would be required to respond, which percentage may not be less than 75%,
On CBOE
The obligations of SBT DPMs and LMMs are greater than those of SBT standard market makers.
An SBT broker is an individual (either a member or a nominee of a member organization) who is registered with the Exchange for the purpose of accepting and executing on CBOE
SBT brokers would have the same obligations as brokers on the Exchange's auction market to use due diligence in the representation of orders for which they act as agent. SBT brokers may use an SBT workstation or an API to enter, cancel, cancel/replace, and maintain orders; hit bids and take offers; submit RFQs; and enter cross notifications and proposed cross orders.
A proprietary trader is a CBOE member who enters orders as principal for a non-market-maker proprietary account.
A clearing firm broker is an individual who represents the clearing firm of a particular SBT market maker and has the authority to take certain actions with respect to that market maker's use of the SBT System.
The proposed CBOE
There would be two basic types of trade allocation methodologies:
•
•
In addition to these allocation methodologies, the appropriate SBT Trading Committee could determine to overlay, on a class-by-class basis and in any order, any or all of the following additional market participant priorities (“priority overlays”):
1.
2.
3.
• The order and/or quote of the SBT DPM or LMM must be at the best price.
• An SBT DPM or LMM may not be allocated a total quantity greater than the quantity than it was quoting at that price.
• If pro rata priority is in effect and the SBT DPM's or LMM's allocation of an order pursuant to its trade participation right is greater than its percentage share of the quotes/orders at the best price at the time that the trade participation right is granted, the SBT DPM or LMM may not receive any further allocation of that order.
• If the trade participation right priority overlay and the market turner priority overlay are both in effect and the SBT DPM or LMM were the market turner, market turner priority would not apply.
• If price-time priority were in effect and the SBT DPM or LMM had a quote and one or more orders at the same price, any contacts executed as part of the SBT DPM/LMM's trade participation right would trade with the highest priority quote/order(s) of the SBT DPM or LMM.
• The trade participation right may not be in effect unless the public customer priority overlay is in effect in a priority sequence ahead of the trade participation right.
• If other priority overlays are in effect and designated as higher priorities than the SBT DPM or LMM trade participation right, the participation right would apply only to any remaining balance of an order after all higher priorities were satisfied.
The pre-opening state would last for some period of time (as determined by the appropriate SBT Committee) before the opening of the underlying security.
The SBT System would begin the opening procedure at a randomly selected time within a number of seconds after receiving the underlying security's opening price.
The System would process the series of a class in random order.
As the opening price is determined by series, the System would change the product state of the series to “trading” and disseminate to OPRA and the SBT participants the opening quote and the opening trade price, if any.
During this state, the series would trade freely. All order types and quotes would be accepted, except for opening-only contingency orders.
CBOE will use the same criteria to halt trading on CBOE
CBOE
A fast market may be declared in one or more option classes. A fast market may be declared by the System automatically if the System loses an underlying security feed.
CBOE may designate the market in an option to be “non-firm” if two trading officials determine that the level of trading activities or the existence of unusual market conditions is such that the Exchange is incapable of collecting, processing, and making available to quotation vendors the data for the option in a manner that accurately reflects the current state of the market on CBOE
There is a significant difference between a “non-firm” market and a fast market: Only in a non-firm market would responsible brokers and dealers be relieved of their obligations under the Exchange's firm quote rule, as applicable to CBOE
Each responsible broker or dealer, as defined in rule 11Ac1-1 under the Act,
• The level of trading activities or the existence of unusual market conditions is such that the Exchange is incapable of collecting, processing, and making available to quotation vendors the data for the option in a manner that accurately reflects the current state of the market on the Exchange and, as a result, the market in the option is declared to be “non-firm” pursuant to CBOE rule 43.14(b);
• A system malfunction or other circumstance impairs the Exchange's ability to disseminate or update market quotes in a timely and accurate manner;
• A trading rotation is in progress; or
• Any of the circumstances set forth in paragraph (c)(3) of rule 11Ac1-1
Within 30 seconds of receipt of an order to buy or sell an option series in an amount greater than the size associated with the responsible broker's or dealer's bid or offer, that portion of the order equal to the size associated with the responsible broker's or dealer's bid or offer will be executed, and the bid or offer price will be revised.
The SBT System rules provide for the ability to nullify a trade through a negotiated or mandated trade nullification procedure.
A CBOE
An SBT trader may have a trade nullified by two trading officials if a documented request is made within five minutes of execution (or 15 minutes if the request is on behalf of a public customer) and one of five following conditions is met:
• The trade resulted from a verifiable disruption or malfunction of an Exchange execution, dissemination, or communication system that caused a quote/order to trade in excess of its disseminated size (
• The trade resulted from a verifiable disruption or malfunction of an Exchange dissemination or communication system that prevented an SBT trader from updating or canceling a quote/order for which the SBT trader is responsible, where there is Exchange documentation providing that the SBT trader sought to update or cancel the quote/order;
• The trade resulted from an erroneous print disseminated by the underlying market that is later canceled or corrected by that underlying market, where the erroneous print resulted in a trade higher or lower than the average trade in the underlying security during the two-minute time period before and after the erroneous print by an amount at least five times greater than the average quote width for the underlying security during the time period encompassing two minutes before and after the erroneous print;
• The trade resulted from an erroneous quote in the primary market for the underlying security that has a spread of at least $1.00 and at least five times greater than the average quote width for the underlying security during the time period encompassing two minutes before and after the dissemination of such quote;
• The execution price of the trade is higher or lower than the theoretical price for the series by an amount equal to at least two times the maximum bid/ask spread allowed for the option under proposed CBOE rule 44.4, so long as such amount is $0.50 or more (or $0.25 or more for options priced under $3.00).
Upon nullification, the Help Desk promptly would notify the parties, disseminate cancellation information in prescribed OPRA format, and re-establish orders and their respective priorities on the SBT book on a best-efforts basis.
Any determinations made under the trade nullification rule could be appealed pursuant to chapter 19 of the Exchange's rules.
Non broker-dealer market orders to buy or sell options on CBOE
If there is no legal width market when the order is entered—or if the market order is not executed in full because a legal width market no longer exists—the System would hold the order (or any remaining portion thereof) in queue, send an RFQ,
• During the RFQ response time, the best quote becomes a certain prescribed percentage (as set by the appropriate SBT Trading Committee) of a legal width market;
• The System receives a limit order on the same side of the market as the market order that could match the best bid or offer and at least one legal width quote has been received;
• A certain prescribed percentage of the SBT market makers currently providing quotes in the class (the percentage to be set by the appropriate SBT Trading Committee) respond to the RFQ with legal width markets.
If the market order could be executed under any of the three conditions above and there is a market order on the opposite side, the System would execute the market orders with each other.
If none of the three conditions noted above were satisfied but a legal width market existed at the end of the RFQ period, the market order would execute against the booked order with the highest priority.
If a market order is executed before the RFQ process is completed under any of the three conditions set forth above, it would trade at the price of the highest priority contraside quote or order in the SBT book. However, if a market order could be executed pursuant to any of the three conditions and there were one or more market orders on the opposite side, the System would execute the market orders against each other at a price determined as follows:
• At the middle of the best bid/offer in the SBT book, if the middle price is a price that may be entered on the System; or
• If the middle price is not a price that could be entered on the System, at the next such price that is closer to the last trade price for the series.
If one or more incoming RFQ responses could execute against a market order as well as any limit orders that were already on the SBT book at a particular price and the incoming responses are of large enough quantity to fill all of the older limit orders, all of those orders would be filled at the price of the older limit orders.
If trading were halted in a series while a market order for an option in that series were on hold waiting for RFQ responses, CBOE
• If the market order were a good-'til-canceled order, the System would hold and execute it at the next opening (whether on the same day or the next day).
• If the market order were a day order, the System would execute it at re-opening if trading resumed on the same day.
• If trading did not resume on the same day, the System would purge the market order as part of the end-of-day procedures.
Non-broker-dealer marketable limit orders to buy or sell options on CBOE
As presently configured, CBOE
In the future, CBOE
• During the RFQ response time, the best quote becomes a certain prescribed percentage (
• The System receives a market or limit order (independent of the RFQ responses) on the opposite side that would match the original limit order, and a legal width market exists;
• A certain prescribed percentage of the SBT market makers that currently are receiving RFQs (the percentage to be set by the appropriate SBT Trading Committee
If a limit order for a certain series were queued, subsequent limit orders for the same series and side would be queued behind the first order to ensure that they were processed in time sequence.
CBOE
A contingency order (except for an immediate-or-cancel order or a stop limit order the stop price of which has been hit) would be placed last in priority order, regardless of when it was entered into the SBT System.
Once the SBT System has been so enabled and the Commission has approved the necessary rules, SBT traders would have the ability to enter spread orders, the legs of which are options of the same underlying security.
On the SBT System, an SBT broker would not be permitted to execute as principal an order that it represents as agent unless the agency order were first exposed on the System for at least 30 seconds, or the broker utilizes the applicable crossing procedure described below.
Under CBOE
Within a time period after the RFQ response period has expired (such time period to be established by the SBT Trading Committee and not to exceed ten seconds
In the future, CBOE
At the time the cross transaction is entered or the System:
• A legal width market would have to exist for the particular series to be crossed; and
• The proposed cross price would have to be between the best bid and offer displayed by the System.
After accepting the cross transaction, the System would immediately cross 40% of the two orders. The System would expose in the SBT book the contracts remaining in the designated order for a period of ten seconds. The order's price and the remaining quantity would be disclosed but there would be no indication that the order was part of an impending cross. The System would place the opposite order on hold as a shadow order that would not be visible except to the submitter.
If, at the end of the ten-second exposure period the order has not yet been fully traded, and the exposed order is at the best price and has the highest priority, the System would execute the remainder of the order against the shadow order.
The availability of the crossing mechanism would not alter a member's best execution duty to obtain the best price for its customer. Moreover, CBOE proposes to make it explicit in its rules that it would be a violation of an Exchange member's duty of best execution to its customer if it were to cancel or withhold a customer order to avoid execution of the order a better price.
All SBT traders, including SBT market makers, may enter orders into the System for any option class. However, only SBT market makers may enter quotes. An SBT market maker may have only a single quote for any particular option series but may enter multiple orders in the same series, regardless of whether it has a quote in that series displayed on the System. However, the SBT System would distinguish between an SBT market maker's quotes and orders and credit only the quotes towards the market maker's quoting obligations.
An SBT market maker may enter a quote in one of two ways: manually or through an autoquote facility.
Depending on how a quote or order is modified, the quote or order could change priority position as follows:
• If the price is changed, the changed side would lose priority position and would be placed behind all orders of the same type at the same price.
• If quantity of one side is changed, the unchanged side would retain its priority position.
• If the quantity of one side is decreased, that side would retain its priority position.
• If the quantity of one side is increased, that side would lose its priority position and would be placed behind all orders of the same type at the same price.
The appropriate SBT Trading Committee would have the authority to determine which order types may be accepted at the various product states and session states.
CBOE
If an SBT market maker has the System regenerate its quote and the regenerated quote could immediately execute against the same incoming order that traded against the original quote, that portion of the regenerated quote equal to the original size executed against the market maker's original bid or offer would take priority over all other interest at the regenerated price, with respect to the balance of the incoming order, except in one circumstance. That circumstance would be if public customer priority was applicable to that option class and there were a public customer order at the same price as the regenerated bid or offer. The portion of a regenerated quote that is not executed would be placed in a priority position consistent with the time that the quote was regenerated.
In Amendment No. 4, CBOE provided the following example to demonstrate the operation of the quote regeneration function:
CBOE indicated that SBT market makers are exposed to certain risks not present in an open-outcry trading environment: an SBT market maker could have a large number of its quotes hit by a set of incoming orders within a few seconds. Thus, the SBT market maker could find itself taking on a large position before it had an opportunity to assess this position and possibly change its quotes.
The Exchange may set limits on the quote traffic that is sent to the SBT System to prevent the System from becoming overloaded. However, CBOE has noted that, to the extent that the Exchange allows for varying quote traffic limits by SBT traders, such limits shall be objectively determined and submitted to the Commission for approval pursuant to section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.
In addition, the Exchange may limit the number of SBT market makers that may access the SBT System through an API (or the number of messages sent by market makers accessing the System through an API) to protect the integrity of the System.
CBOE has represented that it does not intend to allocate bandwidth to each SBT trader, and that the System would not programmatically limit the number of messages that an SBT trader may send.
Non-broker-dealer market and marketable limit orders would not be automatically executed on CBOE
The System would send executed orders to the Exchange's Trade Match System as matched trades. The System would send fill reports for executed orders to the SBT workstations for display to SBT traders.
Any subscriber to CBOE
The series and price of an option would be disseminated for each quote; the size of the quote also would be disseminated. Every change to CBOE
CBOE
When an SBT trader requests information for an option class, the System would provide the information that presents the SBT book's best bids and asks and the aggregate size for each series of the class requested.
The foregoing discussion incorporated revisions proposed in Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change. Specifically, in Amendment No. 4, CBOE:
• Revised the definitions of “fill-or-kill” and “immediate-or-cancel” orders to clarify that such orders must be filled immediately upon receipt or canceled;
• Clarified the definitions of “RFQ” and “Special RFQ” and explained why RFQs would be sent only to SBT market makers;
• Added a provision that SBT DPMs and LMMs will not receive any trade participation right until public customers' orders at the best price have been executed, and clarified that an SBT DPM's or LMM's trade participation right will apply only to the portion of an order remaining after all higher priorities are satisfied;
• Substantially revised the trade nullification procedures to include specific objective criteria as to when a trade may be broken;
• Specified that non-broker dealer market orders and marketable limit orders will not be automatically executed at prices inferior to the best bid or offer on another exchange, as those best prices are identified in the System;
• Added provisions requiring SBT brokers to expose orders that they represent as agent for at least 30 seconds or, if appropriate, to use the crossing mechanism;
• Revised the crossing procedures to require orders to be for at least 50 contracts to be eligible for the crossing mechanism, to establish minimum time periods for which such proposed crosses must be exposed, and to specify that cross transactions may be effected only in increments equal to or greater than the Exchange's minimum quoting increments;
• Added an interpretation regarding a member's duty of best execution, prohibited circumvention of the rules on crossing orders, and represented that CBOE will surveil for violations of the crossing rules;
• Added a rule relating to responsible brokers' and dealers' firm quotation obligations in CBOE
• Revised the obligations of SBT standard market makers and SBT DPMs and LMMs, including adding requirements relating to RFQ response rates;
• Eliminated the special rules relating to the processing of spread orders;
• Deleted a rule relating to the Exchange's position that information sent over the SBT System is the Exchange's proprietary information;
• Represented that CBOE rule 4.18 requires SBT market makers to maintain information barriers with any affiliates that may act as a specialist or market
• Represented that CBOE believes that, when an SBT DPM or LMM is required to handle customer orders under rules 44.14(b)(6) or 44.4.01(a)(6), the DPM or LMM is acting as an agent with respect to those public customer orders;
• Explained the priority accorded to regenerated quotes;
• Clarified that trading officials will use the same criteria to halt trading on the SBT System as is used for CBOE's trading floor;
• Revised Appendix A, which sets forth the existing CBOE rules that also will apply to CBOE
• Made other minor, technical changes to the proposed CBOE
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
For each options series traded on CBOE's floor today, a single quotation is disseminated that reflects the aggregate trading interest of one or more customers and/or crowd participants, including the DPM and market makers. DPMs generally are required to make continuous markets in the option classes for which they serve as DPM. By contrast, the CBOE
CBOE's rules require SBT market makers to fulfill certain requirements as market makers. Specifically, SBT market makers, among other things, are required to have at least 75% of their total contract volume on the SBT System in options classes to which they are appointed. In addition, SBT standard market makers are required to respond to at least 75% of the RFQs that they receive, and SBT DPMs and LMMs are required to respond to at least 98% of the RFQs that they receive. Moreover, RFQ responses must meet certain parameters for them to count toward the SBT market maker's quote response obligations.
Market makers receive certain benefits for carrying out their duties. For example, a lender may extend credit to a broker-dealer without regard to the restrictions in Regulation T if the credit is to be used to finance the broker-dealer's activities as a specialist or market maker on a national securities exchange.
The CBOE
The Commission recognizes that a large guaranteed participation right will erode the incentive of other market makers to make competitive markets. Thus, the Commission must weigh whether a proposed participation right adequately balances the aim of rewarding the specialist or primary market maker with the aim of leaving a sizeable enough portion of the incoming order for the other market makers quoting at the same price.
Finally, CBOE proposed that public customer orders at the best price be filled before an SBT DPM or LMM receives its trade participation right.
The Commission considers each of the priority and trade allocation rules
The SBT Trading Committee has the ability, but is not required, to grant customers the highest priority at a particular price level. Currently, in the rules governing trades on CBOE's floor, customer orders displayed on the limit order book are given priority over broker-dealer orders and market maker quotes.
SBT DPMs and LMMs will be required to handle public customer orders when there is a better quote on another exchange. In addition, to comply with its obligations under the Options Linkage Plan,
As the Commission has noted,
The CBOE
In the regular crossing procedure, an SBT broker seeking to facilitate an order is guaranteed a participation right if, at the end of the RFQ response period, the broker improves the price that the customer would receive by entering a proposed cross at a price between the best bid and offer. The participation right of the SBT broker seeking to internalize the order when using the regular crossing procedure would be set at 40%.
In addition, with respect to orders that do not qualify for, or for which the SBT broker has chosen not to use, the interim or regular crossing procedures, an SBT broker would have to expose such orders on the System for at least 30 seconds before executing any part of the order as principal. Similarly, orders
The CBOE
Finally, the proposed rules also include an interpretation stating that a violation of a member's duty of best execution would be presumed if the member were to cancel or withhold a facilitation order to avoid execution of the order at a better price.
As a national securities exchange, CBOE is required to enforce its members' compliance with their best execution obligations. The Commission notes that when a SBT broker enters a facilitation transaction into the crossing mechanism and then cancels the remainder of the customer order after the 40% of the order is executed, this could indicate—depending on the circumstances—that the broker originally overstated the size of the customer order and, with the 40% execution, effectively internalized 100% of the customer order. This situation would not be consistent with the SBT system's crossing rules. CBOE has committed to surveil for instances when a SBT broker immediately cancels the crossing transaction once 40% of the order is executed. The Commission notes that if, after receiving the responses to an RFQ, the SBT broker elects not to enter the transaction into the crossing mechanism because he or she is unwilling to facilitate the customer order at the requisite price between the best bid and offer displayed by the System, depending on the circumstances, the SBT broker may have a best execution obligation to enter the customer order into the System to execute against the appropriate best response to the RFQ.
The Commission finds that the rules proposed by CBOE relating to crossing and internalization of orders on the SBT System are consistent with the Act. The Commission believes that these rules will promote intramarket price competition by providing SBT traders with a reasonable opportunity to compete for a significant percentage of the incoming order and, therefore, will protect investors and the public interest.
CBOE has not proposed any rules that would govern order handling and order priority if the same option were traded simultaneously on CBOE
The rules governing CBOE
The rules also provide for a procedure whereby an SBT trader may request two trading officials to nullify a trade. Specifically, a trade may be nullified by one party to the transaction if a documented request is made within five minutes or, in the case of a public customer order, within 15 minutes of execution, and one of the following conditions is satisfied: (1) There is a verifiable disruption or malfunction in Exchange systems that cause a quote/order to trade in excess of its disseminated size or that prevent an SBT trader from updating or canceling its quote/order; (2) the trade resulted from an erroneous print in the underlying security that resulted in a trade higher or lower than the average trade in the underlying security by a specified factor; (3) the trade resulted from an erroneous quote in the primary market for the underlying when certain other conditions are met; or (4) the execution price of the trade is higher or lower than the theoretical price for the series by a specified factor. A party to the trade that disagrees with the trade nullification can appeal the determination under Chapter XIX of the Exchange's rules.
The Commission considers that in most circumstances trades that are executed between parties should be honored. On rare occasions, the price or other terms of the executed trade are such that they are “clearly erroneous,” suggesting that it is unrealistic to expect that the parties to the trade had come to a meeting of the minds regarding the terms of the transaction. In the Commission's view, abrogating a trade should occur under specific and objective circumstances only. The trade nullification rule for CBOE
Under the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000,
CBOE has indicated that it may, in the future, be necessary to set limits on the message traffic on the SBT System to prevent it from becoming overloaded. For example, CBOE has stated that it may have to limit the number of SBT market makers that may access the SBT System through an API, or limit the number of messages sent by market makers accessing the System through an API, to protect the integrity of the System.
Trading options in an electronic environment presents greater capacity burdens than does the electronic trading of equity securities. For every equity security, there potentially exists dozens of overlying options, each series having a different expiration date or strike price. The continuous quoting of options, therefore, generates far more message traffic than the continuous quoting of equity securities. The Commission acknowledges that an electronic options exchange has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the amount of message traffic passing through the facilities of that exchange does not become so great as to compromise system performance. However, the Commission expects CBOE to file with the Commission, in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 19(b) of the Act
Pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment No. 4, including whether the amendment 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 filings will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-00-55 and should be submitted by May 1, 2003.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section
The NASD proposes to extend the pilot period for the Trading Activity Fee (“TAF”) through April 15, 2003. The TAF (as originally proposed in SR-NASD-2002-98) is in effect, and is set to expire on April 1, 2003.
In its filing with the Commission, the NASD 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 NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On July 24, 2002, the NASD filed SR-NASD-2002-98, which proposed a new member regulatory pricing structure, including the TAF, to replace the existing trading fee contained in section 8 of Schedule A to the NASD By-Laws.
On December 24, 2002, the NASD extended the TAF pilot through March 1, 2003. On February 28, 2002, the NASD again extended the TAF pilot through April 1, 2003. With the instant proposed rule change, the NASD is extending the TAF pilot through April 15, 2003, to allow the Commission additional time to review issues presented by the proposal to make the TAF permanent (SR-NASD-2002-148). The NASD requests that the Commission approve SR-NASD-2002-148 before the expiration of the TAF pilot on April 15, 2003.
The NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act, including section 15A(b)(5),
The NASD 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.
Written comments on this proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received. Written comments, however, have been solicited by publication in the
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
The NASD has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Acceleration of the operative date will allow the TAF pilot to operate without interruption through April 15, 2003. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission.
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-2003-65 and should be submitted by May 1, 2003.
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”),
NASD is proposing to extend the pilot rule in IM-10100, paragraphs (f) and (g), to require industry parties in arbitration to waive application of contested California arbitrator disclosure standards, upon the request of customers (and, in industry cases, upon the request of associated persons with claims of statutory employment discrimination), for a six-month pilot period.
In its filing with the Commission, NASD 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 NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change extends for an additional six months a pilot rule that was approved by the Commission for a six-month period ending March 30, 2003.
If the outcome of the lawsuit is that the California Standards do not apply to NASD arbitration, waivers would no longer be necessary. Cases in which arbitrators were appointed pursuant to waivers would continue to their conclusion. If the lawsuit has not concluded at the expiration of the six-month pilot period, NASD may request an extension.
The litigation discussed in the Approval Order has not concluded, and NASD now is a party to additional litigation relating to application of the California Standards. Accordingly, NASD is now requesting an extension of the pilot for an additional six months (or until the pending litigation has resolved the question of whether or not the California Standards apply to NASD arbitration). NASD requests that the pilot be extended for six months beginning on March 31, 2003.
In addition, NASD has made one change to its model waiver agreement. In light of questions raised by practitioners, the first sentence of the waiver agreement has been amended to delete reference to federal or state laws other than the California Standards. NASD proposes to begin using the amended waiver agreement upon the operative date of the pilot extension for all cases in which none of the parties has yet signed the prior NASD waiver agreement. This change will not affect any parties that already have signed the prior NASD waiver agreement, or any cases in which some of the parties have signed the prior NASD waiver agreement. If any party in an ongoing case has signed the prior NASD waiver agreement, then all other parties will use the same agreement.
NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
NASD 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.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
NASD has designated the proposed rule change as one that: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act,
The Commission believes that waiving the five-day pre-filing provision and the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
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 NASD. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASD-2003-64 and should be submitted by May 1, 2003.
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”),
NASD proposes to extend through September 30, 2003, the pilot period for Nasdaq PostData and the associated fees assessed under NASD rule 7010(s). Nasdaq is making no substantive changes to the pilot program, other than to extend its operation through September 30, 2003. The text of the proposed rule change is available at Nasdaq and at the Commission.
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 January 11, 2002, the Commission approved, as a 12-month pilot, the creation of Nasdaq PostData, a voluntary trading data distribution facility, accessible to NASD members, buy-side institutions, and market data vendors through the NasdaqTrader.com Web site.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 15A(b)(5)
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.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received with respect to the proposed rule change.
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 asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Such waiver will allow the pilot to operate without interruption through September 30, 2003. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission.
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-2003-60 and should be submitted by May 1, 2003.
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 amends OCC's rule 902, which obligates a delivering clearing member to deliver the underlying security or securities against payment of the aggregate purchase price on the designated delivery date.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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 III below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change modifies rule 902, which obligates a delivering clearing member to deliver the underlying security or securities against payment of the aggregate purchase price on the “delivery date.”
The need to set a different delivery date will generally result from unexpected events such as trading suspensions or delistings that cause NSCC to temporarily remove the underlying security from its CNS System.
OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 17A of the Act because it would provide OCC with greater flexibility to respond to unusual conditions in order to ensure the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.
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. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder and particularly with the requirements of section 17A(b)(3)(F).
OCC has requested that the Commission approve this rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of the filing. The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after publication of notice because such approval would immediately give OCC the flexibility it needs to delay the delivery date to address unusual conditions.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular with the requirements of section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable.
It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
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” or “Exchange Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx rule 722(c)(5) (“Broker-Dealer Accounts”) to clarify that the haircut requirements of Exchange Act rule 15c3-1
Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is
5. Broker-Dealer Accounts. A member organization may carry the proprietary account of another broker-dealer, which is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon a margin basis which is satisfactory to both parties, provided the requirements of Regulation T of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are adhered to and the account is not carried in a deficit equity condition. The amount of any deficiency between the equity maintained in the account and the [margin required by the other provisions of this rule]
In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below. The Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx rule 722(c)(5) (“Broker-Dealer Accounts”), to clarify that the haircut requirements of Exchange Act rule 15c3-1
Currently, Phlx rule 722 sets forth the rules governing the margin that must be maintained in margin accounts of customers of Phlx members, whether such customers are members themselves, partners of members, member firms, member corporations or stockholders therein, or non-members. Phlx rule 722(c) sets forth certain exceptions to the general margin requirements. Phlx rule 722(c)(5) provides that an Exchange member may carry the proprietary account of another broker-dealer registered with the Commission, on a margin basis that is satisfactory to both parties (“broker-to-broker margin”); provided however, that the parties adhere to Regulation T of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Phlx rule 722(c)(5) further provides that the amount of any deficiency between the equity maintained in the account and the “margin required by the other provisions of” Phlx rule 722 shall be deducted in computing the net capital of the Phlx member carrying the account of another registered broker-dealer. The Phlx believes that this language does not accurately reflect that the haircut requirements specified in Exchange Act rule 15c3-1
Accordingly, the Phlx proposes to delete the phrase “margin required by the other provisions of,” and clarify in its rule that the haircut requirements calculated pursuant to Exchange Act rule 15c3-1 will be used to calculate the net capital of a Phlx member carrying the margin account of a registered broker-dealer customer. The Phlx notes that the CBOE and NYSE each has adopted a similar change to its margin rules.
The Phlx believes that the proposed rule change harmonizes the margin treatment between Phlx's rule and analogous CBOE and NYSE rules. As such, the Phlx believes that its proposal is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act
This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Phlx has designated the foregoing proposed rule change as effecting a change that: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
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 Phlx. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2003-14 and should be submitted by May 1, 2003.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Office
The fundamental objective of the project is to provide participants in Montenegro with skills in public administration and public policy development with an emphasis on practical training for local government administration. The project should provide program participants from Montenegro with the necessary tools to strengthen Montenegro's managerial capacity and its decision-making processes, especially at the local level.
Applicants may propose to pursue this objective in ways that reflect their own institutional strengths as well as the interests, needs, and capacities of the institutional partner(s) in Montenegro. For example, applicants may propose to develop a curriculum in public administration and public policy development and to design and organize in-service training workshops for currently employed administrators and officials based on the curriculum and related training materials. Applicants may also propose to develop curriculum, materials, and training for students preparing for careers as public servants and administrators or as policy analysts and policy developers. Other project designs and emphases may also be proposed. Applicants are invited to propose appropriate topics based on consultations with their counterparts in Montenegro and their knowledge of local needs. Topics of potential interest include decentralization, resource allocation strategies, anti-corruption practices, transparency in government, financial management and control, budgeting and accounting, procurement, organizational development, local government management, taxation, and strategic planning.
In the United States, participation in the program is open to accredited colleges and universities as well as other organizations meeting the provisions described in IRS regulation 26 CFR 1.501(c). Applications from consortia or other combinations of U.S. colleges and universities are eligible. The lead U.S. organization in the consortium or other combination of cooperating institutions is responsible for submitting the application. Each application must document the lead organization's authority to represent all U.S. cooperating partners.
Participants who are traveling under the Bureau's grant funds may include teachers, researchers, public
The applicant is invited to propose a university or one or more other not-for-profit entities in Montenegro that are willing to serve as the institutional partner for this project. Secondary foreign partners may include relevant governmental and non-governmental organizations, as well as non-profit service, educational, or professional organizations concerned with issues in public administration training. The program must comply with J-1 visa regulations. Please refer to Solicitation Package for further information.
If the proposed project would occur within the context of a previous or ongoing project, the proposal should explain how the request for Bureau funding would build on the current or prior relationship or complement previous and concurrent projects, which must be listed and described with details about the amounts and sources of external support. Previous projects should be described in the proposal, and the results of the evaluation of previous cooperative efforts should be summarized.
The Bureau anticipates awarding one grant not to exceed approximately $270,000 under this grant competition. Bureau grant guidelines require that organizations with less than four years experience in conducting international exchanges be limited to $60,000 in Bureau funding; therefore, organizations that can not demonstrate at least four years experience in conducting international exchanges are ineligible to apply under this competition.
Applicants must submit a comprehensive budget for the entire project. There must be a summary budget as well as breakdowns reflecting both administrative and program budgets. Applicants may provide separate sub-budgets for each program component, phase, location, or activity to provide clarification. Funds will be awarded for a period up to three years to defray the costs of exchanges, to provide educational materials, to increase library holdings, to develop workshops for public managers and to improve Internet connections. Administrative costs should be reasonable and should be kept to the lowest possible level without jeopardizing the effectiveness of project administration and oversight. Please refer to the Solicitation Package for complete budget guidelines and formatting instructions.
Contact the Humphrey Fellowships and Institutional Linkages Branch, Office of Global Educational Programs, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs; ECA/A/S/U, Room 349, SA-44; U.S. Department of State, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547, phone (202) 260-6797, fax: (202) 401-1433, e-mail:
Please read the complete
All proposal copies must be received at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs by 5 p.m. Washington, DC time on Friday, May 30, 2003. Faxed documents will not be accepted at any time. Documents postmarked the due date but received on a later date will not be accepted. Each applicant must ensure that the proposals are received by the above deadline.
Applicants must follow all instructions in the Solicitation Package. The original and 8 copies of the application should be sent to: U.S. Department of State, SA-44, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Ref.: ECA/A/S/U 03-19, Program Management, ECA/EX/PM, Room 534, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547.
Applicants must also submit the “Executive Summary” and “Proposal Narrative” sections of the proposal on a 3.5″ diskette, formatted for DOS. These documents must be provided in ASCII text (DOS) format with a maximum line length of 65 characters. The Bureau will transmit these files electronically to the Public Affairs Section at the US Embassy in Belgrade and to the Branch Public Affairs Section in Podgorica for their review, with the goal of reducing the time it takes to include these comments in the Bureau's grants review process.
Pursuant to the Bureau's authorizing legislation, programs must maintain a non-political character and should be balanced and representative of the diversity of American political, social, and cultural life. “Diversity” should be interpreted in the broadest sense and encompass differences including, but not limited to ethnicity, race, gender, religion, geographic location, socio-economic status, and physical challenges. Applicants are strongly encouraged to adhere to the advancement of this principle both in program administration and in program content. Please refer to the review criteria under the ‘Support for Diversity’ section for specific suggestions on incorporating diversity into the total proposal. Public Law 104-319 provides that “in carrying out programs of educational and cultural exchange in countries whose people do not fully enjoy freedom and democracy,” the Bureau “shall take appropriate steps to provide opportunities for participation in such programs to human rights and democracy leaders of such countries.” Public Law 106-113 requires that the governments of the countries described above do not have inappropriate influence in the selection process. Proposals should reflect advancement of these goals in their program contents, to the full extent deemed feasible.
The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is placing renewed emphasis on the secure and proper administration of Exchange Visitor (J visa) Programs and adherence by grantees and sponsors to all regulations governing the J visa. Therefore, proposals should demonstrate the applicant's capacity to meet all requirements governing the administration of Exchange Visitor Programs as set forth in 22 CFR 6Z, including the oversight of Responsible Officers and Alternate Responsible Officers, screening and selection of program participants, provision of pre-arrival information and orientation to participants, monitoring of participants, proper maintenance and security of
The Grantee organization will be responsible for issuing DS-2019 forms to participants in this program.
A copy of the complete regulations governing the administration of Exchange Visitor (J) programs is available at
The Bureau will acknowledge receipt of all proposals and will review them for technical eligibility. Proposals will be deemed ineligible if they do not fully adhere to the guidelines stated herein and in the Solicitation Package. All eligible proposals will be reviewed by the program office, as well as the public diplomacy section of the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade including the branch office in Podgorica. Eligible proposals will be subject to compliance with Federal and Bureau regulations and guidelines and forwarded to Bureau grant panels for advisory review. Proposals may also be reviewed by the Office of the Legal Adviser or by other Department elements. Final funding decisions are at the discretion of the Department of State's Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs. Final technical authority for an assistance grant award resides with the Bureau's Grants Officer.
Technically eligible applications will be competitively reviewed according to the criteria stated below. These criteria are not rank ordered and all carry equal weight in the proposal evaluation:
Project objectives should have significant and ongoing results for the participating institutions and for the surrounding communities by providing a deepened understanding of critical issues in public administration in Montenegro. Proposals should exhibit originality, substance, precision, and relevance to the Bureau's mission.
Strategies to achieve project objectives should be feasible and relevant to the transition process in the public sector of Montenegro and should be realistic within the projected budget and timeframe. A detailed agenda and relevant work plan should demonstrate substantive undertakings and logistical capacity. The agenda and plan should be consistent with project objectives.
The proposed project should demonstrate significant understanding of the institutional and training needs and capacities of the partner institutions in Montenegro together with a strong commitment of the partner institutions, during and after the period of grant activity, to cooperate with one another in the mutual pursuit of institutional objectives.
The proposed project should demonstrate significant potential long-term impact on public administration practices in Montenegro.
Proposals should demonstrate substantive support of the Bureau's policy on diversity by explaining how issues of diversity are included in project objectives for all institutional partners. Issues resulting from differences of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, geography, socio-economic status, or physical challenge should be addressed during project implementation. In addition, project participants and administrators should reflect the diversity within the societies which they represent (
Proposals should include a plan and methodology to evaluate the degree to which project objectives have been addressed, both while the project is underway and at its conclusion. The final project evaluation should include an external evaluation component and should provide observations about the project's influence within the participating institutions as well as the surrounding communities.
Administrative and program costs should be reasonable and appropriate with cost sharing provided by all participating institutions within the context of their respective capacities. We view cost sharing as a reflection of institutional commitment to the project.
Overall grant making authority for this program is contained in the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, Pub. L. 87-256, as amended, also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act. The purpose of the Act is “to enable the Government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries * * *; to strengthen the ties which unite us with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and achievements of the people of the United States and other nations * * * and thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic and peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world.” The funding authority for the program above is provided through legislation. The funding authority for the program cited above is provided through the Support for East European Democracies (SEED) Act of 1989.
The terms and conditions published in this RFGP are binding and may not be modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information provided by the Bureau that contradicts published language will not be binding. Issuance of the RFGP does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in accordance with the needs of the program and the availability of funds. Awards made will be subject to periodic reporting and evaluation requirements.
Final awards cannot be made until funds have been appropriated by Congress, allocated and committed through internal Bureau procedures.
Department of Transportation.
Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2003-4-6), Docket OST-2003-14871.
The Department of Transportation is directing all interested persons to show cause why it should not issue an order that (1) finds that Samoa Aviation, Inc., has failed to demonstrate that it continues to meet the Department's fitness standards, and (2) revokes the company's commuter air carrier authority.
Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than April 18, 2003.
Objections and answers to objections should be filed in Docket and addressed to the Department of Transportation Dockets (M-30, Room PL-401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.
Ms. Delores King, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-2343.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Amended Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The FTA and the FHWA, in cooperation with Portland Metro and Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet), (hereinafter “agencies”) published a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter “SDEIS”) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (hereinafter “NEPA”) in December 2002 for transit improvements in the South/North Transit Corridor (hereinafter the “South Corridor Project”) of the Portland, Oregon metropolitan region. The North Corridor Interstate MAX FEIS was published and the project is under construction. Conditions have changed since the South/North DEIS and the South Corridor Project SDEIS were published. The agencies now intend to prepare an amendment to that SDEIS for transit improvements in the downtown Portland segment only.
The purpose of this new Notice of Intent is to re-notify interested parties of the intent to prepare an Amendment to the SDEIS (hereinafter referred to as “ASDEIS”) and invite participation in the study. This study will focus on the impacts of adding the downtown Portland Transit Mall LRT alignment to the I-205 Light Rail Transit Project, a part of the South Corridor Project. The I-205 Light Rail Transit Project proposes to implement a major high capacity transit improvement in the South Corridor part of the South/North Corridor, that maintains livability in the metropolitan region, supports land use goals, optimizes the transportation system, is environmentally sensitive, reflects community values and is fiscally responsive. Three transit alternatives (described below) will be evaluated in the ASDEIS.
This new NOI to prepare an ASDEIS is being published at this time to re-notice interested parties due to the changes that have occurred since the initial NOI (October 1993), publication of the South/North DEIS (February 1998), publication of the North Corridor Interstate MAX Light Rail Project FEIS (October 1999), and publication of the South Corridor Project SDEIS (December 2002). The project proponents are re-examining the downtown Portland Mall Alignment in the downtown Portland segment of the South Corridor. The FHWA and the FTA are Federal Co-Lead agencies. Because the study is primarily a transit study, FTA regulations and guidance will be used for the analysis and preparation of the ASDEIS.
The South Corridor generally encompasses the southeast quadrant of the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area, including downtown Portland, Southeast Portland neighborhoods, the City of Milwaukie, the City of Gladstone, the City of Oregon City and urban unincorporated Clackamas County (east of the Willamette River). The focus of this supplemental study will be in the downtown Portland area.
Three Alternatives will be evaluated in the SDEIS. The
FTA, FHWA, Metro and TriMet will evaluate all significant transportation, environmental, social and economic impacts of the alternatives. Primary issues include: support of state, regional and local land use and transportation plans and policies, cost effective expansion of the transit system, preservation of capacity enhancement options of I-205, neighborhood impacts and environmental sensitivity. The impacts will be evaluated for both the construction period and for the long-term period of operation. Measures to mitigate any significant impact will be developed.
Office of Pipeline Safety, Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.
Notice of public meeting.
The Research and Special Programs Administration's (RSPA) Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) will conduct a public meeting to discuss progress in implementing the operator qualification (OQ) rule for gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. OPS will continue to develop the protocols and supplementary guidance materials, and provide continued opportunities for public comment. A record of previous public meetings on Qualification of Pipeline Personnel that were held in San Antonio, TX; Houston, TX; and Phoenix, AZ, are available in this docket (RSPA-03-14448).
The public meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 23, 2003, beginning at 8:30 a.m., ending at 4 p.m.
The public meeting will be held at the Double Tree Hotel Atlanta-Buckhead, 3342 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA 30326 (telephone: 404/231-1234, fax: 404/231-5236, Web:
This meeting is free and open to the public. You may register electronically for this meeting at:
Although we encourage persons wishing to comment on operator qualification and inspection protocols to participate in the public meeting, written comments will be accepted. You may submit written comments on operator qualification and inspection issues by mail or delivery to the Dockets Facility, DOT, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. The Dockets Facility is open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. You should submit the original and one copy. Anyone who wants confirmation of receipt of their comments must include a stamped, self-addressed postcard. You may also submit comments to the docket electronically. To do so, log on to the Internet Web address at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comments (or signing the comments, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
You may contact Richard Sanders at (405) 954-7214 or (405) 954-7219, regarding the agenda of this public meeting. General information about OPS programs may be obtained by accessing OPS's Internet home page at
The operator qualification rule at 49 CFR 192.801 (for gas pipelines) and at 49 CFR 195.501 (for hazardous liquid pipelines) requires every pipeline operator to have and follow a written qualification program that includes provisions to identify covered tasks and to ensure that all persons performing these tasks are qualified. By October 28, 2002, all gas and hazardous liquid pipeline operators should have completed the qualification of all individuals performing covered tasks on pipeline facilities.
On April 23, 2003, OPS will conduct a public meeting to continue discussions on the progress in implementing the operator qualification rule for gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. The meeting will focus on development of the 13 OQ issues identified at previous public meetings on February 25, 2003, in Houston, TX, and March 25, 2003, in Mesa, AZ, and are as follows:
1. Scope of Operator Qualification.
2. Evaluation of Knowledge, Skills, and Physical Ability.
3. Re-evaluation Intervals.
4. Maintenance versus New Construction.
5. Treatment of Emergency Response.
6. Additional Covered Tasks.
7. Extent of Documentation.
8. Abnormal Operating Conditions.
9. Treatment of Training.
10. Criteria for Small Operators.
11. Direction of Observation of Non-qualified People.
12. Noteworthy Practices.
13. Persons Contributing to an Incident or Accident.
All persons attending the meeting will have an opportunity to comment on operator qualification compliance issues and to question the expert panel on the new operator qualification compliance protocols.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
As required by the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-247, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is hereby giving notice of adjustments in certain benefit rates. These adjustments affect the disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) programs.
These adjustments are effective December 1, 2002, the date provided by Pub. L. 107-247.
Paul Trowbridge, Consultant, Compensation and Pension Service (212B), Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-7218.
Section 2 of Pub. L. 107-247 provides for an increase in each of the rates in sections 1114, 1115(1), 1162, 1311, 1313(a), and 1314 of title 38, United States Code. VA is required to increase these benefit rates by the same percentage as the percentage by which benefit amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act are increased effective December 1, 2002. In computing increased rates in the cited title 38 sections, fractions of a dollar are rounded down to the nearest dollar. The increased rates are required to be published in the
The Social Security Administration has announced a 1.4 percent cost-of-living increase in Social Security benefits effective December 1, 2002. Therefore, applying the same percentage increase, the following rates for VA compensation and DIC programs will be effective December 1, 2002:
$588 per year 1.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans is scheduled for Thursday, April 24, 2003, beginning at 9 a.m. and adjourning at 5 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Jefferson Ballroom of the Radisson Hotel Old Town, 901 North Fairfax Street, Alexandria, VA. The meeting is open to the general public.
The purpose of the President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans is to:
(a) Identify ways to improve benefits and services for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) beneficiaries and Department of Defense (DoD) military retirees who are also eligible for benefits from VA, through better coordination of the activities of the two departments;
(b) Identify opportunities to remove barriers that impede VA and DoD coordination, including budgeting processes, timely billing, cost accounting, information technology, and reimbursement; and
(c) Identify opportunities through partnership between VA and DoD, to maximize the use of resources and infrastructure, including buildings, information technology and data sharing systems, procurement of supplies, equipment and services.
The morning and afternoon sessions of the April 24, meeting will focus on consideration and approval of the Task Force's final report for submission to the President. It is expected that this will be the final meeting of the Task Force.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Interested parties can provide written comments to Mr. Dan Amon, Communications Director, President's Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation's Veterans, 1401 Wilson Boulevard, 4th Floor, Arlington, Virginia, 22209.
By Direction of the Secretary:
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice of intent of designate.
The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is designating 0.5 acres of underutilized space at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for an enhanced-use leasing development. The Department intends to enter into a 35-year lease of real property with a selected lessee/developer who will finance, design, develop, maintain and manage a Federal Credit Union, at no cost to VA.
Vanessa Chambers, Capital Asset Management and Planning Service (182C), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 565-6554.
38 U.S.C. Section 8161
In the issue of Thursday, April 3, 2003, on page 16351, in the second column, in the correction of notice document 03-6662, in paragraph 5., in the fourth line, “If” should read, “It”.