Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Bonneville Power Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Coast Guard
Customs and Border Protection Bureau
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
National Institute of Corrections
Disability Employment Policy Office
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission).
Final rule.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, with the concurrence of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), amends the Supplemental Standards of Conduct for Employees of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by adding a sentence permitting EEOC employees to represent other EEOC employees in administrative equal employment opportunity (EEO) proceedings unless there is a conflict of interest.
This rule is effective on September 4, 2003.
Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal Counsel, at (202) 663-4668, or Kathleen Oram, Senior Attorney, at (202) 663-4681, or TTY (202) 663-7026. This final rule issuance is also available in the following formats: large print, braille, audio tape and electronic file on computer disk. Requests for this rule in an alternative format should be made to EEOC's publications center at 1-800-669-3362.
On February 26, 1996, with the concurrence and co-signature of OGE, EEOC published its interim rule establishing supplemental standards of ethical conduct for employees of EEOC (61 FR 7065-7067). The Commission, with OGE concurrence and co-signature, published a final rule adopting the interim rule on July 8, 1997 (62 FR 36447). EEOC, again with OGE's concurrence and co-signature, is amending the restriction contained in 5 CFR 7201.102(c) of its supplemental standards, prohibiting certain kinds of outside employment, to permit EEOC employees to represent without compensation other EEOC employees in EEO administrative complaint proceedings. Both exceptions to the general prohibition in paragraph (c), including the existing one for behind-the-scenes assistance to family members, will still require prior approval under § 7201.103 of the supplemental regulation to ensure there are no conflicts. The change will make EEOC's supplemental regulation more consistent with the exception contained in 18 U.S.C. § 205(d)(1)(A), which permits Federal employees, if not inconsistent with the faithful performance of their duties, to represent without compensation other employees who are the subject of disciplinary, loyalty, or other personnel administration proceedings. EEOC notes that this amendment as to representation of other EEOC employees is also consistent with 29 CFR 1614.605, which generally allows an EEO complainant to choose a representative, subject to the possibility of disqualification of the representative if representation would conflict with the representative's official or collateral duties. The prohibition will remain, however, on EEOC employees representing employees of other Federal agencies in EEO proceedings, because the Commission is concerned about a possible perception that EEO office personnel or EEOC administrative judges would give EEOC employees deference in the proceedings.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d), the EEOC has determined that good cause exists for waiving the general notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public comment and 30-day delayed effective date as to these revisions. Notice, comment and delayed effectiveness are being waived because these amendments concern matters of agency organization, practice and procedure. Moreover, it is in the public interest that the revisions take effect promptly.
The EEOC has determined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 6, that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it only affects Commission employees.
The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, does not apply to these final rule amendments because they do not contain any information collection requirements subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget.
The EEOC has determined that this rulemaking is not a rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804, and, thus, does not require review by Congress. This rulemaking is related to EEOC personnel.
Since this rule relates to EEOC personnel, it is exempt from the provisions of Executive Orders Nos. 12866 and 12988.
Conflict of interests, Ethics, Executive branch standards of conduct, Government employees.
5 U.S.C. 7301; 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p.
(c) No employee of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, other than a special Government employee, may engage in outside employment involving a particular matter pending at EEOC or an equal employment opportunity matter in which EEOC or the Federal government is a party. An employee may, however, with prior approval, provide uncompensated behind-the-scenes assistance to immediate family members in matters pending at EEOC or equal employment opportunity matters in which EEOC or the Federal government is a party. An employee may also, with prior approval, represent without compensation another EEOC employee in an administrative equal employment opportunity complaint against EEOC.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Final rule; determination of applicability of regulations.
The List of Foreign Margin Stocks (Foreign List) is composed of certain foreign equity securities that qualify as
September 15, 2003.
Peggy Wolffrum, Financial Analyst, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation, (202) 452-2837, or Scott Holz, Senior Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 452-2966, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
Listed below is a complete edition of the Board's Foreign List. The Foreign List was last published on February 27, 2003 (68 FR 8993), and became effective March 1, 2003.
The Foreign List is composed of foreign equity securities that qualify as margin securities under Regulation T by meeting the requirements of § 220.11(c) and (d). Additional foreign securities qualify as margin securities if they are deemed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to have a “ready market” under SEC Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR 240.15c3-1) or a “no-action” position issued thereunder. This includes all foreign stocks in the FTSE World Index Series.
It is unlawful for any creditor to make, or cause to be made, any representation to the effect that the inclusion of a security on the Foreign List is evidence that the Board or the SEC has in any way passed upon the merits of, or given approval to, such security or any transactions therein. Any statement in an advertisement or other similar communication containing a reference to the Board in connection with the Foreign List or the stocks thereon shall be an unlawful representation.
There are no additions to, or deletions from, the Foreign List.
The requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 with respect to notice and public participation were not followed in connection with the issuance of this amendment due to the objective character of the criteria for inclusion and continued inclusion on the Foreign List specified in § 220.11(c) and (d). No additional useful information would be gained by public participation. The full requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 with respect to deferred effective date have not been followed in connection with the issuance of this amendment because the Board finds that it is in the public interest to facilitate investment and credit decisions based in whole or in part upon the composition of the Foreign List as soon as possible. The Board has responded to a request by the public and allowed approximately a one-week delay before the Foreign List is effective.
Brokers, Credit, Margin, Margin requirements, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting by its Director of the Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation pursuant to delegated authority (12 CFR 265.7(f)(10)), August 28, 2003.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; correction.
This document makes a correction to Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003-16-51, which was published in the
The effective date of this AD remains August 20, 2003.
Gregory Davidson, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Room 301, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4130; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
On August 12, 2003, FAA issued AD 2003-16-51, Amendment 39-13282 (68 FR 50055, August 20, 2003), which applies to certain SCHEMPP-HIRTH Model Duo-Discus gliders. This AD requires you to accomplish a one-time inspection of the bonding of the spar cap and spar web, and repair any defective bonding of the spar cap and spar web.
The FAA inadvertently omitted Amendment 39-13282 in the regulatory portion of the AD (in 14 CFR part 39).
The information is included in the preamble of the AD. The amendment number is needed for appropriate logbook entry for the affected airplane owners/operators if the preamble of the AD is not available.
The effective date remains August 20, 2003.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; request for comments; correction.
This action corrects a direct final rule; request for comments that was published in the
This direct final rule is effective on 0901 UTC, December 25, 2003.
Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Temporary regulations.
This document contains temporary regulations under section 1502 that govern the application of section 108 when a member of a consolidated group realizes discharge of indebtedness income. These temporary regulations affect corporations filing consolidated returns. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the
Amber Renee Cook or Marie C. Milnes-Vasquez at (202) 622-7530 (not toll-free numbers).
Section 61(a)(12) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that gross income includes income from the discharge of indebtedness, except as provided by law. Section 108(a) provides that gross income of a C corporation does not include any amount that would otherwise be includible in gross income by reason of the discharge, in whole or in part, of indebtedness of the taxpayer if the discharge occurs in a title 11 case (section 108(a)(1)(A)), the discharge occurs when the taxpayer is insolvent, but only to the extent of the insolvency (section 108(a)(1)(B)), or the indebtedness discharged is qualified farm indebtedness (section 108(a)(1)(C)).
Although section 108 does not require certain taxpayers to include discharge of indebtedness income in gross income, it does require the reduction of tax attributes. Section 108(b)(1) provides that if a taxpayer excludes an amount from gross income under section 108(a)(1)(A), (B), or (C), the taxpayer must reduce its tax attributes by the amount excluded. Absent an election under section 108(b)(5) (described below), pursuant to section 108(b)(2), tax attributes are reduced in the following order: net operating losses and net operating loss carryovers, general business credits under section 38, minimum tax credits under section 53(b), net capital losses and capital loss carryovers, asset basis, passive activity loss and credit carryovers under section 469(b), and foreign tax credits and foreign tax credit carryovers. Section 108(b)(5) provides that the taxpayer may elect to apply any portion of excluded discharge of indebtedness income to first reduce basis in depreciable assets under the rules of section 1017. Any amount of debt discharge that remains after attribute reduction is not includible in income.
These provisions are designed to “preserve the debtor's ‘fresh start’ after bankruptcy.” H.R. Rep. 96-833 at 9 (1980);
Questions have arisen regarding the application of section 108 when the taxpayer with discharge of indebtedness income that is excluded from gross income is a member of a consolidated group. In particular, questions have arisen regarding the determination of the attributes that are available for reduction in a consolidated group and the method for reducing those attributes. These regulations provide guidance regarding those questions.
As described above, pursuant to section 108(a)(1)(B), gross income of an insolvent C corporation does not include any amount that would otherwise be includible in gross income by reason of the discharge, in whole or in part, of indebtedness of the taxpayer, but only to the extent of the insolvency. The IRS and Treasury believe that computing the amount of the insolvency for purposes of section 108(a)(1)(B) with respect to only the debtor member reflects that, without an agreement that provides otherwise, the assets of members other than the debtor member will not be available to satisfy claims of the creditors of the debtor member. Therefore, these temporary regulations provide that the amount of discharge of indebtedness income excluded from gross income in the case in which the debtor is insolvent is determined based on the assets and liabilities of only the member with discharge of indebtedness income.
The IRS and Treasury Department have considered a separate entity approach and various consolidated approaches to the application of the attribute reduction rules of section 108(b) in the consolidated group context. As explained below, these regulations adopt a consolidated approach that reduces all attributes that are available to the debtor.
The IRS and Treasury Department have rejected a separate entity approach. Such an approach would reduce only the attributes attributable to the member with excluded discharge of indebtedness income. The IRS and Treasury Department have rejected this approach because it fails to take into account the fact that consolidated attributes that are attributable to other members will be available to offset income of the debtor member as long as the debtor is a member of the group. A separate entity approach could result in the permanent exclusion of discharge of indebtedness income when there are other attributes available to the debtor member.
In the view of the IRS and Treasury Department, the policies underlying section 108 require a consolidated approach that reduces all attributes that are available to the debtor. An approach that does not reduce all of such attributes is inconsistent with Congressional intent that income realized from debt discharge generally be deferred and not permanently eliminated. Furthermore, reducing all of the consolidated attributes available to the debtor member reflects the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in
When the debtor is a member of a consolidated group, consolidated tax attributes attributable to other members may be used to offset income of the debtor member. That ability may enable the debtor member to offset future income with the consolidated attributes attributable to other members. As a result, unless such other attributes are reduced, discharge of indebtedness income that is excluded from gross income may never result in taxable income.
Unlike consolidated attributes, the basis of assets held by members other than the debtor member is not directly available to offset income of the debtor member. In fact, the basis of assets held by members other than the debtor member may never give rise to an attribute that could be directly available to offset income of a member of the group for a consolidated return year. Therefore, as explained below, these temporary regulations provide for a reduction of basis of assets of members other than the debtor member only in limited circumstances.
Under these temporary regulations, the attributes attributable to the debtor member are first subject to reduction. For this purpose, attributes attributable to the debtor member include (1) consolidated attributes attributable to the debtor member, (2) attributes that arose in separate return limitation years of the debtor member, and (3) the basis of property of the debtor member. The amount of a consolidated attribute attributable to the debtor member is determined pursuant to the principles of § 1.1502-21(b). To the extent that the excluded discharge of indebtedness income exceeds the attributes attributable to the debtor member, these temporary regulations require the reduction of consolidated attributes attributable to other members and attributes attributable to members other than the debtor member that arose (or are treated as arising) in a separate return limitation year to the extent that the debtor member is a member of the separate return limitation year subgroup with respect to such attribute.
The availability of tax attributes attributable to other members of a consolidated group to reduce the future income of the debtor member creates the possibility of shifting the location of tax attributes and future tax liability. Preserving the location of tax items within the group is a fundamental policy underlying the consolidated return regulations which is reflected in a number of such regulations.
The IRS and Treasury Department did not adopt an alternative consolidated approach that would require the reduction of consolidated attributes attributable to other members prior to the reduction of all of the attributes attributable to the debtor member. Such an approach would not preserve the location of income in the debtor member resulting from the reduction of attributes as effectively as the approach adopted in these temporary regulations. For example, a reduction of the consolidated attributes attributable to each member before the reduction of all of the attributes attributable to the debtor member could cause a shifting of the tax burden if the debtor member subsequently leaves the group. In that case, the debtor member may take with it a larger portion of the consolidated attributes than it otherwise would, while a portion of the consolidated attributes attributable to other members would be reduced. The larger portion of the consolidated attributes that the debtor member would take with it would be available to offset future income of the debtor member, while the remaining members of the group would bear a higher tax burden as a result of the unavailability of those consolidated attributes.
These temporary regulations achieve the dual objectives of subjecting the entire amount of consolidated attributes to reduction
The adopted approach include a look-through rule that applies if the attribute of the debtor member reduced is the basis of stock of another member of the group. In these cases, corresponding adjustments must be made to the attributes attributable to the lower-tier member. To effect those corresponding adjustments, these temporary regulations treat the lower-tier member as a debtor member that has discharge of indebtedness income that is excluded from gross income in the amount of the stock basis reduction for purposes of the rules relating to the reduction of the attributes attributable to a debtor member. For this purpose, the consolidated attributes attributable to the lower-tier member (determined pursuant to the principles of § 1.1502-21(b)) as well as the lower-tier member's separate attributes (including attributes that arose in separate return limitation years and asset basis) are available for reduction. The look-through rule is consistent with the treatment of a group as a single taxpayer under a number of the consolidated return regulations, including the provisions allowing the consolidated tax attributes attributable to one member of a group to offset income of other members of the group and the investment adjustment rules that adjust the basis of subsidiary stock to reflect the income and absorbed losses of the subsidiary.
Included in these temporary regulations are amendments to certain provisions of the consolidated return regulations that reflect the attribute reduction rules that apply when the debtor is a member of a consolidated group. The following paragraphs describe these amendments.
Under § 1.1502-32(b)(3)(ii)(C), discharge of indebtedness income of a subsidiary that is excluded from gross income is treated as tax-exempt income for purposes of the investment adjustment rules only to the extent it is applied to reduce attributes. For this purpose, a discharge of indebtedness is treated as applied to reduce tax attributes only to the extent the attribute reduction is taken into account as a noncapital, nondeductible expense under § 1.1502-32. The investment adjustment rules of § 1.1502-32 do not apply to affect the basis of the stock of the common parent of a group. Therefore, to the extent that discharge of indebtedness income reduces consolidated attributes that are attributable to the common parent, no positive basis adjustment is made to the stock of the subsidiary. Furthermore, because the reduction of a tax credit is not a noncapital, nondeductible expense, to the extent that the discharge of indebtedness income reduces a tax credit, no positive basis adjustment is made to the stock of the subsidiary.
The IRS and Treasury Department believe that a positive basis adjustment should be made to the basis of the stock of a debtor subsidiary even if the discharge of indebtedness income reduces an attribute that is attributable to the common parent. This position is consistent with the approach of § 1.1502-32 that income of a subsidiary that is offset by net operating losses generated by the common parent results in an increase in the basis of the subsidiary stock. In addition, the IRS and Treasury Department believe that a positive basis adjustment should be made to the basis of the stock of a debtor subsidiary even if the discharge of indebtedness income reduces a credit of any member. Accordingly, these temporary regulations treat as tax-exempt income discharge of indebtedness income that is excluded from gross income to the extent that such excluded income reduces tax attributes, including tax attributes attributable to the common parent and any other attribute the reduction of which is not treated as a noncapital, nondeductible expense, such as a credit.
Under § 1.1502-19, an excess loss account attributable to subsidiary stock must be included in income when an indebtedness of that subsidiary is discharged and any part of the amount discharged is not included in gross income and is not treated as tax-exempt income under § 1.1502-32. This rule may require inclusion of an excess loss account in income in an amount that is substantially greater than the amount discharged that is not treated as tax-exempt income.
The IRS and Treasury Department believe that requiring the inclusion of the excess loss account in income only to the extent of the amount discharged that is not treated as tax-exempt income is consistent with the policies underlying section 108 and the consolidated return regulations. Accordingly, these temporary regulations modify the rules of § 1.1502-19 to provide that the excess loss account must be included in income only to the extent that any amount discharged that is excluded from gross income is not treated as tax-exempt income.
The temporary regulations also include modifications to the rules of § 1.1502-21 relating to the amount of consolidated net operating losses apportioned to a subsidiary when a consolidated net operating loss is absorbed and when a subsidiary departs from the group. These modifications take into account the reduction of the net operating losses attributable to that member that occurs as a result of discharge of indebtedness.
The IRS and Treasury Department are considering adopting rules under section 1502 (and possibly other Code sections) to address the effect of transitory transactions and other transactions designed to avoid the application of the rules concerning attribute reduction. Comments are requested regarding whether such a rule should be adopted and the appropriate scope of such a rule. Even in the absence of such a rule, such transactions may be challenged under existing law. If the IRS and Treasury Department determine such a rule is necessary to protect the policies underlying section 108 and the consolidated return regulations, the IRS and Treasury Department are prepared to promulgate such a rule with retroactive effect to discharges of indebtedness that occur after August 29, 2003.
The temporary regulations related to the application of section 108(b) when a member of a consolidated group realizes discharge of indebtedness income that is excluded from gross income apply to discharges of indebtedness that occur after August 29, 2003. The amendments to the investment adjustment rules apply with respect to determinations of stock basis in consolidated return years the original return for which is due (without extensions) after August 29, 2003. The amendments to the excess loss account rules apply to dispositions of subsidiary stock after August 29, 2003. However, taxpayers may apply the amendments to the investment adjustment rules and the excess loss account rules retroactively. Finally, the amendments to the net operating loss rules apply only to taxable years the original return for which the due date (without extensions) is after August 29, 2003.
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. These temporary regulations are necessary to provide taxpayers with immediate guidance regarding the application of section 108 when a member of a consolidated group has discharge of indebtedness income that is excluded from gross income. Current circumstances have made the application of section 108 in the consolidated group context an issue that needs to be addressed at this time. In addition, consolidated groups may be taking positions that are inconsistent with the policies underlying section 108 and the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in
Various personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in the development of the regulations.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.1502-19T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *
Section 1.1502-28T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *
Section 1.1502-32T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) * * * (1) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(h) * * *
(2)
(ii)
(a) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(b)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)(2) through (h)(2)(i) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(h)(2)(ii)
(h)(2)(iii) through (h)(3) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
The revision and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(h) * * *
(6) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.1502-21T(h)(6).
(8) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.1502-21T(h)(8).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) * * * (1)
(2) (i) through (iii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.1502-21(b)(2) (i) through (iii).
(iv)
(B)
(
(b)(2)(v) through (b)(3)(ii)(B) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(c)(1) through (c)(2)(vi) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(vii)
(c)(2)(viii) through (h)(5) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(6)
(7) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(8)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(ii)
(3)
(ii)
(4)
(b)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(ii)
(
(
(B)
(ii)
(
(
(
(B)
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(ii)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(d)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) * * *
(
(iii) * * *
(A) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(4) * * *
(vii) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(h) * * *
(7) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(b) through (b)(3)(ii)(B) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(C)
(b)(3)(ii)(C)(
(iii)
(b)(3)(iii)(B) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
(b)(3)(iv) through (b)(4)(iv) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.1502-32(b)(3)(iv) through (b)(4)(iv).
(b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(ii),
(b)
(c)
(b)(5)(ii),
(h)(7)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Temporary regulations.
This document revises temporary income tax regulations to provide guidance regarding the use of a nonaccrual-experience method of accounting by taxpayers using an accrual method of accounting and performing services. The revisions reflect changes to section 448(d)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code by the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. The revised temporary regulations will affect taxpayers that no longer qualify to use a nonaccrual-experience method of accounting, and qualifying taxpayers that wish to adopt or change a nonaccrual-experience method of accounting. The text of these temporary regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations set forth in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the
These regulations are effective September 4, 2003.
Terrance McWhorter, (202) 622-4970 (not a toll-free number).
These regulations are being issued without prior notice and public procedure pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). For this reason, the collection of information contained in these regulations has been reviewed and, pending receipt and evaluation of public comments, approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1545-1855. Responses to this collection of information are mandatory.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.
For further information concerning this collection of information, and where to submit comments on the collection of information and the accuracy of the estimated burden, and suggestions for reducing this burden, please refer to the preamble to the cross-referencing notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the
Books and records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
This document contains amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under section 448(d)(5). Section 448(d)(5) was added to the Code by section 801 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085) and was amended by section 403 of the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147, 116 Stat. 21) (the 2002 Act), effective for taxable years ending after March 9, 2002. These regulations pertain to the nonaccrual of certain amounts by taxpayers using an accrual method of accounting and performing services.
Prior to being amended by the 2002 Act, pursuant to section 448(d)(5) taxpayers using an accrual method of accounting and performing services were not required to accrue any portion of their service-related income that, on the basis of their experience, would not be collected. Temporary regulations under section 448(d)(5) (former temporary regulations) provided rules for the nonaccrual of certain amounts by service providers, including the use of experience to estimate uncollectible amounts and the mechanics of the nonaccrual-experience method.
Section 448(d)(5) was amended by section 403 of the 2002 Act, effective for taxable years ending after March 9, 2002. Section 448(d)(5) now provides that a nonaccrual-experience method is available only for taxpayers using an accrual method who either provide services in fields described in section 448(d)(2)(A) (
The legislative history of the 2002 Act states that Congress believed that for many qualified service providers the formula contained in the former temporary regulations under section 448(d)(5) may not clearly reflect the amount of income that, based on experience, will not be collected.
The amendments to section 448(d)(5) made by the 2002 Act require the Secretary to promulgate regulations. Specifically, the Secretary is required to prescribe regulations to permit a taxpayer to use computations or formulas that, based on experience, accurately reflect the amount of income that will not be collected. Section 448(d)(5), as amended, also permits a taxpayer to adopt, or request consent of the Secretary to change to, a computation or formula that clearly reflects the taxpayer's experience. Section 448(d)(5) further requires the Secretary to approve a request to change to a computation or formula that clearly reflects the taxpayer's experience. Lastly, the legislative history to the 2002 Act states that Congress anticipated that the Secretary would consider providing
In accordance with the amendments to section 448(d)(5) in the 2002 Act, the IRS issued Notice 2003-12 (2003-6 I.R.B. 422) to provide interim guidance under section 448(d)(5), as amended, pending the issuance of new regulations. The interim guidance provided by Notice 2003-12 included: (1) For taxpayers that no longer qualified to use a nonaccrual-experience method, procedures to change their method of accounting; (2) for taxpayers that qualified to use a nonaccrual-experience method, two safe harbor nonaccrual-experience methods that were presumed to clearly reflect the taxpayer's nonaccrual-experience; (3) for taxpayers that qualified to use a nonaccrual-experience method but wished to compute their nonaccrual-experience using a formula other than the two safe harbors provided, the requirements necessary to use an alternative formula to compute their nonaccrual-experience; and (4) for taxpayers that wished to change to a different nonaccrual-experience method, the procedures necessary to obtain automatic consent of the Commissioner to change to one of the safe harbor nonaccrual-experience methods or to an alternative nonaccrual-experience method that clearly reflected their experience.
The guidance provided in Notice 2003-12 has, for the most part, been incorporated as part of these temporary regulations. However, certain provisions in the Notice have been modified to address certain concerns raised by the commentators.
Section 448(d)(5) and the former temporary regulations provide that a nonaccrual-experience method of accounting may not be used with respect to amounts due for which interest is required to be paid or for which there is any penalty for failure to timely pay any amounts due (other than, in certain circumstances, discounts offered for early payment of an amount due). One commentator suggested that a taxpayer should not be precluded from using a nonaccrual-experience method of accounting if the taxpayer's agreement contains a provision stating that interest is required to be paid but the taxpayer rarely enforces the provision. The IRS and Treasury Department continue to believe that if a taxpayer's agreement requires interest to be paid, or provides for any penalty for failure to timely pay any amounts due, such taxpayer is precluded from using the nonaccrual-experience method of accounting, regardless of whether the taxpayer actually imposes such interest or penalty.
The temporary regulations include the two safe harbor nonaccrual-experience methods that were included in Notice 2003-12. The first safe harbor method (safe harbor 1) is the method provided in former Temp. Reg. § 1.448-2T(e)(2). The second safe harbor method (safe harbor 2) is the actual experience method that may be computed using a three-year moving average beginning in the first taxable year this safe harbor method is used or, for taxpayers that do not have the information necessary to compute a three-year moving average in the first taxable year this method is used, the option of creating a three-year moving average beginning with the first taxable year that the taxpayer uses this safe harbor method. A newly formed taxpayer choosing the option of creating a three-year moving average that does not have any accounts receivable upon formation will not be able to exclude any portion of its year-end accounts receivable from income for its first taxable year because the taxpayer does not have any accounts receivable on the first day of the taxable year to track. Thus, a newly formed taxpayer that does not have any accounts receivable upon formation must begin creating its three-year moving average in its second taxable year.
Commentators requested that the IRS and Treasury Department consider other suggested alternative safe harbor methods for inclusion in the temporary regulations. The IRS and Treasury Department analyzed alternative methods and, based on this analysis, have determined that two other formulas will clearly reflect a taxpayer's nonaccrual-experience. As a result, the temporary regulations provide two additional safe harbor nonaccrual-experience methods that may be relied on by taxpayers as clearly reflecting their nonaccrual-experience.
The third safe harbor method (safe harbor 3) is a variation of the formula addressed in
The fourth safe harbor method (safe harbor 4) is computed by first determining the ratio of total bad debts charged off (adjusted for recoveries) for the current taxable year and the five preceding taxable years other than the credit charges (accounts receivable) that were charged off in the same taxable year they were generated as compared to the total accounts receivable at the end of the current taxable year and the five preceding taxable years. This ratio is then applied against the accounts receivable balance at the end of the current taxable year, which results in the nonaccrual-experience amount for the current taxable year.
Commentators suggested that the IRS and Treasury Department permit the formula addressed in
The IRS and Treasury Department request comments on these safe-harbor nonaccrual-experience methods and suggestions on any additional safe harbor methods that will clearly reflect a taxpayer's experience. Specifically, the IRS and Treasury Department request comments on any additional modification to the Black Motor formula that will result in an accurate reflection of a taxpayer's experience.
Notice 2003-12 also allowed a taxpayer to use any alternative nonaccrual-experience method that clearly reflected the taxpayer's actual nonaccrual-experience, provided the taxpayer's alternative nonaccrual-experience method was “self-tested” in the first taxable year ending after March 9, 2002, in which the taxpayer uses the alternative nonaccrual-experience
Some commentators suggested that the self-testing requirement in Notice 2003-12 should not be included in the regulations. They suggested that the self-testing requirement is inconsistent with the language and purpose of the amendments made by the 2002 Act. The commentators also suggested that it would be burdensome and impractical for many taxpayers using an alternative nonaccrual-experience method to conduct the self-test due to the limitations of their existing automated record keeping systems. Finally, one commentator suggested that if a taxpayer's alternative nonaccrual-experience method fails the self-testing requirements, then the temporary regulations should limit the taxpayer's exclusion under section 448(d)(5) to the taxpayer's adjusted nonaccrual-experience amount, rather than require the taxpayer to change its method of accounting.
The IRS and Treasury Department believe that the self-testing requirement is consistent with the 2002 Act, which provides that “[a] taxpayer may adopt, or * * * change to, a computation or formula that clearly reflects the taxpayer's experience,” and that “[a] request [to change] shall be approved if such computation or formula clearly reflects the taxpayer's experience.” Public Law 107-147, § 403(a). The IRS and Treasury Department believe that self-testing is necessary for taxpayers that do not use one of the four safe harbor methods provided to ensure that the statutory requirement that the taxpayer's formula or computation accurately reflect the taxpayer's nonaccrual experience is met. Therefore, the temporary regulations continue to permit a taxpayer to use any alternative nonaccrual-experience method, provided such method meets the self-testing requirements described in the temporary regulations. The IRS and Treasury Department welcome comments from taxpayers and practitioners specifically addressing the limitations of their record keeping systems that affect conducting self-testing, and ways in which the burden on taxpayers of self-testing might be reduced without compromising the statute's requirement that the taxpayer's method clearly reflect the taxpayer's experience.
Under the temporary regulations, taxpayers using (or desiring to use) an alternative nonaccrual-experience method must self-test the method in the first taxable year ending after March 9, 2002, that the taxpayer uses, or desires to use, the method (first-year self-test), and every three taxable years thereafter (three-year self-test). When conducting the first-year self-test, a taxpayer is permitted to test its alternative nonaccrual-experience method against any of the four safe harbor methods. If a taxpayer is permitted to use its alternative nonaccrual-experience method as a result of satisfying the first year self-test, the temporary regulations require the taxpayer to include contemporaneous documentation in its books and records stating which safe harbor method was used during the self-test that permitted the taxpayer to use its alternative nonaccrual-experience method. When conducting any three-year self-test, the taxpayer must self-test its alternative nonaccrual-experience method against the same safe harbor method used during the immediately preceding self-test. The temporary regulations also provide rules for taxpayers that want to change the safe harbor method used to test their alternative nonaccrual-experience method.
For purposes of the first-year self-test, if the alternative nonaccrual-experience amount for the first-year self-test is less than or equal to the nonaccrual-experience amount computed under the safe harbor formula selected by the taxpayer for the first-year self-test, then the taxpayer's alternative nonaccrual-experience method will be treated as clearly reflecting its nonaccrual-experience for the test period and the taxpayer may continue to use that alternative nonaccrual-experience method, subject to a requirement to self-test again after three taxable years. If the alternative nonaccrual-experience amount is greater than the nonaccrual-experience amount of the safe harbor method selected by the taxpayer for its self-test method, then the taxpayer's alternative nonaccrual-experience method will be treated as not clearly reflecting its nonaccrual-experience for such taxable year and the taxpayer will not be permitted to use that alternative nonaccrual-experience method for such taxable year. The taxpayer is permitted, however, to adopt (or change to) a safe harbor nonaccrual-experience method provided in the regulations or another alternative nonaccrual-experience method, subject to the first-year self-test requirement.
For purposes of the three-year self-test requirement, if the cumulative alternative nonaccrual-experience amount for the test period is less than or equal to the cumulative nonaccrual-experience amount (computed by using for each taxable year of the test period the safe harbor formula used, and contemporaneously documented, during the immediately preceding self-test) (cumulative safe harbor nonaccrual-experience amount), then the taxpayer's alternative nonaccrual-experience method will be treated as clearly reflecting its nonaccrual experience for the test period and the taxpayer may continue to use that alternative nonaccrual-experience method, subject to a requirement to self-test again in three taxable years. If the cumulative alternative nonaccrual-experience amount for the test period is greater than the cumulative safe harbor nonaccrual-experience amount, then the taxpayer's alternative nonaccrual-experience amount will be limited to the cumulative safe harbor nonaccrual-experience amount for the test period. Any excess of the taxpayer's cumulative alternative nonaccrual-experience amount excluded from income during the test period over the taxpayer's cumulative safe harbor nonaccrual-experience amount must be recaptured into income in the third taxable year of the three-year self-test. The taxpayer may continue to use its alternative nonaccrual-experience method, subject to the three-year self-test requirement.
The IRS and Treasury Department request comments on the first-year self-test, three-year self-test, and recapture provisions of the temporary regulations.
Notice 2003-12 provided that a taxpayer that did not maintain records of the data necessary to determine its actual nonaccrual-experience would be subject to being changed by the IRS on
The IRS and Treasury Department do not intend that a taxpayer be changed to the specific charge-off method due to unintentional and/or immaterial variances, especially if a taxpayer is disadvantaged by such variances. As a result, the temporary regulations require only that a taxpayer maintain records that are sufficient to establish the amount of any exclusion from gross income under section 448(d)(5) for the taxable year. This rule is consistent and in accordance with § 1.6001-1(a) (rules regarding records). However, the IRS maintains the right to change a taxpayer to the specific charge-off method if such taxpayer fails to maintain sufficient records to establish the amount of any claimed exclusion from gross income under section 448(d)(5) for the taxable year. The IRS and Treasury Department request comments on this record keeping standard.
Notice 88-51, 1988-1 C.B. 535, provides guidance on the use of a periodic system of applying the nonaccrual-experience method provided in former Temp. Reg. § 1.448-2T(e)(2). The periodic system entails establishing an account based on the aggregate amount of accounts receivable that: (1) Are eligible for the nonaccrual-experience method; and (2) the taxpayer estimates will not be collected. The account is adjusted each year to reflect the taxpayer's estimate (using its nonaccrual-experience method) of the aggregate amount of the accounts receivable outstanding at year-end that will not be collected. A corresponding adjustment is then made to gross income.
The IRS and Treasury Department intend to update Notice 88-51 to provide for the use of a periodic system by taxpayers using any nonaccrual-experience method. Pending the issuance of this guidance, a taxpayer may use the periodic system described in Notice 88-51 in conjunction with any permissible nonaccrual-experience method used by the taxpayer.
A change from a nonaccrual-experience method by a taxpayer no longer qualified to use such a method, a change to a nonaccrual-experience method, a change from one nonaccrual-experience method to another nonaccrual-experience method, or a change from using one safe harbor method for self-testing to another safe harbor method, is a change in method of accounting to which the provisions of sections 446 and 481, and the regulations thereunder, apply. The temporary regulations provide, in most instances, automatic consent for these changes. Taxpayers making these changes should follow the procedures of Rev. Proc. 2002-9. Additionally, the temporary regulations provide automatic consent procedures for taxpayers changing to a nonaccrual-experience method to also request to change to a periodic system.
The IRS and Treasury Department intend to address additional issues in future guidance that are not addressed in these temporary regulations. Specifically, the IRS and Treasury Department request comments on the effect on the computation of a taxpayer's nonaccrual-experience as a result of a short taxable year, and an acquisition or disposition of an entity during a taxable year, including the acquisition or disposition of an entity disregarded for federal income tax purposes. The IRS and Treasury Department also request comments on whether the computation under the Actual Experience Method should be based on the prior three taxable years or, as currently provided, the current taxable year and the two immediately preceding taxable years.
The following publication is obsolete as of September 4, 2003:
Notice 2003-12 (2003-6 I.R.B. 422).
The following publication is modified to include in section 5.06 of the Appendix as of September 4, 2003, only the changes in method of accounting provided in § 1.448-2T(g)(2)(ii), (g)(3)(i) and (h):
Rev. Proc. 2002-9 (2002-1 C.B. 327).
It has been determined that these temporary regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. For application of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, please refer to the cross-reference notice of proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in this issue of the
The principal author of these regulations is Terrance McWhorter of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(a)
(1) The services are in fields referred to in section 448(d)(2)(A) and as described in § 1.448-1T(e)(4) (
(2) The taxpayer meets the $5 million annual gross receipts test of section 448(c) and § 1.448-1T(f)(2) for all prior taxable years.
(b)
(c)
(1) The full amount due is otherwise accrued as gross income by the taxpayer at the time the services are provided; and
(2) The discount for early payment is treated as an adjustment to gross income in the year of payment, if payment is received within the time required for allowance of such discount.
(d)
(2)
(e)
(2)
(A) The total bad debts (with respect to accounts receivable) sustained throughout the period consisting of the taxable year and the five preceding taxable years (or, with the approval of the Commissioner, a shorter period), adjusted for recoveries of bad debts during such period; by
(B) The sum of the accounts receivable earned throughout the entire six (or fewer) taxable year period (
(ii)
(iii)
(3)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(A) The total bad debts sustained in the current taxable year and the five preceding taxable years (or, with the approval of the Commissioner, a shorter period), adjusted for recoveries of bad debts during such period; by
(B) The sum of accounts receivable at the end of the current taxable year and the five preceding (or fewer) taxable years.
(ii)
(iii)
(5)
(A) The total bad debts sustained in the current taxable year and the five preceding taxable years (or, with the approval of the Commissioner, a shorter period) other than the credit charges (accounts receivable) that were written off in the same taxable year they were generated, adjusted for recoveries of bad debts during such period; by
(B) The sum of accounts receivable at the end of the current taxable year and the five preceding (or fewer) taxable years.
(ii)
(iii)
(6)
(ii)
(iii)
(B)
(C)
(
(
(
(
(
(
(iv)
(A) The taxpayer's alternative nonaccrual-experience method will be treated as clearly reflecting its nonaccrual-experience for the test period; and
(B) The taxpayer may continue to use that alternative nonaccrual-experience method, subject to a requirement to self-test again after three taxable years.
(v)
(vi)
(
(
(
(
(
(B)
(vii)
(7)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(
(
(
(
(B) A taxpayer that does not maintain records of the data that are sufficient to establish the amount of any exclusion from gross income under section 448(d)(5) for the taxable year may be subject to being changed by the IRS on examination to the specific charge-off method. See § 1.6001-1 for rules regarding records.
(f)
(ii) Thus, F's six-year moving average percentage is 19.67% ($64,900/$330,000). Assume that $49,300 of the total $80,000 of accounts receivable earned throughout the taxable year 2002 is outstanding as of the close of that taxable year. F's nonaccrual-experience amount using the six-year moving average safe harbor method is computed by multiplying $49,300 by the six-year moving average percentage of .1967, or $9,697. Thus, F may exclude $9,697 from gross income for 2002.
(ii) G's ending A/R Balance on 12/31/2002 is $880,000. In 2002, G chooses to compute its nonaccrual-experience amount by using the three-year moving average under Option A of paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section. Thus, G's three-year moving average nonaccrual-experience percentage is 4.7%, determined by dividing the sum of the amount of G's receivables in its account on January 1st of 2000, 2001, and 2002, that were determined to be uncollectible and charged off (adjusted for recoveries) on or before the corresponding determination dates, by the sum of the balances of G's accounts receivable account on January 1st of 2000, 2001, and 2002 (
(i) The facts are the same as
(ii) G's ending A/R Balance on 12/31/2003 is $2,115,000. In 2003, G must compute its nonaccrual-experience amount using an average of its actual nonaccrual-experience for 2002 and 2003 (in accordance with Option B of paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section). Thus, G's two-year moving average nonaccrual-experience percentage is 5.6%, determined by dividing the sum of the amount of G's receivables in its accounts on January 1st of 2002 and 2003, that were determined to be uncollectible and charged off (adjusted for recoveries) on or before the corresponding determination dates, by the sum of the balances of G's accounts receivable account on January 1st of 2002 and 2003 (
(i) The facts are the same as
(ii) G's ending A/R Balance on 12/31/2004 is $1,600,000. In 2004, G must compute its nonaccrual-experience amount using an average of its actual nonaccrual-experience for 2002, 2003, and 2004 (in accordance with Option B of paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section). Thus, G's actual three-year moving average nonaccrual-experience percentage is 5.3%, determined by dividing the sum of the amount of G's receivables in its account on January 1st of 2002, 2003, and 2004, that were determined to be uncollectible and charged off (adjusted for recoveries) on or before the corresponding determination dates, by the sum of the balances of G's accounts receivable account on January 1st of 2002, 2003, and 2004 (
H has not tracked its 2002 beginning-of-year accounts receivable. Therefore, H may not use the actual experience method described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section for 2002. H may use this method for 2003 if H tracks its 2003 beginning-of-year receivables, and
(ii) Thus, J's Black Motor moving average percentage is 8.228% ($75,700/$920,000). Assume that the credit charges (accounts receivable) generated and written off during the current taxable year were $3,600. J's modified Black Motor amount is $11,210, computed by multiplying J's accounts receivable at December 31, 2002 ($180,000) by the Black Motor moving average percentage of .08228 and reducing the resulting amount by $3,600 (J's credit charges (accounts receivable) generated and written off during the 2002 taxable year). Thus, J may exclude $11,210 from gross income for 2002.
(ii) Thus, J's modified six-year moving average percentage is 5.486% (($75,700—$25,233)/$920,000). J's modified six-year moving average amount is $9,875, computed by multiplying J's accounts receivable at December 31, 2002 ($180,000) by the modified six-year moving average percentage of .05486. Thus, J may exclude $9,875 from gross income for 2002.
(ii) K's ending A/R Balance on 12/31/2002 is $500,000. K's actual nonaccrual-experience percentage is 4%, determined by dividing the amount of K's receivables in its account on January 1, 2002, that were charged off as uncollectible (adjusted for recoveries) on or before the determination date, by the balance of K's accounts receivable account on January 1, 2002 (
(i) The facts are the same as
(ii) Assume that K's ending A/R balance on 12/31/05 is $2,000,000. Because K's cumulative alternative nonaccrual-experience amount for the test period ($293,800) is not greater than K's cumulative adjusted nonaccrual-experience amount (cumulative actual nonaccrual-experience amount × 105%) for the same period ($281,618 × 1.05 = $295,699), pursuant to paragraph (e)(6)(iv) of this section K's alternative nonaccrual-experience method will be treated as clearly reflecting its nonaccrual-experience for the test period. Pursuant to paragraph (e)(6)(iv)(B) of this section, K may continue to use its alternative nonaccrual-experience method. Additionally, pursuant to paragraph (e)(6)(iv)(B) of this section, K is required to self-test its alternative nonaccrual-experience method again in 2009, for taxable years 2006 through 2008 and, pursuant to paragraph (e)(6)(iii)(B) of this section, K must self-test its alternative nonaccrual-experience method against the actual experience method when conducting its three year self-test in 2009.
The facts are the same as
The facts are the same as
(g)
(2)
(ii)
(3)
(ii)
(iii)
(4)
(B)
(ii)
(B)
(h)
(i) With an amended federal income tax return (or a qualified amended return under Rev. Proc. 94-69, 1994-2 C.B. 804, if applicable; hereinafter, referred to in this section as a “qualified amended return”) on or before December 31, 2003, for the taxpayer's first taxable year ending after March 9, 2002, and any affected subsequent taxable year, and include the statement “Filed Pursuant to § 1.448-2T(h)(1)(i)” at the top of any amended federal income tax return (or qualified amended return);
(ii) With the taxpayer's timely filed federal income tax return for the second taxable year ending after March 9, 2002, if this return has not been filed on or before September 4, 2003; or
(iii) If the taxpayer's federal income tax return for the second taxable year ending after March 9, 2002, was filed on or before September 4, 2003, with an amended federal income tax return (or a qualified amended return) on or before December 31, 2003, for the second taxable year ending after March 9, 2002, and include the statement “Filed Pursuant to § 1.448-2T(h)(1)(iii)” at the top of the amended federal income tax return (or qualified amended return).
(2)
(i) [Reserved]
(j)
(k)
26 U.S.C. 7805.
(b) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary security and safety zones around the Barge BEAUFORT 20 during an explosive on-load and transit in the waters of Puget Sound, WA. The Coast Guard is taking this action to safeguard the public from hazards associated with the loading and transit of explosives and to safeguard the Barge BEAUFORT 20 from sabotage, other subversive acts, or accidents. Entry into these temporary security and safety zones will be prohibited unless you have permission from the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
This rule is effective from 6 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time on August 22, 2003 to 6 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time September 11, 2003.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket CGD13-03-029 and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Puget Sound, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Building 1, Seattle, Washington 98134. Normal office hours are between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays
LT J. R. Morgan, c/o Captain of the Port Puget Sound, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Seattle, Washington 98134, (206) 217-6230.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard has determined that it is necessary to establish a temporary security and safety zone around the barge BEAUFORT 20 due to the hazards associated with the handling and transit of explosives. These security and safety zones are required in order to minimize the dangers that the explosive on-load and transit may present to persons and vessels transiting in the vicinity of the BEAUFORT 20. These dangers include, but are not limited to, combustion, explosion and deflagration.
The Coast Guard is adopting a temporary security and safety zone regulation on Puget Sound, WA, around the Barge BEAUFORT 20. The Coast Guard has determined that it is necessary to restrict access to an area within a 1500 yard radius around the Barge BEAUFORT 20 while anchored at a position approximately 3 nautical miles due East of Vendovi Island at 48 degrees, 37 minutes North by 122 degrees, 31.25 minutes West. In addition, the BEAUFORT 20 will transit from Naval Magazine Indian Island to the anchorage located east of Vendovi Island. Accordingly, it is necessary to restrict access to an area within a 200-yard radius around the Barge BEAUFORT 20 while it is underway. The Coast Guard, through this action, intends to promote the security and safety of persons and vessels in the vicinity of the BEAUFORT 20. Entry into this zone will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port. Coast Guard personnel will enforce this security and safety zone and may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the fact that the regulated area established by the regulation would encompass a small area that should not impact commercial or recreational traffic. For the above reasons, the Coast Guard does not anticipate any significant economic impact.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the fact that the regulated area established by the regulation would encompass a small area that should not impact commercial or recreational traffic. For the above reasons, the Coast Guard does not anticipate any significant economic impact.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the (
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not 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 rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
The Coast Guard's preliminary review indicates this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D. The environmental analysis and Categorical Exclusion Determination will be prepared and be available in the docket for inspection and copying where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(1) All waters within a 1500-yard radius of the Barge BEAUFORT 20 while at anchor. The BEAUFORT 20 will anchor in Padilla Bay at approximately 48 degrees, 37 minutes North by 122 degrees, 31.25 minutes West, [Datum: NAD 1983].
(2) All waters within a 200-yard radius of the Barge BEAUFORT 20 while underway from Naval Magazine Indian Island to the anchorage located at the coordinates indicated in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b)
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The KCAPCD revisions concern the emission of particulate matter (PM-10) from agricultural burning and prescribed burning. The SJVUAPCD revision concerns the emission of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from lime kilns. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
This rule is effective on November 3, 2003 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 6, 2003. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Mail or e-mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105;
You can inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted rule revisions and TSDs at the following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Kern County Air Pollution Control District, 2700 “M” Street, Suite 302, Bakersfield, CA 93301.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 East Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726.
A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at
Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; (415) 947-4118.
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the date that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
On July 1, 2003, this submittal was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
We approved KCAPCD Rule 417 into the SIP on August 19, 1999 (64 FR 45170), originally adopted on April 18, 1972. SJVUAPCD Rule 4313 is a new rule.
NO
The purpose of the revisions to KCAPCD Rule 417 is to make the following changes:
• Added are 19 new definitions.
• Added is the concept of a marginal-burn day, where limited burning would be allowed when conditions are close to those of a permissive-burn day.
• Added is 48-hour forecast, in addition to the present 72-hour outlook.
• Added are the Smoke Management Guidelines promulgated under title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR) (September 18, 2001). These guidelines require that smoke management plans be prepared for prescribed burning of greater than 10 acres, with additional plan requirements at the 100-acre and 250-acre thresholds.
• Meteorological criteria for permissive-burn days in the Mohave Desert Air Basin are incorporated by reference from title 17, CCR, section 80311 (September 18, 2001).
• Deleted is the exemption to do Range Improvement Burning on a no-burn day if over 50% is brush-treated.
The purpose of new SJVUAPCD Rule 4313 is to regulate NO
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (
Section 189(a) of the CAA requires moderate nonattainment areas with significant PM-10 sources to adopt reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available
Major NO
The following guidance documents were used for reference:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We believe the rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations, and fulfilling RACM/RACT or RACT requirements.
The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this, so we are finalizing the approval without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this direct final rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
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. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
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 November 3, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(316) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on June 5, 2003, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Kern County Air Pollution Control District.
(
(B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is finalizing a conditional approval of revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the
This rule is effective on October 6, 2003.
You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this action at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions at the following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., (Mail Code 6102T), Washington, D.C. 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182
A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at
Thomas C. Canaday, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4121.
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
On May 13, 2002 (67 FR 31998), EPA proposed a conditional approval of the following rules that were submitted for incorporation into the California SIP.
We proposed conditional approval because we determined that these rules improve the SIP by strengthening reporting provisions. These rules are largely consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. However, we also determined that the rules conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act due to their treatment of excess emissions which occur as a result of equipment breakdown. Rules 2000 and 2004 contain provisions which exempt, under certain circumstances, excess emissions that occur during breakdowns from being counted when a RECLAIM facility reconciles its emissions with its RECLAIM Trading Credit (“RTC”) holdings. In our EIP Guidance and our Excess Emissions Policy, EPA interprets the CAA as requiring that such emissions not be exempted.
On April 2, 2002, SCAQMD Executive Officer Barry R. Wallerstein submitted a commitment on behalf of the SCAQMD staff to adopt and submit further revisions to the RECLAIM program rules within one year after publication of today's final conditional approval by EPA of the currently submitted rule revisions. These future revisions will establish a mechanism within the RECLAIM program to mitigate all excess emissions resulting from breakdowns. RECLAIM will be revised to require monitoring and tracking of excess emissions from breakdowns and comparison of the total amount of exempted emissions to the amount of unused RTCs for that year. If total exempted breakdown emissions from all RECLAIM sources exceeds the total amount of unused RTCs program-wide in any year, RECLAIM allocations in the following year will be reduced by an amount equal to that exceedence.
Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittal.
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received comments from the following parties.
1. Mike Costa, Our Children's Earth Foundation (OCE); letter dated July 12, 2002 and received July 12, 2002.
2. Suma Peesapati, Communities for a Better Environment (CBE); letter dated July 12, 2002 and received July 12, 2002. Attached to this July 12, 2002 letter was a previous letter from Suma Peesapati, CBE; dated October 9, 2001 that also contained comments pertaining to this rulemaking. We have responded to comments from both of these letters below.
3. Elaine Chang, South Coast Air Quality Management District; letter dated July 11, 2002 and received July 12, 2002. The comments and our responses are summarized below.
The next two comments are summarized from letters CBE wrote to SCAQMD during development of five RTC generation rules and were attached to CBE's October 9, 2001 comment letter to EPA. Since CBE's October 9, 2001 letter is quite extensive and raises many of the same issues as its attachments, we believe the attachments were included only as background information and not intended as comments to our May 13, 2002 proposal. We also note that many of the issues in the attachments are not relevant to our proposal because they were raised in context of SCAQMD's local rulemaking. As a result, we do not believe we need to respond to the issues raised in the attachments. As a courtesy to the commenter, however, we have summarized and responded to these comments below.
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a conditional approval of the submitted rules to improve the SIP. This action incorporates into the SIP both the submitted rules and the commitment to correct the identified deficiency within one year.
This conditional approval shall be treated as a disapproval if the SCAQMD fails to adopt rule revisions to correct the deficiency within the time allowed. If this rule is disapproved, sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that corrects the rule deficiency within 18 months. These sanctions would be imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval would also trigger the federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by the SCAQMD, and EPA's final conditional approval does not prevent the local agency from enforcing them.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
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 Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
This rule will 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, because it 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. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
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 November 3, 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
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(282) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(288) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final order on petition to partially object and partially grant to a state operating permit.
Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 505(b)(2) and 40 CFR 70.8(d), the EPA Administrator signed an order, dated July 2, 2003, partially denying and partially granting a petition to object to a state operating permit issued by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) to the TVA John Sevier Fossil Plant located in Rogersville, Hawkins County, Tennessee and the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant located in Harriman, Roane County, Tennessee. This order constitutes final action on the petition submitted by attorney Reed Zars on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association (Petitioner). Pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (the Act) judicial review of this action is available to the extent the petition has been denied by the filing of a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of this notice under section 307 of the Act.
Copies of the final order, the petition, and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file at the following location: EPA Region 4, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The final order is also available electronically at the following address:
Daphne Wilson, Air Permits Section, EPA Region 4, at (404) 562-9098 or
The Act affords EPA a 45-day period to review and, as appropriate, to object to operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under Title V of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act and 40 CFR 70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a Title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of EPA's 45-day review period if EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.
Reed Zars submitted a petition on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association to the Administrator on November 18, 2002, requesting that EPA object to a state Title V operating permit issued by TDEC to TVA John Sevier Fossil Plant and Kingston Fossil Plant. The Petitioner maintains that the TVA permit is inconsistent with the Act because: (1) The permit condition fails to ensure compliance with the applicable opacity limits; (2) TDEC improperly shields the source from its requirement to independently certify compliance; (3) TDEC does not have the ability to make changes to the SIP without EPA approval.
On July 2, 2003, the Administrator issued an order partially denying and partially granting this petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the petitioner has demonstrated cause to reopen the permits based on the first and second issues. The order also explains the reason for denying the remaining claim.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document adopts revisions to the rules governing the Commission's Local and State Government Advisory Committee, which is composed of 15 elected and appointed officials of municipal, county, state, and tribal governments, and advises the Commission on a range of telecommunications issues for which these governments explicitly or inherently share responsibility or administration with the Commission. The revisions rename the Committee the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee to reflect the reallocation of two additional membership slots to tribal governments; limit its term of operations to two years, with an option for reauthorization at the end of the two-year period; and provide for greater diversity in the Committee's membership, including increased representation of rural interests and expertise in homeland security matters.
Effective September 4, 2003.
Jane Phillips, Intergovernmental Affairs, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, FCC, 202-418-1761.
This is a summary of the Commission's Order, FCC 03-180, adopted July 17, 2003, and released August 11, 2003. The complete text of the Order is available on the Commission's Internet site, at
1. The Order adopts revisions to the rules governing the Commission's Local and State Government Advisory Committee (Committee or LSGAC), which is composed of 15 elected and appointed officials of municipal, county, state, and tribal governments. The Committee advises the Commission on a range of telecommunications issues affecting local, state, and tribal interests. The rule changes adopted in the Order are intended to facilitate the Committee's ability to continue to provide meaningful advice to the Commission by strengthening and improving its overall structure and operations.
2. Over the past six years, the LSGAC has provided ongoing advice and information to the Commission on a broad range of telecommunications issues, for which the Commission explicitly or inherently shares responsibility or administration with local, county, state, or tribal governments. These include cable and local franchising, public rights-of-way, facilities siting, universal service, barriers to competitive entry, and public safety communications. Since its inception in 1997, the Committee has filed 31 “Recommendations” with the Commission.
3. Because the LSGAC is composed exclusively of state, local and tribal officials, it is not subject to the procedures set forth in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and presently has no charter or expiration date. In keeping with the Commission's other advisory committees, which have typically been chartered for a period of two years, § 0.701 has been modified to provide for the sunset of the newly-formed Committee two years following its first scheduled meeting. The two-year limit on the Committee's term of operations also limits the duration of individual members' service on the Committee. The Chairman of the Commission may extend the Committee's term of service for an additional two years, consistent with the overall mission, goals and objectives of the Committee.
4. To preserve and enhance the effectiveness of the Committee's operations on a going-forward basis, the number of meetings held per year has been limited to minimize the burdens on Committee members and enable member-officials to attend meetings themselves, rather than sending a representative in their stead.
5. Several other revisions adopted in the Order are intended to maintain and strengthen the Committee's intergovernmental nature so as to ensure its continued qualification as an advisory committee exempt from the FACA. The Order clarifies that Committee members must be officials within the meaning of 2 U.S.C. 1534(b), the intergovernmental exemption from the FACA accorded intergovernmental communications between Federal officials and officials of state, local and tribal governments “acting in their official capacities.”
6. At the beginning of 2003, the Committee was composed of one state official, six municipal officials, two county officials, one local government attorney, one public utility commissioner, and one tribal official, was weighted heavily on the local side, and lacked sufficient rural representation. To address questions of balance and diversity of representation, the Order modifies the composition of the Committee to seven local, five state, and three tribal officials.
7. The Order increases tribal representation on the Committee from one to three seats to enhance the Commission's opportunities to hear directly from tribal government leaders. The Commission believes that an increase in the tribal voice is warranted if tribes are to commit their very scarce human and financial resources to Committee activities. The Committee has been renamed the “Intergovernmental Advisory Committee” to reflect its more diverse representation.
8. The Order also establishes guidelines for the application process that will ensure continued diversity in Committee membership. This is important if the Commission is to have access to that wide range of viewpoints and expertise which is critical to informed decisionmaking.
9. At the beginning of this year, two thirds of the LSGAC's members represented areas west of the Mississippi River. In general, the members represented large, urban metropolitan areas and counties or states containing densely populated urban centers. The Commission intends to use the Public Notice that commences the application process to solicit members from underrepresented geographic areas and from rural areas, in particular, and will seek input and guidance from organizations representing state, local and tribal interests, such as the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the National Congress of American Indians, the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and others.
10. The Commission will also seek Committee members with specific expertise in homeland security matters, because the Commission must work closely with the communications and public safety communities to ensure the reliability and security of the nation's communications infrastructure.
11. As with all other advisory committees and joint boards, the Chairman of the Commission, or Commissioner designated by the Chairman, will oversee the new Committee's activities and serve as liaison between the Committee and the Commission. The Committee will continue to receive logistical assistance and staff support directly from the Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau.
12. The rule modifications adopted constitute rules of agency organization, procedure and practice. Therefore, modification of § 0.701 is not subject to the notice and comment and effective date provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
13. Part 0 of the Commission's rules is amended as indicated in the Rule Changes section of this summary, effective September 4, 2003.
Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless otherwise noted.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 17 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Amendment 17 changes the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council's) annual groundfish management process from an annual to a biennial process. Amendment 17 is intended to ensure that the specifications and management measures process comports with a Federal Court ruling, to make the Council's development process for specifications and management measures more efficient so that more time is available for other management activities, and to streamline the NMFS regulatory process for implementing the specifications and management measures.
Effective October 6, 2003.
Copies of Amendment 17 and the environmental assessment/ regulatory impact review/initial regulatory flexibility analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) are available from Donald McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Portland, OR 97220, phone: 503-820-2280.
Yvonne deReynier (Northwest Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-6140; fax: 206-526-6736 and; e-mail:
This
A Notice of Availability for Amendment 17 to the FMP was
NMFS approved Amendment 17 on August 20, 2003. Amendment 17 changes the Council's groundfish management process and the NMFS implementation process for specifications and management measures from an annual to a biennial process. Amendment 17 also structures Council development of specifications and management measures so that NMFS has adequate time to implement the biennial specifications and management measures through a notice-and-comment rulemaking. In the FMP, references to the annual specifications process are revised and the biennial fishing period is defined as being the new time unit for specifications and management measures implementation. The regulations to implement Amendment 17 primarily revise references to the annual specifications and management measures process in the Federal groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.301-360 so that they reflect the new biennial specifications and management measures process. Amendment 17 does not introduce new regulations or revisions to existing regulations that affect how the groundfish fleets conduct their fishing operations, which is the primary focus of Federal groundfish fishery regulations.
NMFS received two letters of comment on the proposed rule for Amendment 17. One letter was received from the U.S. Department of the Interior, providing general support for a more workable approach to groundfish management that provides adequate opportunity for public review and comment on changes to fishery regulations. The second letter was received from an environmental advocacy organization and contained more specific comments, which are addressed here:
Finally, it would not be accurate to say routine management measures may only be imposed or adjusted on an inseason basis, because they are also imposed or adjusted during the biennial process. During the biennial process being established by this Amendment 17, however, they will be imposed using notice and comment rulemaking.
§ 660.323(b)(1)(i)(A) and (B), could be read to authorize altering trip landing and frequency limits and size limits without notice and comment where the alteration might cause an exceedance of previously specified harvest levels, in order to “extend the fishing season” or “minimize disruption of traditional fishing and marketing patterns.” We recommend that NMFS add the phrase “so long as the change in trip landing limits, trip frequency limits, or size limits would not result in total fishing mortality greater than previously specified harvest levels” at the end of 660.323(b)(1)(i).
The Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, has determined that Amendment 17 is necessary for the conservation and management of the Pacific coast groundfish fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) describing the impact of this action on small entities. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was summarized in the proposed rule on June 13, 2003 (68 FR 35354). The following is a summary of the FRFA.
Amendment 17 revises the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council's) annual groundfish management process so that it becomes a biennial process with time for notice and comment rulemaking to implement the biennial specifications and management measures. Amendment 17 is intended to ensure that the
The comment period on this proposed rule (68 FR 35354, June 13, 2003) for this action ended on July 28, 2003. The agency received 2 letters of comment on the proposed rule, but none of the comments received addressed the IRFA. Comments on the proposed rule are addressed in the “Comments and Responses” section of this final rule.
This final rule will affect all participants in the West Coast groundfish fisheries. Approximately 2,000 vessels participate in the West Coast groundfish fisheries. Of those, about 500 vessels are registered to limited entry permits issued for either trawl, longline, or pot gear. About 1,500 vessels land groundfish against open access limits while either directly targeting groundfish or taking groundfish incidentally in fisheries directed at non-groundfish species. All but 10-20 of those vessels are considered small businesses by the Small Business Administration. There are also about 450 groundfish buyers on the West Coast, approximately 5 percent of which are responsible for about 80 percent of West Coast groundfish purchases. In the 2001 recreational fisheries, there were 106 Washington charter vessels engaged in salt water fishing outside of Puget Sound, 232 charter vessels active on the Oregon coast and 415 charter vessels active on the California coast.
This final rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
This rule is administrative in nature and is expected to have only a minimal economic impact on small entities. The action would maximize time for stock assessment scientists, Council staff, and NMFS staff to prepare documentation needed to implement specifications and management measures without disrupting the historic January 1 season start date. Under the proposed measure, vessel operators should be able to take advantage of whichever seasonal markets best fit their needs. Small vessel operators should not be forced to fish during inclement weather because of concerns about fishery closures during spring and summer months. Vessel operators afforded the privilege of fishing for both Dungeness crab and groundfish, or groundfish and shrimp, should be able to time their fishing trips based on the migratory patterns of their target species and the needs of their own marketing strategies and those of their associated processors. While implementing multi-year groundfish management will not alleviate all season-related management problems for fisheries participants, it should be a positive step toward improving the stability and certainty of seasonal groundfish allocations for participating harvesters. The improved science and management made possible with multi-year planning will help mitigate the closure cycle by stabilizing groundfish allocations and landings throughout the season.
The Council considered 4 alternatives to the proposed measure including a status quo alternative. All alternatives, with the exception of the status quo, would implement biennial specifications. Two of these alternatives considered a March 1 start date with different Council meeting schedules, and one alternative considered a May 1 start date. Given closure trends under the status quo, a March 1 start date would likely result in early allocation attainment and closures during December-February. The negative effects of this closed period would primarily be felt by vessels and processors that rely on the mid-winter flatfish fishery. Many West Coast flatfish species aggregate more closely during the winter months, lowering the bycatch rates of non-flatfish species in flatfish-directed fisheries. As with the status quo, recreational fishing tends to be slow during the winter months. Given closure trends under the status quo, a May 1 start date would likely result in early allocation attainment and closures during February-April period. This schedule would keep the fisheries open through stronger flatfish months and allow participants to switch between flatfish and Dungeness crab at will. A February-April groundfish closure could also have the negative effect of a very lean 3-month period between Dungeness crab fishing/processing season and the shrimp, salmon and albacore seasons. For some of the small boat fishers, this alternative could also mean a lack of fishing opportunity in their traditional start-up fishing months. Early spring recreational fishing opportunities could also be curtailed under this schedule.
The economic effects of changing the fishing year start date vary with each option and vary by which fishery sectors they affect. In general, the difference between the economic effects of a January 1 start date and a March 1 start date are neutral. A May 1 start date, however, would notably shift fishing effort and could result in small businesses having to reconsider their business practices and reschedule their fishing operations.
The Council will retain a 1-year specification of ABC and OY. This represents no change and will have no economic impact to vessels affected by the proposed rule. The Council also considered a two-year specification period. However, since early attainment of OY could lengthen closure periods under a 2-year specification of these targets, this alternative would be expected to have a potentially adverse economic impact on vessel profitability. With 2-year OYs, management measures would need to be more conservative at the start of the 2-year fishing period to hedge against early closures during the second year in the fishing period. The Council also considered a mixture of 1-year and 2-year specifications for different groundfish species. This approach could also have a potentially adverse economic impact on vessel profitability for vessels fishing under two-year specifications for the reasons listed above.
Compliance requirements do not go beyond general compliance requirements for operating in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery.
Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)* * *
(2)* * *
(ii)* * *
(C)
(3)* * *
(i)* * *
(A)* * *
(
(vi)
(b)
(1)
(ii)
(d)
(j)
(a)
(b) * * *
(3) The guidelines in this paragraph (b)(3) apply to recalculation of the open access allocation percentage. Any recalculated allocation percentage will be used in calculating the following biennial fishing period's open access allocation.
(e)
(c) * * *
(2) The major limited entry cumulative limit periods will be announced in the
(a) * * *
(6)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues a final rule to implement a regulatory amendment to the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that changes the management subareas and the allocation process for Pacific sardine. The purpose of this final rule is to establish a more effective and efficient allocation process for Pacific sardine and increase the possibility of achieving optimum yield (OY).
Effective August 29, 2003.
Copies of the environmental assessment/regulatory impact review/final regulatory flexibility analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) may be obtained from Donald O. McIssac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220.
James Morgan, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4036.
On April 28, 2003, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted a regulatory amendment to the FMP that proposed changing the management subareas and the allocation process for Pacific sardine. A range of options were analyzed in the Council's regulatory amendment, which included an environmental assessment, a regulatory impact review, and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). A proposed rule was published in the
The Council recommended a preferred option that: (1) Changes the definition of subarea A and subarea B by moving the geographic boundary between the two areas from Pt. Piedras
The change in the allocation system is viewed by the Council as an interim approach. The sardine resource has recovered after decades of low abundance and there is a more detailed process for allocating the resource among the fishing communities along the Pacific coast. The change will most likely avoid the need for an emergency rule to reallocate unharvested portions of the OY, which was necessary in 2002, and will have a greater possibility of achieving OY than the current allocation process. Information from resource surveys scheduled for the Pacific Northwest in 2003 and 2004 plus accumulated data on size and age of sardine from all areas of the fishery will improve the assessment model and provide better data for measuring the impacts of various allocation options for the longer-term.
Six letters were received from the fishing industry and one from the city of Monterey, CA. Two electronic mail messages were received. Most respondents opposed the proposed action. One comment was received on the IRFA and is addressed in the Response to Comment 10. Following is a summary of the comments received:
In considering the above comments, NMFS did not change the proposed rule.
The Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, determined that the FMP regulatory amendment is necessary for the conservation and management of the coastal pelagic species fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that this final rule relieves a restriction under 5 U.S.C. 553 (c)(1), and thus is exempt from the 30 delay in the effective date requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This rule relieves a restriction because the allocation to Subarea A is likely to be reached before October 1. If the allocation is reached before October 1, the Subarea A fishery will be closed and the fishery will not be able to resume until the reallocation is completed on October 1 under the existing rule. In 2002, the Pacific Northwest fisheries landed more than 36,500 mt before October 1, and the fishery in northern California, which was included in Subarea A in 2002, landed more than 5,000 mt by October 1. The initial allocation to Subarea A in 2003 is 36,969 mt, lower than the allocation in 2002, when an emergency rule was necessary to keep the fishery open following a temporary closure. Keeping the fishery operating will increase landings by about 1,500 mt per week. At an ex-vessel price of $100/mt, this would generate $150,000 per week to fishermen and $300,000 to processors (based on 50 percent recovery rate and a sales price of $400/mt).
The final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared an IRFA which was summarized in the proposed rule published on June 26, 2003 (68 FR 37995). The Council prepared an FRFA that describes the economic impact of this action on small entities. Two specific comments were received on the IRFA, one regarding the possibility of some vessels minimizing impacts by fishing in more northern fisheries and one regarding the treatment of processors in the IRFA. Responses to these comments are contained in comments 9 and 10 in the preamble to the final rule. The following is the summary of the FRFA. The need for and objectives of this final rule are contained in the
Approximately 140 vessels are permitted in the sardine fisheries off the U.S. West Coast; 65 vessels are
Under the proposed action, sardine landings for CPS vessels for the entire West Coast are estimated to increase 9,846 metric tons (mt) from the status quo, with a corresponding increase in ex-vessel value of $1,077,540. As used by the Council, the “status quo” harvest levels reflect an increase of 10 percent from 2002 harvest levels. All of the coastwide harvest guideline OY would be caught by the end of the season under the proposed action. Sardine landings by vessels participating in the Oregon/Washington fishery were estimated to be 7,622 mt greater than the status quo (and more than 11,000 mt above the 2002 level), with ex-vessel revenues increasing by $873,526 relative to the status quo. Landings by CPS vessels that historically would have participated in the northern California sardine fishery would increase 2,449 mt above the status quo (and 4000 mt above the 2002 harvest level) with a corresponding rise in ex-vessel revenues of $228,035. Under the proposed action, a loss of 225 mt in landings relative to the status quo was estimated for vessels that historically fished out of southern California ports, which equates to foregone ex-vessel revenues amounting to $24,021, or approximately $370 per vessel, in lost ex-vessel revenue relative to the status quo. However, landing would still be about 4,900 mt greater than in 2002, and revenue would be almost 10 percent higher than in 2002. Twenty live bait vessels landed approximately 2,000 mt per year of mixed species from 1993 through 1997. Those landings were comprised mostly of Pacific sardine and northern anchovy. The estimated 18 live bait vessels fishing in southern California are expected to be only minimally impacted by this action similar to results for the CPS limited entry vessels fishing in that area. The two live bait vessels fishing in Oregon and Washington are not expected to be impacted by this action.
For the 65 CPS limited entry vessels that could participate in either the southern California or northern California sardine fisheries, the 225 mt reduction in harvest relative to the status quo represents a potential loss in ex-vessel revenues for the CPS vessels choosing to operate in southern California. If the 65 CPS limited entry vessels choose to fish in the traditional northern California sardine fishery, the potential gain in ex-vessel revenue for that fishery is estimated to be approximately $3,508 per vessel per year. However, this amount could be underestimated since data from the 2001 SAFE report show that only 27 CPS vessels landed in Monterey/Santa Cruz and only 13 CPS vessels landed in San Francisco.
Even though limited entry vessels based in southern California are not restricted from participating in the northern California or the open access Oregon/Washington sardine fisheries, it is unlikely that it would be profitable for all southern California vessels to do so due to additional travel time and fuel costs. However, any loss in profitability by the CPS vessels choosing to fish in southern California could be mitigated to a certain extent by moving northward to land larger, higher-priced sardines in northern California ports.
Vessels that participate in the Oregon/Washington sector of the fishery are estimated to increase ex-vessel revenues by $15,882 per vessel based on the estimated 55 state sardine permits issued. However, this figure may be underestimated since data show that, of the 35 Washington permitted vessels, only 19 vessels participated in these fisheries in 2002 with the majority of the catch accomplished by only 13 vessels.
The Council considered 3 alternatives to the proposed action in addition to the no-action alternative. All alternatives resulted in ex-vessel revenue gains of various magnitudes for the fishery as a whole. However, the proposed alternative yielded the greatest overall gain, with the least negative impacts to individual vessels from any one region while also providing the fishery with a high likelihood of achieving OY as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Alternative 1 (status quo)—With a 10-percent increase in harvest from 2002, total landings would be 101,061 mt and total ex-vessel revenues would amount to $10,587,481. Southern California vessels would realize ex-vessel revenues of $5,749,562, northern California vessels $1,039,424, and Oregon/Washington vessels $3,798,405.
Alternative 2 (start year with 66-33 allocation, subarea line to 39° N lat., September (50-50) reallocation, and December (coastwide) reallocation). Relative to 10 percent overall increase in the status quo, southern California vessels would lose 3,618 mt or $386,201 in ex-vessel revenues. Northern California vessels would gain 35 mt or $3,306, and Oregon/Washington would gain 10,108 mt or $1,158,314, for a net increase in coastwide ex-vessel revenues of $775,420.
Alternative 4 (start year with 66-33 allocation, subarea line not changed, September (50-50) reallocation, and December (coastwide) reallocation). Compared to the status quo, southern California vessels would realize no change in landings, northern California vessels would gain 274 mt or $25,518 in ex-vessel revenues, and Oregon/Washington vessels would gain 8,091 mt or $927,167. This results in an overall net increase of $952,685 in ex-vessel revenues.
Alternative 5 (start year with 66-33 allocation, subarea line to 39° N lat., September coastwide reallocation). Relative to the status quo, southern California vessels would lose 2,500 mt or $266,924 in ex-vessel revenues. Northern California vessels would gain 2,239 mt or $208,547, and Oregon/Washington vessels would gain 10,108 mt or $1,099,937, for a net increase in overall ex-vessel revenues of $1,099,937.
There are no new compliance requirements resulting from this rule. Two management subareas and the amount of the harvest guideline allocated to the subareas have been redefined, and the date unharvested
Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b) * * *
(2) Southern boundary—at 39°00′00″ N. lat. (Pt. Arena).
(c) * * *
(1) Northern boundary—at 39°00′00″ N. lat. (Pt. Arena); and
(a) The date when Pacific sardine that remains unharvested will be reallocated to Subarea A and Subarea B is September 1 for 2003 and 2004, and for 2005 if the 2005 harvest guideline is at least 90 percent of the 2003 harvest guideline.
(b) All unharvested sardine that remains on December 1 will be available for harvest coast wide.
(f) The percentages of the unharvested sardine that are reallocated to Subarea A and Subarea B are 20 percent to Subarea A and 80 percent to Subarea B.
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rule.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing a revision of its regulations concerning computer security awareness and training for employees who are responsible for the management or use of Federal computer systems. The purpose of the revisions is to streamline the regulations and make it clearer for expert and novice readers. This proposal will also facilitate timely access to changes in computer security training guidelines and supplementary information technology (IT) training and standards resources. Use of the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) Web site accomplishes this and better supports the larger role that NIST provides in establishing computer security policy.
Comments must be received on or before October 6, 2003.
Send, deliver or fax written comments to Ms. Ellen E. Tunstall, Deputy Associate Director for Talent and Capacity Policy, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Room 6551, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415-9700; e-mail
LaVeen Ponds by TTY at (202) 418-3134, by fax at (202) 606-2329, phone at 202-606-1394 or e-mail at
OPM is issuing proposed regulations to revise the rules that govern the training of employees responsible for the management or use of Federal computer systems. The proposal refers the user to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Web site, which will have the most current information on computer security awareness and training guidelines and removes text that is included on the NIST Web site, thus, streamlining the regulation where appropriate. Including the NIST Web site and removal of text such as definitions are not substantive changes. Therefore, we are using a shorter comment period of 30 days. The proposal actually provides users more timely access to the most current applicable definitions and guidelines. By including a Web site and removing text that is redundant, these regulations afford agencies the opportunity to be immediately aware of and come into timely compliance with changing computer security guidelines and requisite employee training for computer security. In light of current threats to national security through information technology systems, this immediate flexibility promotes the protection of Government computer security systems and ensures that the employees who use those systems are knowledgeable and vigilant in protecting them. This proposal will be effective immediately upon final publication.
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with E.O. 12866.
I certify that these regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they would apply only to Federal agencies and employees.
Administrative practice and procedures; Computer technology; Government employees; Motor vehicles.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Accordingly, OPM proposes to revise subpart C of part 930 of 5 CFR as follows:
1. Subpart C is revised to read as follows:
Computer Security Act of 1987, Public Law 100-235, January 8, 1988.
An Executive Agency head shall develop a plan for computer security awareness and training and
(a) Identify employees with significant security responsibilities and provide role-specific training in accordance with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) guidance on computer security awareness and training available on NIST Web site,
(1) All users of information technology (IT) shall be exposed to security awareness materials at least annually. Users of IT include employees, contractors, students, guest researchers, visitors and others who may need access to IT systems and applications.
(2) Executives shall receive training in computer security basics and policy level training in security planning and management.
(3) Program and functional managers shall receive training in computer security basics; management and implementation level training in security planning and system/application security management; and management and implementation level training in system/application life cycle management, risk management, and contingency planning.
(4) Chief Information Officers (CIOs), IT security program managers, auditors and other security-oriented personnel (
(5) IT function management and operations personnel shall receive training in computer security basics; management and implementation level training in security planning and system/application security management; and management and implementation level training in system/application life cycle management, risk management, and contingency planning.
(b) Provide the computer awareness material/exposure outlined in NIST guidance on computer security awareness and training to all new employees within 60 days of their appointment.
(c) Provide computer security refresher training for agency employees as frequently as determined necessary by the agency, based on the sensitivity of the information that the employees use or process.
(d) Provide training whenever there is a significant change in the agency information security environment or procedures or when an employee enters a new position that requires additional role-specific training.
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Election Commission requests comments on proposed changes to its rules regarding the allocation of political party committee expenditures for telephone bank communications made on behalf of a presidential candidate. The proposed rules would address the proper allocation of a party committee's expenditures for such communications that refer to presidential and vice-presidential nominees when the party's other candidates are referred to generically, but not by name. The amount allocated as an expenditure on behalf of, or a contribution to, the presidential nominee would be subject to the limitations and prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The Commission has not made any final decisions on the revisions proposed in this Notice. Further information is provided in the supplementary information that follows.
Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2003. If the Commission receives sufficient requests to testify, it will hold a hearing on these proposed rules on October 1, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. Commenters wishing to testify at the hearing must so indicate in their written or electronic comments.
All comments should be addressed to Ms. Mai T. Dinh, Acting Assistant General Counsel, and must be submitted in either electronic or written form. Electronic mail comments should be sent to
Ms. Mai T. Dinh, Acting Assistant General Counsel, or Mr. Jonathan M. Levin, Senior Attorney, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.
In the months leading up to a presidential general election, party committees, or party committees in conjunction with a principal campaign committee of a presidential nominee, may conduct a phone bank to get out the vote (“GOTV”) or otherwise promote the party and its candidates. Such phone banks may involve the reading of scripted messages that include a statement asking the person called specifically to vote, or get their family and friends out to vote, for the named presidential candidate and that then make a general promotional reference or references to the party's other candidates. An example would be: “Please tell your family and friends to come out and vote for President John Doe and our great Party team.” Given that no other Federal or non-Federal candidates are specifically mentioned, the question is whether the entire cost of the communication or only a portion of the cost should be attributed to the presidential candidate.
Current 11 CFR 106.1(a)(1) addresses the attribution of expenditures (including in-kind contributions, independent expenditures, and coordinated expenditures) for communications made on behalf of more than one clearly identified Federal candidate. It also addresses expenditures and disbursements on behalf of a combination of clearly identified Federal candidates and non-Federal candidates. In the case of communications other than fundraising communications, the expenditure is generally attributed to a candidate in accordance with the portion of the communication devoted to that candidate. For example, in a publication or broadcast communication, the attribution is determined by the space or time devoted to each candidate as compared to the space or time devoted to all candidates. Similarly, for a phone bank, the attribution is based on the number of questions or statements devoted to each candidate as compared to the total number of questions or statements devoted to all candidates.
Under one interpretation of section 106.1(a)(1), the disbursement for the political party phone bank described above would be 100 percent attributable to the presidential (and vice presidential) candidate because he or she would be the only candidate clearly identified. On the other hand, this section could be read to mandate an attribution of significantly less than fifty percent to the presidential candidate because the actual wording of the message emphasizes support for all the party's Federal and non-Federal candidates. To provide clear guidance as to the attribution of these types of phone banks, the Commission is proposing new 11 CFR 106.8, which is described below.
The Commission proposes adding new section 106.8 to address phone banks conducted by national, State and local party committees on behalf of their presidential nominees. In presidential
Proposed 11 CFR 106.8(a) begins by stating the conditions under which the special attribution rule in proposed paragraph (b) would apply. First, the proposed rule would apply only if the provisions of 11 CFR 100.89 and 100.149 do not apply. They provide that, under specific conditions, the payment by a State and local party committee for voter registration and GOTV activities it conducts on behalf of a presidential or vice presidential nominee is exempt from the definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure.” These sections provide an avenue for State and local party committees to spend on behalf of publicly financed presidential candidates without making a coordinated expenditure or an impermissible contribution. This exemption does not include payments for “any costs incurred in connection with any broadcasting, newspaper, magazine, billboard, direct mail, or similar type of general public communication or political advertising.” 11 CFR 100.89(a) and 100.149(a). Phone banks are treated separately and qualify for the exemption when the phone banks are operated by volunteer workers (although the use of paid professionals to design the system, to develop calling instructions, and to train supervisors is permissible under the exemption). 11 CFR 100.89(e) and 100.149(e). Thus, the proposed rules in new 11 CFR 106.8 would not apply, and no amount would have to be attributed to the presidential candidate, if the phones are operated by volunteer workers and if the other conditions pertaining to the source of the funds used in 11 CFR 100.89 and 100.149 are satisfied.
Proposed paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of section 106.8 would describe the communication that would be subject to the proposed rule. The communication would have to: refer to a clearly identified presidential or vice presidential nominee (proposed paragraph (a)(1)); refer to no other clearly identified candidate (proposed paragraph (a)(2)); and refer generically to the other candidates of the presidential nominee's party without clearly identifying them (proposed paragraph (a)(3)). Generic references to “our great Republican team” or “our great Democratic ticket” would satisfy the latter requirement. Moreover, under proposed paragraph (a)(4), the communication must not be used as a means to solicit contributions, donations, or any funds from any person for any Federal or non-Federal candidate, or for any political committee or political organization, or any entity disbursing funds in connection with a Federal or non-Federal election. If such a solicitation were made, it would change the nature of the communication and may require a different determination as to the attribution of the party's spending for the communication among candidates or committees.
Proposed section 106.8(b) includes two alternatives that would establish the attribution of the party committee's payments for the phone bank. Alternative A would provide that fifty percent of the disbursement must be attributed to the presidential and vice presidential nominees, and the remaining fifty percent would not be attributable to any Federal or non-Federal candidate but must be paid solely with Federal funds. Alternative B would provide that 100 percent of the disbursement must be attributed to the presidential and vice presidential nominees. The Commission seeks comment on which of these two alternatives is preferable, or on whether the percentage should be based on the actual space or time used to refer to the presidential nominee or some other factor.
If the party committee pays for the entire cost of the phone bank mentioning a publicly funded general election candidate (as opposed to the assumption of some of the cost by the presidential candidate's principal campaign committee), the payment may be, in some cases, either a coordinated expenditure under 2 U.S.C. 441a(d) or an independent expenditure under 2 U.S.C. 431(17). In the case of a non-publicly funded general election candidate, it may be either an in-kind contribution to the candidate, or a coordinated or independent expenditure.
The Commission also notes that, unlike the exempt payments in 11 CFR 100.89 and 100.149, a State party committee would be able to use coordinated expenditures (under 2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) to cover phone bank communications subject to proposed 11 CFR 106.8 only if the national party committee has made a written assignment of a specific amount of its spending authority to the State committee in an amount sufficient to cover the expenditure.
Barring the unlikely event that the phone bank will involve 500 or fewer calls, a message such as, “Please vote for President John Doe and our great Party team,” would be a public communication that refers to a clearly identified Federal candidate and promotes that candidate. It would thus be a form of Federal election activity that must be paid for entirely with Federal funds, pursuant to 11 CFR 300.33(c)(1).
In addition to the request for comment as to national party committee assignment of its coordinated expenditure authority, the Commission seeks comments on several aspects of the proposed rule. Specifically, comment is sought on whether this attribution should apply only to phone banks or whether it should apply to other media such as broadcast or print media. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the specific condition in 11 CFR 100.89 and 100.149—that the party expenditures not be made from contributions designated for particular Federal candidates—should be included in the
The attached proposed rules, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis for this certification is that few, if any, small entities would be affected by these proposals, which apply only to committees of political parties. National, State and many local party committees of the two major political parties and other political committees are not small entities under 5 U.S.C. 601 because they are not small businesses, small organizations, or small governmental jurisdictions. The proposed rules are intended to simplify the determination as to the amount of a party committee expenditure that must be attributed to a presidential candidate in the case of certain telephone bank communications and to clarify what funding is permissible. Any increase in the cost of compliance that might result from these proposed rules would not be in an amount sufficient to cause a significant economic impact.
Campaign funds, Political committees and parties, Political candidates.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Election Commission proposes to amend subchapter A of chapter 1 of title 11 of the
1. The authority citation for part 106 would continue to read as follows:
2 U.S.C. 438(a)(8), 441a(b), 441a(g).
2. New section 106.8 would be added to read as follows:
(a)
(1) The communication refers to a clearly identified presidential or vice presidential nominee;
(2) The communication does not refer to any other clearly identified Federal or non-Federal candidate;
(3) The communication generically refers to other candidates of the presidential nominee's party without clearly identifying them; and
(4) The communication does not solicit a contribution, donation, or any other funds from any person.
(b)
(1) Fifty percent of the disbursement for the phone bank is attributed to the presidential and vice presidential nominees; and
(2) The remaining fifty percent is not attributable to any other Federal or non-Federal candidate, but must be paid for entirely with Federal funds.
(b)
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Election Commission requests comments on proposed additions to its rules covering the sale, rental, and exchange of political committee mailing lists. The proposed rules address when the proceeds of a political committee's rental or sale of its mailing list, or an exchange of its mailing list with another entity, would be considered a contribution to that committee subject to the limitations and prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The proposed rules also address the personal use by a candidate of his or her authorized committee's mailing list. Finally, the proposed rules address the sale or rental of a mailing list by an authorized committee of a publicly funded presidential candidate. The Commission has not made any final decisions on any of the proposed revisions in this Notice. Further information is provided in the
Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2003. If the Commission receives sufficient requests to testify, it will hold a hearing on these proposed rules on October 1, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. Commenters wishing to testify at the hearing must so indicate in their written or electronic comments.
All comments should be addressed to Ms. Mai T. Dinh, Acting Assistant General Counsel, and must be submitted in either electronic or written form. Electronic mail comments should be sent to
Ms. Mai T. Dinh, Acting Assistant General Counsel, or Mr. Jonathan M. Levin, Senior Attorney, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.
One of the principal assets of many political committees is their mailing list. Political committees develop their mailing lists to ensure a high response rate from potential contributors. Several advisory
The Act defines the term “contribution” to include “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or
Proposed 11 CFR 110.21 would state when certain transactions involving the sale or rental of a mailing list by a political committee are contributions to that committee and when they are not. Proposed paragraph (a) would list the conditions that would need to be satisfied for a mailing list rental payment to not be a contribution by the person leasing the mailing list. Proposed paragraph (b) would incorporate similar conditions for the sale of mailing lists. Proposed paragraph (c) would explain the ramifications of failing to comply with proposed paragraphs (a) or (b). Reporting would be addressed in proposed paragraph (d). Transactions between a candidate and his or her authorized committee would be covered in proposed paragraph (e).
Proposed 11 CFR 110.21(a) would affirmatively allow political committees to rent their mailing lists to other persons, including other political committees. Further, it states that the rental payments would not be treated as contributions if certain conditions pertaining to the rental charge and use of the mailing list are met. These conditions are explained in detail below.
One of the key factors used by the Commission in determining whether a sale or rental of a mailing list results in a contribution is whether the amount paid is the usual and normal charge for the mailing list.
A mailing list that is frequently rented on the open market is likely to be listed and described in a catalogue such as the
Proposed 11 CFR 110.21(a)(1) would make ascertaining the usual and normal charge of a mailing list in advance one of the conditions that must be satisfied for the rental proceeds not to be contributions. This proposed regulation would not, however, define the factors that a committee should use to determine the usual and normal charge. Without any further specificity, the definition of “usual and normal charge” at 11 CFR 100.52(d)(2) and 100.111(e)(2) would apply. The Commission seeks comment on whether the rule in new 11 CFR 110.21 should specify the appropriate means for determining the usual and normal charge of a mailing list, and if so, whether this should be done by adding additional factors or in some other fashion. If the
The Commission also seeks comment on whether the political committee that wishes to rent its mailing list should have the burden of establishing what the usual and normal rental charge is and, if so, whether it should be required to do so prior to renting the list. In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on a proposed rule that would not specify who has the burden of establishing what the usual and normal charge is or when that charge must be established, but that would still require political committees to rent their mailing lists at the usual and normal charge in order to avoid receiving contributions from the lessees.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would also address the other services (
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) of 11 CFR 110.21 would require that the mailing list (or list portion) be rented at the usual and normal charge for the contracted use of the list in a
The Commission has relied on several signposts for ensuring that an arrangement between a political committee and another person constitutes a
To provide guidance on what constitutes commercially reasonable terms, proposed paragraph (a)(2) of new 11 CFR 110.21 would list three factors, although other factors could be considered as well. These factors are intended to ensure that the rental agreement provides that the lessee uses the mailing list in a manner comparable to the use in normal commercial transactions, thereby preventing transactions where the lessee attempts to make a contribution in the guise of a rental payment.
Two factors, in proposed paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii), would examine whether the rental agreement permits use within a specified time only and, if so, whether this specified time is a reasonable period of time. The inclusion of factors in proposed paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (ii) and (iv) is intended to ensure that actual use would occur and that delayed use would be based on reasonable business considerations, such as to avoid competing with a political committee solicitation to the same group of persons. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should define what is a “reasonable” period of time and, if so, how it should do so.
The other factor, at proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii), would focus on the number and types of uses by the person leasing the mailing list to ensure that the rental agreement represents a
The Commission seeks comment on the appropriateness of these factors and what other factors, if any, should be included. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the presence of a “
In addition, should proposed 11 CFR 110.21(a)(2) include a factor that considers whether a mailing list is developed over time by the political committee primarily for the political committee's own use? Conversely, should the proposed rules state that revenue generated from a mailing list that is owned by the political committee, but not developed over time by it for its own use, is not a form of fundraising, and therefore not a contribution? In AO 1991-34, the Commission stated that generally the use of a political committee's asset to generate income through ongoing business or commercial ventures is fundraising in another form. Consequently the proceeds from such ventures would be contributions. However, this advisory opinion also reiterated the Commission's statement in AO 1988-12 that if an asset such as a mailing list was developed by the political committee primarily for its own use and not as a fundraising activity, then income generated from that asset would not be contributions.
Lastly, while proposed paragraph (a)(4) would focus on the rental agreement, the proposed rule does not include provisions that would examine the conduct of the person leasing the mailing list once the rental has occurred, to verify that the person leasing the mailing list in fact uses the mailing list in accordance with the agreement. The Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed rules should include such a provision.
Proposed 11 CFR 110.21(b) would set forth the conditions under which the proceeds from the sale of a political committee's mailing list would not be a contribution by the purchaser to the political committee. Like proposed paragraph (a)(1), proposed paragraph (b)(1) would require that the political committee ascertain in advance the usual and normal charge for the sale of the mailing list. The political committee would also be required to sell the mailing list at that price under proposed paragraph (b). As in the case of charges for a list rental, the Commission seeks comment on whether the political committee that wishes to sell its mailing list should have the burden of establishing what the sale price is and, if so, whether it should be required to do so prior to selling the list. In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on a proposed rule that would not specify who has the burden of establishing what the usual and normal charge is or when that sales price must be established, but that would still require political committees to sell their mailing lists at the usual and normal charge in order to avoid receiving contributions from the purchasers.
Proposed paragraph (b) would also include the condition contained in proposed paragraph (a)(2) that the sale agreement be a
The Commission also seeks comment on whether it is usual and customary in the commercial list marketplace for one entity to provide raw list data to another entity that updates and enhances the data and where both entities consequently have access to the list. If so, comment is sought as to whether such a transaction is a commercially reasonable exchange of equal value that would not be an in-kind contribution.
The Commission understands that outright sales of lists are not common and that the sale price of a usable list would be substantially greater than a rental price. This is particularly true for political committees because they depend upon their mailing lists for the solicitation of funds. In advisory opinions approving the sale (as opposed to rental) of mailing lists, the Commission considered one situation involving a terminating committee, and another situation involving a committee of a Federal officeholder that was selling assets to his gubernatorial campaign committee. AOs 1989-4 and 1981-53. In contrast to a terminating committee, an ongoing political committee's sale of a valuable list in an arm's length transaction, for which it would normally be paid a price much greater than the rental price, would be unusual. The Commission seeks comment on whether its understandings as to the frequency of sales and the differences between sales prices and rental charges are correct. More specifically, the Commission also seeks comment as to the likelihood of, and the circumstances surrounding, an ongoing political committee selling its mailing list (as opposed to updating its current lists).
Related to comments on actual ongoing practices with respect to mailing lists, the Commission seeks comment on whether proposed 11 CFR 110.21(b) should contain a condition that the political committee must be preparing to terminate because the sale of a mailing list by an ongoing political committee is so unusual that it would be
Under proposed 11 CFR 110.21(c)(1), a transaction that does not comply with the conditions set forth in proposed paragraphs (a) or (b) would be fundraising, and thus would be treated as an in-kind contribution to the political committee, subject to the applicable limits and source prohibitions of the Act. The contribution amount would be the entirety of the rental or sales proceeds (not just the difference between the usual and normal charge and an amount paid that exceeds that charge). Treatment of the entire payment for a mailing list as a contribution would be consistent with 11 CFR 100.53, which states that “the entire amount paid as the purchase price for a fundraising item sold by a political committee is a contribution.” Nevertheless, the Commission seeks comment on including in proposed paragraph (c)(1) the opposite approach of setting the amount of the contribution as the amount paid that exceeds the usual and normal charge for the sale of the mailing list.
While proposed 11 CFR 110.21(c)(1) would address sale or rental of mailing lists at an amount that exceeds the usual and normal charge, proposed paragraph (c)(2) would retain the current rule at 11 CFR 100.52 for situations where a political committee donates or transfers its mailing list or rents or sells its mailing list at less than the usual or normal charge.
Proposed 11 CFR 110.21(d) would address situations where an authorized committee sells or rents its mailing list to the candidate who formed the authorized committee. The proposed rule would treat the amount paid by the candidate for the mailing list as a contribution from the candidate to the authorized committee in that amount. This provision would recognize that a transaction between these two parties is not at arm's length.
Proposed 11 CFR 110.21(e) would require that proceeds from the rental or sale of a mailing list that complies with the provisions of proposed section 110.21 be reported as “other receipts.”
Proposed 11 CFR 110.21(f) would set forth the recordkeeping requirements associated with the sale or rental of a political committee's mailing list. Proposed paragraph (f)(1) would require that political committees maintain and make available the sales or rental agreements. These agreements must be signed and dated. Proposed paragraph (f)(2) would require documentation of the usual and normal charge for a political committee's mailing list. For a mailing list that is listed in the
The Commission notes that in some cases a political committee's mailing list may be developed with non-Federal, as well as Federal funds, and that, under the proposed rule, the entire amount received from the rental or sale of the list may be deposited in the Federal account without being subject to the amount limitations and source
One possible allocation rule is that the Federal account may only accept and use the portion of the proceeds that reflects the Federal portion of the committee's cost in developing the list. Another possibility is that the Federal account may only accept and use the amounts corresponding to the Federal share of administrative expenses applicable to the political committee under 11 CFR 106.6(c) or 106.7(d)(2). This approach recognizes that the list's development may have been paid for as allocable administrative expenses. If such splitting of the deposit of the rent proceeds is required, comment is also sought on whether national party committees would be allowed to retain the entire amount of proceeds from the rental of lists developed with mixed funds prior to the effective date of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”), Pub. L. 107-155 (Mar. 27, 2002), in view of the fact that under BCRA they only have accounts with Federal funds.
The proposed new rules in 11 CFR 110.21 would apply in the same manner to both authorized and unauthorized committees,
The Commission has, in its advisory opinions, addressed list exchanges by political committees with other organizations and has concluded that where the exchange is for equal value, a contribution is not made to the political committee. AOs 1982-41 and 1981-46;
Proposed 11 CFR 110.22 would describe the conditions under which a political committee may exchange its mailing list with another organization without receiving a contribution, donation, or other reportable receipt. Proposed paragraph (a) would follow, in some respects, the proposed rules on mailing list rental and sale regarding the period of time and number of uses of the mailing list. It would treat the exchange as neither a contribution nor a reportable receipt if: (1) The usual and normal charge for the mailing list and the services ordinarily provided in the list exchange is ascertained in advance; (2) the mailing lists involved in the exchange are of equal value, as discussed below; and (3) the actual exchange is a
The Commission seeks comment on whether, and under what circumstances, multiple uses of a mailing list would be commercially reasonable; when delayed use would be reasonable; and whether the rule should address delayed use. Comment is also sought on how to determine the usual and normal charge, and whether the proposed rule should affirmatively mandate that the mailing lists be used in a manner consistent with the list exchange agreement. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the proposed rule should require that each party to the exchange establish the fair market value of its own list in advance in order to avoid treating the transaction as entailing an in-kind contribution. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the presence of a “
The Commission also seeks comment on whether the political committee's ability to use the names on the other organization's mailing list to solicit contributions to the Federal account is affected by whether funds from the committee's non-Federal account were used to develop the committee list. (
Another issue raised previously with respect to the sale of mailing lists may more appropriately relate to the exchange of lists. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether it is usual and customary in the commercial list marketplace for one entity to provide raw list data to another entity that updates and enhances the data and where both entities consequently have access to the list. If so, comment is sought as to whether such a transaction is a commercially reasonable exchange of equal value that would not be treated as an in-kind contribution.
Proposed 11 CFR 110.22(b) would address an exchange of mailing lists that does not comply with proposed paragraph (a). Where the value of the mailing list provided by the other person exceeds the value of the political committee's mailing list, only the excess amount is a contribution. This is in contrast to proposed 11 CFR 110.21(c), where the entire amount is a contribution. Also, while proposed 11 CFR 110.21 would treat a sale or rental of a mailing list at a charge that is greater than the usual or normal charge as a fundraising activity that is subject
Both 2 U.S.C. 439a, and the Commission's regulations at 11 CFR part 113, bar candidates and other persons from converting to personal use any contributions or donations. This ban is not limited to monetary contributions. Consequently, the Commission has interpreted the personal use ban to apply to assets of the principal or authorized campaign committee, as well as the actual funds in the committee accounts.
On some occasions, particularly after the end of his or her campaign, a candidate may wish to market the mailing list for the rental of names to other organizations and may wish to receive rental proceeds personally. These situations may raise questions as to whether the candidate has a personal ownership interest in the list. The candidate's receipt of proceeds from the rental or sale of the mailing list squarely presents the issue of whether the restrictions of 2 U.S.C. 439a apply. Proposed 11 CFR 113.2(d) would address this issue by explicitly banning the conversion to personal use of the mailing list itself, such as by barring a candidate from retaining the proceeds of a mailing list rental or sale.
In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on whether a candidate's receipt of proceeds from the rental or sale of a mailing list, or portions thereof, could be permissible under 2 U.S.C. 439a. If permissibility were based on a candidate's ownership of a list or a share of the mailing list, how would the candidate obtain such ownership interest? Could a candidate acquire personal ownership, through purchase or other consideration, of a mailing list developed by his or her principal campaign committee? Is the candidate's signature adequate consideration for candidate ownership of the resulting mailing list? Is such ownership interest assumed on some other basis? The Commission seeks comment on whether the determination of ownership of the mailing list should be premised on who or what entity (
The Commission also seeks comment on situations where the candidate owns a mailing list. If the authorized committee uses the mailing list, has it accepted a contribution from the candidate? How should the use be valued? Should the valuation be based on the sale or rental price for the mailing list? Additionally, how should this transaction be reported?
The proposed rules at 11 CFR 9004.9(d)(2)(i) and 9034.5(c)(2)(i) would include the mailing lists of an authorized committee of publicly financed presidential candidates as assets on the candidates' statements of net outstanding campaign obligations (“NOCO”) for the primaries and on the candidates' statements of net outstanding qualified campaign expenses (“NOQCE”) for the general election, under certain circumstances. Thus, the proposed rules would recognize a presidential campaign committee's use of its mailing list as an income producing asset and would provide that a committee may only rent or sell the mailing list if the list is included as an asset in the NOCO or NOQCE statements. However, the proposed rules at 11 CFR 9004.9(d)(2)(i) and 9034.5(c)(2)(i) would not require the publicly funded committee to include the list as an asset on the NOCO or NOQCE statements if it does not rent or sell the list.
Since 1976, the Commission has not required as a
The current rules list “capital assets” and “other assets” as types of assets listed on the NOCO and NOQCE statements. Unlike “other assets,” capital assets have special valuation rules accounting for depreciation. A mailing list developed by a political committee is usually a unique asset developed for the special needs of the committee, and the proposed rules would add mailing lists as a special category of assets. The proposed rules would not subject mailing lists to the depreciation rules for “capital assets.” The proposed rules at 11 CFR 9004.9(d)(3)(i) and 9034.5(c)(3)(i) explain that the list would be considered an “other asset;” therefore, it would be valued at “fair market value” without depreciation factored in. The proposed rules would give specific guidance as to the fair market value of a mailing list (discussed below).
As indicated above, the proposed rules in 11 CFR 9004.9(d)(3)(ii) and 9034.5(c)(3)(ii) would specify that the mailing list may be rented or sold only if its fair market value is listed on the NOCO and NOQCE statements. These proposed rules also would require that any such rental or sale be in compliance with the conditions of the proposed rule at 11 CFR 110.21, which describes when a committee may rent or sell a mailing list to others without the proceeds becoming contributions. Transfer of a mailing list from a candidate's primary committee to his or her general election committee would not require the principal campaign committee to include a value for its mailing list on its NOCO statement. However, the donation or transfer of the mailing list to another entity (including the candidate's general election committee, the candidate's general election legal and accounting compliance fund (GELAC) or a leadership PAC) would be
Finally, the proposed rules at 11 CFR 9004.9(d)(3)(iii) and 11 CFR 9034.5(c)(3)(iii) would explain how fair market value would be determined for purposes of the NOCO and NOQCE statements. The proposed rule would allow the presidential campaign committee renting or selling its list to have two choices. For primary candidates, the list would be valued at either: (1) the usual and normal rental revenue that the committee would receive if it rented the list to others over an 18 month period beginning on the date of ineligibility (“DOI”); or (2) the usual and normal sale price at DOI. For general election candidates, the list would be valued at either: (1) the usual and normal rental revenue over the 12-month period beginning on the date of the general election; or (2) the usual and normal sale price as of the date of the election.
Under these proposed rules, Presidential campaign committees would need to estimate the usual and normal rental revenue. This in turn would involve estimates as to how often the committee will rent out the mailing list over the applicable period, as well as the rental value of the list (
The proposed rules would provide for a limited time period for the measurement of the rental revenue,
In the case of either rental or sale, the NOCO and the NOQCE statement would be adjusted subsequently by the actual rental or sale price for the mailing list, similar to the practice of revising those statements to replace estimated winding down costs with actual cost figures. In the case of list rental, the final NOCO or NOQCE statement (which will most likely be filed after the expiration of the 18-month or one year period) would not reflect the anticipated rental figure. Instead, the actual rental proceeds would replace the estimated figure of the value of the mailing list. In the case of a sale, the estimated list sale amount would be replaced with the actual sale proceeds.
The Commission seeks comment on whether the value of mailing lists should be accounted for on the NOCO or NOQCE statements regardless of any subsequent use by the authorized committee. In the alternative, should they not be recognized on NOCO and NOQCE statements under any circumstances? The Commission also seeks comments on the appropriateness of the methods proposed for determining fair market value. Are the proposed 12-month and 18-month time periods for measuring rental value too long? Would they encourage activity by presidential campaign committees that is not consistent with winding down activities? In the alternative, should the time periods be different for some other reason? Should presidential campaigns be permitted to rent or sell their mailing lists regardless of whether such activity is related to winding down the campaign?
The Commission also seeks comment on whether the use of the sale price as of DOI is inappropriate if a list is not updated and is sold many months after DOI. Comment is also sought on what other valuation method should be applied to mailing lists for purposes of the NOCO and NOQCE statements.
The attached proposed rules, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis for this certification is that few, if any, small entities would be affected by these proposals, which apply only to Federal candidates, their campaign committees, party committees, and other political committees. Federal candidates, their committees, and party committees are not small entities under 5 U.S.C. 601 because they are not small businesses, small organizations, or small governmental jurisdictions. These rules are largely intended to adopt past Commission practice by clarifying the application of various provisions of the Act and presidential public financing statutes to mailing list transactions involving political committees and Federal candidates. Because the proposed rules would not significantly change current practice, those few proposals that might increase the cost of compliance by small entities would not do so in such an amount as to cause a significant economic impact.
Campaign funds, Political committees and parties.
Campaign funds.
Campaign funds.
Campaign funds, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Election Commission proposes to amend subchapters A, E, and F of chapter 1 of title 11 of the
1. The authority citation for part 110 would continue to read as follows:
2 U.S.C. 431(8), 431(9), 432(c)(2), 437d, 438(a)(8), 441a, 441b, 441d, 441e, 441f, 441g, 441h and 441k.
2. Sections 110.21 and 110.22 would be added to read as follows:
(a)
(1) Prior to the rental, the political committee ascertains the usual and normal rental charge for the mailing list (or the portion of the mailing list) rented, and other services provided in the ordinary course of business of the rental of such mailing lists (
(2) The mailing list or the portion of the list (along with the services provided in the ordinary course of business) is rented at the usual and normal charge, as defined in 11 CFR 100.52(d)(2), for the agreed upon use of the mailing list, including the frequency and duration of the use, in a
(i) Whether the person leasing the mailing list is permitted to use the list within a reasonable period of time only;
(ii) Whether any delayed use by the person leasing the mailing list, provided for in the agreement, is based on reasonable business considerations;
(iii) Whether the agreed upon use by the person leasing the mailing list, including the duration of the rental or number of uses, comports with the usual and normal practice of the list industry and the lessee's established procedures and past practice; and
(iv) Whether the person leasing the mailing list actually uses the list.
(b)
(c)
(2) For the donation or transfer of mailing lists or the sale or rental of mailing lists at less than the usual and normal charge,
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) All sales and rental agreements or contracts of its mailing list(s). The agreements must be signed and dated.
(2) Documentation of the usual or normal charge for its mailing lists in the following manner:
(i) If its mailing list is included in the
(ii) If its mailing list is not included in the
(a)
(1) The political committee ascertains in advance the usual and normal charge for the mailing lists, or the portions of the mailing lists, being exchanged and other services provided in the ordinary course of business for the exchange of the mailing lists (
(2) The exchange of the mailing lists is a
(3) An exchange of equal value takes place when:
(i) The usual and normal rental value for each mailing list, or portion of the mailing list being exchanged, and the agreed upon use for each mailing list, and the services provided in the ordinary course of business are of equal value; and
(ii) The agreement between the political committee and the other person provides that they each use the mailing list they receive within a commercially reasonable period of time. If the agreement provides for a future use by the political committee or the other person, the delay in the use of the mailing list must be based upon reasonable business considerations.
(b)
3. The authority citation for part 113 would continue to read as follows:
2 U.S.C. 432(h), 438(a)(8), 439a, and 441a.
4. In § 113.2, paragraph (d) would be added to read as follows:
(d)
5. The authority citation for part 9004 would continue to read as follows:
26 U.S.C. 9004 and 9009(b).
6. In § 9004.9, new paragraph (d)(3) would be added to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(3)
(ii) An authorized committee may sell or rent its mailing list only if—
(A) The fair market value of the mailing list is included on the candidate's statement of net outstanding qualified campaign expenses; and
(B) The sale or rental of the mailing list complies with 11 CFR 110.21.
(iii) The fair market value of an authorized committee's mailing list is either:
(A) The usual and normal rental revenue that the authorized committee would receive if it rented the list to others over the 12-month period beginning on the date of the general election; or
(B) The usual and normal sale price for the list as of the date of the general election.
7. The authority citation for part 9034 would continue to read as follows:
26 U.S.C. 9034 and 9039(b).
8. In section 9034.5, new paragraph (c)(3) would be added to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3)
(ii) An authorized committee may sell or rent its mailing list only if—
(A) The fair market value of the mailing list is included on the candidate's statement of net outstanding campaign obligations; and
(B) The sale or rental of the mailing list complies with 11 CFR 110.21.
(iii) The fair market value of an authorized committee's mailing list is either:
(A) The usual and normal rental revenue that the authorized committee would receive if it rented the list to others over the 18-month period beginning on the date of ineligibility; or
(B) The usual and normal sale price for the list as of the date of ineligibility.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 737-200 series airplanes modified by Supplemental Type Certificate ST00516AT (STC). This proposal would require removal of the in-flight entertainment (IFE) system installed per that STC. This action is necessary to eliminate the possibility that the airplane crew could be unable to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation, which could result in the airplane crew's inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by October 20, 2003.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-238-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Kosola and Associates, Inc., 5601 Newton Road, P.O. Box 3529, Albany, Georgia 31706. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia.
Myles Jalalian, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ACE-116A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone (770) 703-6073; fax (770) 703-6097.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-238-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently completed a review of in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems certified by supplemental type certificate (STC) and installed on transport category airplanes. The review focused on the interface between the IFE system and airplane electrical system, with the objective of determining if any unsafe conditions exist with regard to the interface. STCs issued between 1992 and 2000 were considered for the review.
The type of IFE systems considered for review were those that contain video monitors (cathode ray tubes or liquid crystal displays; either hanging above the aisle or mounted on individual seat backs or seat trays), or complex circuitry (
Items considered during the review include the following:
• Can the electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system be de-energized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing?
• Can IFE system power be removed when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (
• If the IFE system requires changes to flightcrew procedures, has the airplane flight manual (AFM) been properly amended?
• If the IFE system requires changes to cabin crew procedures, have they been properly amended?
• Does the IFE system require periodic or special maintenance?
In all, we reviewed approximately 180 IFE systems approved by STC. The review results indicate that potential unsafe conditions exist on some IFE systems installed on various transport category airplanes. These conditions can be summarized as:
• Electrical bus(es) supplying power to the IFE system cannot be de-energized when necessary without removing power from systems that may be required for continued safe flight and landing.
• Power cannot be removed from the IFE system when required without pulling IFE system circuit breakers (
• Installation of the IFE system has affected crew (flightcrew and/or cabin crew) procedures, but the procedures have not been properly revised.
As part of our review of IFE systems, we have determined that an unsafe condition exists on all Boeing Model 737-200 series airplanes modified by STC ST00516AT. The IFE system on these airplanes is connected to an electrical bus that cannot be deactivated without also removing power from airplane systems necessary for safe flight and landing. There is no other means to remove power from the IFE system. Additionally, the airplane manufacturer's published flightcrew and cabin crew emergency procedures do not advise that power cannot be removed from the IFE system. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the airplane crew's inability to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation, and consequent inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Kosola and Associates Service Bulletin 2002-1, dated July 16, 2003, which describes a procedure for removing the IFE system installed by STC ST00516AT. The procedure includes disconnecting the power line that leads from the IFE system control unit to the P6 panel, capping and stowing all related wiring or removing that wiring from the airplane, removing the IFE system circuit breaker from the P6 panel, and removing all components of the IFE system from the airplane. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously.
The FAA has previously issued several ADs that address unsafe conditions and require corrective actions similar to those that would be required by the proposed AD. These other ADs, and the airplane models and STCs to which they apply, are as follows:
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 (AMOCs). Because we have now included this material in part 39, only the office authorized to approve AMOCs is identified in each individual AD.
We have reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $60 per work hour to $65 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, has been revised to reflect this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.
There are approximately 4 Model 737-200 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 2 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $130, or $65 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed 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 proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to 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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
To eliminate the possibility that the airplane crew could be unable to remove power from the IFE system during a non-normal or emergency situation, which could result in the airplane crew's inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, remove the IFE system installed by STC ST00516AT per the procedure in Kosola and Associates Service Bulletin 2002-1, dated July 16, 2003. The procedure includes disconnecting the power line that leads from the IFE system control unit to the P6 panel, capping and stowing all related wiring or removing related wiring from the airplane, removing the IFE system circuit breaker from the P6 panel, and removing all components of the IFE system from the airplane.
(b) Removal of the IFE system installed by STC ST00516AT before the effective date of this AD per Kosola and Associates Service Bulletin 2002-1, dated June 5, 2002, is considered acceptable for compliance with paragraph (a) of this AD.
(c) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an IFE system approved by STC ST00516AT on any airplane.
(d) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.
In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Written or electronic comments must be received by December 3, 2003.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-132760-03), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604 Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-132760-03), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically directly to the IRS Internet site at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Amber Renee Cook or Marie C. Milnes-Vasquez at (202) 622-7530; concerning submission of comments, Treena Garrett at (202) 622-3401 (not toll-free numbers).
Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. Further, it is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these regulations will primarily affect affiliated groups of corporations that have elected to file consolidated returns, which tend to be larger businesses. Moreover, the number of taxpayers affected and the average burden are minimal. Accordingly, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department specifically request comments on the clarity of the proposed regulations and how they may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing will be published in the
Various personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in the development of these regulations.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.1502-28 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1502. * * *
1. Paragraph (b)(1) is revised.
2. The headings for paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(2)(i) are revised.
3. Paragraph (h)(2)(ii) is redesignated as paragraph (h)(2)(iii).
4. New paragraph (h)(2)(ii) is added.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
1. Paragraphs (b)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(vii) are revised.
2. Paragraph (h)(6) is redesignated as paragraph (h)(7).
3. New paragraph (h)(6) is added.
4. New paragraph (h)(8) is added.
The revision and additions read as follows:
1. Paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(C)(
2. Paragraph (b)(4)(vii) is added.
3. Paragraph (b)(5)(ii),
4. Paragraph (h)(7) is added.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and notice of public hearing.
In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Written or electronic comments must be received by December 3, 2003. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for December 10, 2003, at 10 a.m. must be received by November 19, 2003.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-141402-02), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-141402-02), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit electronic comments directly to the IRS Internet site at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Terrance McWhorter, 202-622-4970; concerning submissions of comments, Treena Garrett, 202-622-3401 (not toll-free numbers).
The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, W:CAR:MP:T:T:SP, Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by November 3, 2003. Comments are specifically requested concerning:
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Internal Revenue Service, including whether the information will have practical utility;
The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information (see below);
How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced;
How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of service to provide information.
The collection of information in this proposed regulation is in § 1.448-2T. This information is required to verify that an alternative nonaccrual-experience method of accounting selected and used by a taxpayer to compute the amount of its otherwise accruable income that will not be collected will, based on the taxpayer's experience, accurately reflect the amount of income that the taxpayer will not collect and will clearly reflect the taxpayer's experience under section 448(d)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code. The collection of information is mandatory. The likely recordkeepers are business or other for-profit institutions, and small businesses or organizations.
The estimated annual burden per recordkeeper varies from 1 to 5 hours, depending on individual circumstances, with an estimated average of 3 hours.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Section 448(d)(5) was added to the Code by section 801 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085) and was amended by section 403 of the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-147, 116 Stat. 21) (the 2002 Act), effective for taxable years ending after
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. It is hereby certified that the collection of information in these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based upon the fact that, as previously noted, the estimated burden associated with the information collection averages three hours per respondent. Moreover, for taxpayers who are eligible to use these regulations and who follow these regulations, any burden imposed on taxpayers due to the collection of information in these regulations will be outweighed by the benefit taxpayers will receive by accruing less income than otherwise would be required. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department specifically request comments on the clarity of the proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying.
A public hearing has been scheduled for December 10, 2003, beginning at 10 a.m. in the IRS Auditorium of the Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing,
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit electronic or written comments and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic (signed original and eight (8) copies) by November 19, 2003.
A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.
The principal author of these regulations is Terrance McWhorter, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.
This document contains a correction to a notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations that were published in the
Stephen Tackney at (202) 622-6030 (not a toll-free number).
The notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations that is the subject of this correction is under section 83 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.
Accordingly, the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-116914-03), that was the subject of FR Doc. 03-16787, is corrected as follows:
On page 39498, column 2, in the preamble under the paragraph heading “Special Analyses”, second line, the language “temporary regulations are not
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.
This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that was published in the
Lauren R. Taylor, (202) 622-3040, or Christopher J. Wilson, (808) 539-2874 (not a toll-free number).
The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that is the subject of this correction is under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Accordingly, the publication of the notice of proposed regulations and notice of public hearing (REG-131997-02), that was the subject of FR Doc. 03-16941, is corrected as follows:
1. On page 40218, column 3, in the preamble under the paragraph heading
2. On page 40222, column 2, § 1.42-12(a)(2), second paragraph, line 4 from the bottom, the language, “before these regulations are published as” is corrected to read “before the date these regulations are published as”.
3. On page 40222, column 2, § 1.42-12(a)(3), third paragraph, last line, the language, “effect on and before these regulations” is corrected to read “effect on and before the date these regulations”.
4. On page 40223, column 2, § 1.42-14(k)(2),
5. On page 40224, column 1, § 1.42-14(l)(1), “Effective dates”, line 2, the language, “Except as provided in paragraph (l)(2), is corrected to read “Except as provided in paragraph (l)(2) of this section,”.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in the
Marlene Oppenheim or Ross Poulsen at (202) 622-7770; concerning submission of comments and/or requests for a public hearing, Sonya Cruse, (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free number).
The notice of proposed rulemaking that is the subject of this correction is under section 1502 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Accordingly, the publication of the notice of proposed regulations (REG-130262-03), that was the subject of FR Doc. 03-17091, is corrected as follows:
1. On page 40579, column 3, under paragraph heading
2. On page 40580, column 2, § 1.1502-31(b)(2), lines 10 through 13, the language, “has, or would otherwise have, a basis determined in whole or in part by reference to the basis of the property exchanged for such stock is” is corrected to read “is, or would otherwise be, transferred basis property is”.
3. On page 40580, column 2, § 1.1502-31(d)(2)(ii), lines 14 through 18, the language, “change and the basis of such stock would otherwise be determined in whole or in part by reference to the basis of the property exchanged for such stock, only and allocable part of the basis” is corrected to read “change and such stock would otherwise be transferred basis property, only an allocable part of the basis”.
4. On page 40581, column 2,
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.
This document provides notice of cancellation of a public hearing on proposed regulations relating to the definition of private activity bond applicable to tax-exempt bonds issued by State and local governments.
The public hearing originally scheduled for Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 10 a.m., is cancelled.
Treena Garrett of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), (202) 622-3401 (not a toll-free number).
A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that appeared in the
The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Thursday, August 28, 2003, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, September 9, 2003, is cancelled.
Postal Rate Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document provides notice that the Commission is establishing a docket to address the first in a series of anticipated rulemakings concerning negotiated service agreement dockets. This initial rulemaking concerns baseline and functionally equivalent negotiated service agreements. It provides guidance to the Postal Service and others on the procedures the Commission proposes following for certain negotiated service agreement requests. It also establishes the organizational framework for the comprehensive set of rules. Adoption of these rules, with any revisions deemed appropriate after considering comments, will facilitate expeditious consideration of negotiated service agreements.
Initial comments due September 29, 2003; reply comments due October 14, 2003.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system, which can be accessed at
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202-789-6818.
In opinion and recommended decision, docket no. MC2002-2, (Opinion) the Commission made a commitment to initiate a series of rulemakings designed to facilitate consideration of Postal Service requests based on negotiated service agreements.
When the Postal Service filed its request of the United States Postal Service for a recommended decision on experimental changes to implement Capital One NSA (request), September 19, 2002, the Commission did not have procedural rules specifically tailored for consideration of negotiated service agreements. The Postal Service filed its request noting potential application of the Commission's rules for requests involving experimental changes. See rules 67-67d. Although the concept of a request based on a negotiated service agreement could be considered somewhat experimental, the functional elements of the request included features that were only of a limited experimental nature. See Opinion Chapter IV. Furthermore, the Commission's rules for experimental changes connote a standard of review and procedures appropriate for consideration of an experiment, which might not be appropriate for the review of a request based on a negotiated service agreement. Considering these issues and others that arose during the proceeding, such as initial intervention by parties to the negotiated service agreement and treatment of co-proponents discussed below, it became apparent that the process could be improved if the Commission's rules were revised specifically to accommodate consideration of negotiated service agreements.
The docket no. MC2002-2 experience provided the impetus for the Commission to propose rules specifically applicable to the review of Postal Service proposals based on negotiated service agreements. The goal of this rulemaking is foremost to develop rules to assure that Commission recommendations on proposals based on negotiated service agreements satisfy the requirements of the Act. The rules must balance the development of an adequate record against the burdens on
This rulemaking considers rules for reviewing Postal Service proposals based on baseline and functionally equivalent negotiated service agreements. The intent of the proposed rules for functionally equivalent negotiated service agreements is to reduce the procedural burden and expedite the proceeding otherwise applicable to a de novo review of a new or unique baseline negotiated service agreement.
The proposed rules do not include a definition for what qualifies as a functionally equivalent negotiated service agreement. The many possible forms and features that a negotiated service agreement can encompass make development of a universal definition of functional equivalency difficult, if not impossible. The proposed rules place the burden on proponents to explain why the newly proposed negotiated service agreement is functionally equivalent to a previously recommended negotiated service agreement.
The proposed rules begin with a definition of the term “negotiated service agreement.” The definition is necessary for distinguishing the applicability of the proposed rules from rules that cover other subject areas. Several concepts are important in the definition. First, a negotiated service agreement is a contract. Second, the terms and conditions of the contract apply only to the Postal Service and the specific mailer, or mailers, named in the contract. Third, the contract controls the provision of mailer-specific rates, fees, and/or postal services. Fourth, the duration of the contract must be defined in the contract.
The proposed amendments to rules 51 and 61 specify that Postal Service requests based on negotiated service Agreements, which otherwise would be considered pursuant to subparts B or C, shall instead be considered pursuant to subpart L.
Subsection (a) establishes that the rules proposed under subpart L, “Rules Applicable to Negotiated Service Agreements,” are applicable to Postal Service proposals based on negotiated service agreements. This subsection also incorporates subpart A, “Rules of General Applicability,” into subpart L.
Subsection (b) states the general policy considerations of the Commission to justify the need for the proposed rules for negotiated service agreements. These policy considerations do not supercede any provision of the Act, but merely highlight issues that the Commission will consider important when reviewing negotiated service agreements.
This subsection also expresses the Commission's strong preference that negotiated service agreements be limited in duration to three years or less. Negotiated service agreements by their nature have features that are discriminatory, and have the potential to cause harm to the marketplace.
The Commission's preference to place a limit on duration is also based on the concern that the interaction between negotiated service agreements and omnibus rate cases is not understood. Overall Postal Service costs and revenues are reviewed during every omnibus rate proceeding—which typically occur every three years. The methodology for incorporating the impact of negotiated service agreements into an omnibus rate case has not been developed. Furthermore, the effect of an omnibus rate case on a negotiated service agreement is not known. There is a potential that the impact of negotiated service agreements on overall costs and revenue, information that is required when considering an omnibus rate case, could perpetually escape review if not properly incorporated. While the preference for a maximum three-year duration does not fully address these concerns, it should at least help by placing bounds on the possible effects of negotiated service agreements which must be evaluated in future omnibus rate proceedings.
The preference for a three-year maximum duration contains two explanatory notes. The proposed subpart L contemplates a procedure for rapid and repeated renewals of a previously recommended negotiated service agreement. There is no known reason that a negotiated service agreement that is shown to benefit the Postal Service, meets the statutory requirements, and does not cause any undue harm, should not be allowed to be renewed indefinitely. The proposed rule also allows for the prompt review of a functionally equivalent negotiated service agreement. The intent of the rule is that the duration of the functionally equivalent negotiated service agreement should not be dependent on the duration of the underlying negotiated
Subsection (a) provides general instruction for filing whenever the Postal Service proposes changes to rates, fees, or the mail classification schedule based on a negotiated service agreement. The Postal Service is directed to clearly indicate whether its request is for the review of a baseline negotiated service agreement, the review of a functionally equivalent negotiated service agreement, the review of a renewal for an ongoing negotiated service agreement, or the review of a modification to an ongoing negotiated service agreement. This designation is used to trigger specific rules applicable to each type of request. After receiving the Postal Service's request, the Commission shall provide notice through the
Subsection (b) addresses procedural issues in regard to intervention and to the treatment of the proponents of the direct case. In docket no. MC2002-2, motions were filed requesting intervention of Capital One prior to public notice of the docket, and requesting submission of testimony out of turn. This was necessary to allow Capital One to submit direct testimony simultaneous with the Postal Service's direct testimony, and to be treated as a co-proponent with the Postal Service. The rules in proposed subsection (b) eliminate this motions practice. The Postal Service is required to identify all parties to the negotiated service agreement. Identification of the parties shall serve as an automatic notice of intervention. It also shall serve as notice that the identified parties are to be treated as co-proponents with the Postal Service in the proceeding.
Subsection (a) requires the filing of the Postal Service's and, if it is to be filed, its co-proponent's direct evidence simultaneous with the filing of the request. This subsection eliminates the need for a co-proponent to file a motion requesting that its direct testimony be accepted out of turn.
Subsection (b) requires the Postal Service to review and affirm that any direct evidence filed by a co-proponent can be relied on in concert with the Postal Service's direct evidence. Co-proponent testimony that is not consistent with the Postal Service's direct case would in effect be rebuttal testimony, and would be inappropriate as part of a direct case. It is expected that the co-proponents present a unified case. It is also expected that the Postal Service, as the lead proponent, understands and agrees with the parameters of all testimony presented in support of the direct case.
Currently, when the Postal Service requests a change in rates, fees or the mail classification schedule, it must file a request that conforms with the “contents of formal requests” requirements delineated in § 3001.54 and/or § 3001.64. The requirements direct the Postal Service to produce a large quantity of information. The relevance of the bulk of the information tends to vary in relation to the system-wide significance of the change being proposed. Typically, with more limited proposals, the Postal Service seeks a waiver requesting relief from providing material that is not relevant or not available in regard to that particular proposal. The intent of proposed rule 193 is to tailor the content requirements of rules 54 and 64 to what is necessary to support a proposal based on a negotiated service agreement. This should provide the Postal Service with better direction on what the Commission expects, and should eliminate most of the motions practice requesting waivers for material that is either not available or not relevant.
Subsection (a)(1) provides the general requirements for presentation of a direct case in support of a negotiated service agreement. This is substantively the same general requirement that the Postal Service complies with under rules 54 and 64.
Subsection (a)(2) specifies the procedure to request a waiver of a filing requirement in instances where otherwise required filing information is not available. The explanation accompanying the request for waiver will carry significant weight. The Commission expects that the Postal Service take reasonable steps to compile the necessary information, when practicable, or to take reasonable steps to develop reliable estimates of the required information. This rule recognizes that there might be instances where required information is just not available.
Subsection (a)(3) specifies the procedure to request a waiver of a filing requirement in instances where the Postal Service believes the provision of information is not required. This subsection is to be used where the requested information is considered not relevant to the proceeding, whether or not it is available.
In instances where a waiver is granted under subsection (a)(2) or (a)(3) for unavailable or not required information, subsection (a)(4) precludes future argument related to the absence of such information, except in extraordinary circumstances. Participants contending the absence of such information should bear on the merits of the proposal must demonstrate that the Postal Service was clearly unreasonable, or that there are other compelling or exceptional circumstances, that show why the absence of information that was alleged to be unavailable or not required should be used as a basis for rejection of the request.
Subsections (a)(5) and (a)(6) reserve the right of the Commission and the presiding officer to request whatever information that is deemed necessary to analyze the Postal Service's proposal in the process of issuing an opinion and recommended decision. If a participant contends that information not originally provided is now necessary to develop relevant and material analysis of the request, the burden shifts to the participant that now finds the information necessary to seek this information through discovery.
Subsection (b) requires that a copy of the negotiated service agreement be included with the request. In docket no. MC2002-2, a question arose whether the copy of the negotiated service agreement was or was not executed prior to filing. This occurred because the copy included with the request was not signed. The resolution of this issue favored by the Commission is to file an unsigned text file copy with the request, and not require the Postal Service to file an executed copy. The presumption will be that the Postal Service would not file a request without all parties in agreement to its terms and conditions, and that the parties other that the Postal Service would not support a request as co-proponents unless they agreed to
The intent of the Commission is to make the actual contracts publicly available on the Commission's Web site. The Postal Service should take this into consideration while constructing its contracts by avoiding use of what might be considered proprietary information. Public disclosure is necessary to curtail any claim of discrimination or secret dealing, to make the operations of the Postal Service more transparent, and most importantly, to provide other similarly situated mailers the opportunity to seek similar negotiated service agreements. Any request for protective conditions being placed on the contract itself will have to meet a high burden before being granted.
Subsection (c) requires the Postal Service to provide a statement describing and explaining the proposed changes to the domestic mail classification schedule and any associated rate schedule. This includes the actual proposed changes to the text of the domestic mail classification schedule, and any associated rate schedule, presented in legislative format. The requirements of this rule do not differ from similar rules that the Postal Service currently complies with when filing rate, fee, or classification requests.
Subsection (d) requires the Postal Service to describe the operative components of the negotiated service agreement. For instance, the Capital One NSA contained two operative components, the declining block discount component, and the return mail/address correction component. The level of detail provided with the Capital One NSA request and associated testimony was appropriate for meeting this requirement. This subsection generally requires the Postal Service to explain how the components work. There should be a detailed explanation of the actions required by the Postal Service and the actions required by the other co-proponents in implementing the agreement. There also should be an explanation of why each action has a benefit to each party, and an explanation of any risks. This is necessary to provide a fuller understanding of the benefits and risks of proceeding with the agreement.
This subsection also requires an explanation of the reasons and bases for including particular components in the agreement. In the case of agreements based on multiple components, it is expected that there be an explanation of why the components are proposed to be grouped together, and not offered separately. There also should be a discussion of any interactions between the components, where necessary. For example, with the Capital One NSA the block discount acted as an incentive to increase mail volume and as a method of returning to Capital One a portion of the savings earned through the address correction component.
Subsection (e) requires the Postal Service to provide a financial analysis of the proposed agreement. Several concepts are important in the proposed rule. The analysis is to be performed over the duration of the agreement, and for each year that the agreement is in effect. The analysis is to use mailer-specific information, where practical. Both before implementation and after implementation financial conditions must be analyzed. Finally, the proposed rule requires an analysis of the agreement's effect on institutional cost contributions.
In the Capital One NSA case, the Commission had no established guidelines for presenting a classification and rate request premised on a negotiated service agreement. There, the Postal Service used a test-year analysis method. Test-year analysis provides probative estimates for omnibus rate cases, however, it proved ill-suited to requests based on negotiated service agreements where the Postal Service is negotiating detailed custom agreements of specified duration.
The Postal Service is expected to understand the ramifications of its contract negotiations. One of the important issues that the Postal Service should be considering when entering into a new agreement is whether it will be financially better or worse off by entering into the agreement. Positive cash flow in the test-year, especially where the test-year is chosen to be the first year of a multi-year agreement, is not necessarily indicative of cash flow in the subsequent years. The test-year approach is the best way to estimate the vast number of aspects of national economic activities. For a limited participation, limited duration contract, good business practice dictates a more focused analysis. The Postal Service presumably will not make a determination based solely on a test-year analysis, nor should the Commission have to make a recommendation based on the limited insight provided by such an analysis.
The proposed rule provides that the Postal Service use mailer-specific information in its analysis, where practical. Using mailer-specific information should result in an analysis that more accurately represents the actual before and after financial effects of the negotiated service agreement on the Postal Service. Using system average information is less likely to give a true representation of the financial effects of the agreement, especially in cases where the mailer's characteristics do not coincide with the system-wide averages.
Use of mailer-specific information becomes more important where a facet of the agreement is based on the mailer deviating from the averages. For example, part of the justification for the Capital One NSA was Capital One's higher than average return rate. This information was vital in analyzing the benefit of the agreement to the Postal Service. Even more mailer-specific information than presented by the Postal Service would have been helpful in accurately analyzing the true costs that the Postal Service incurs in handling Capital One's mail.
The rule proposes that the Postal Service provide an initial analysis of cost, volume, and revenue assuming the rates and fees in effect absent the implementation of the negotiated service agreement. A second analysis is then required that assumes the implementation of the agreement. Each component or feature of the agreement should be independently analyzed in evaluating the overall financial impact. The results of the individual analyses should then be combined to provide an indication of the overall impact of the agreement on the finances of the Postal Service. When used in conjunction with the data collection plan, discussed below, this analysis also can form the basis for tracking the performance of the agreement.
Finally, the rule proposes that the Postal Service provide an analysis of the effect of the negotiated service agreement on contribution. This analysis should verify that the Postal Service will be no worse off as a result of the agreement. It should consider the effect on contribution from mailers that are not parties to the agreement. This is necessary to evaluate concerns raised by Professor Panzar in docket no. MC2002-2. Panzar discussed a potential problem where contribution to the Postal Service received from parties to an agreement increases, but the system-wide contribution might decrease due to competitive effects in the marketplace.
Subsection (f) requires the Postal Service to provide an estimate of the competitive effects of the negotiated service agreement on both the competitors of the Postal Service and on the competitors of the other co-proponents. The intent is to have a basis for analyzing the issues raised by Professor Panzar in docket no. MC2002-2. In instances where proposals are strictly cost-based, the competitive issues should take on less significance, with less of a filing burden encountered. In instances where proposals are not cost based, such as with a declining block discount proposal, the filing burden might be greater. Special studies might have to be considered to fully analyze these competitive issues.
An estimate of the impact of the agreement on mail users as a group also is required. It is important that mailers not be made worse off due to the implementation of a negotiated service agreement.
Subsection (g) requires the Postal Service to propose a data collection plan. The intent is not to burden the Postal Service with a data collection plan such as required for an experimental proposal. The intent is for a data collection plan to gather data that would typically be collected in the normal course of business, and that would be useful in making business decisions. The Postal Service should be collecting this data in any event for its own internal use and to determine the success or failure of the agreement. The Commission anticipates that the data will be necessary for consideration of future proposals. The data can be used to justify the renewal of an ongoing negotiated service agreement. It can be used to justify extending a similar agreement to a similarly situated mailer. It can be used if the Postal Service needs to propose modifications to the ongoing agreement. It also can be used, in general, to determine which characteristics of negotiated service agreements work, and which do not. This will be helpful to the Postal Service and the Commission in considering future proposals.
The proposed rule states that the data is to be reported on an annual or more frequent basis. Frequent data reports are not necessary if the data are only to be used to renew, extend to other participants, or modify existing agreements. It would only be necessary to be produced when those events occur. However, annual data reports will help the Commission gain a more real-time understanding of which types of agreements work, and which do not, such that the Commission can make more informed recommendations for future requests. More importantly, the Commission anticipates that methodologies will have to be developed for dealing with the interaction of ongoing negotiated service agreements and future omnibus rate cases. Periodic reporting of data should help in the development and implementation of those methodologies.
Subsections (h), (i), and (j) titled “Workpapers,” “Certification by officials,” and “Rejection of requests” parallel rule 54 subsections (o), (p), and (s) respectively, and require no further explanation.
The proposed rules balance the Commission's goal of considering negotiated service agreements in a timely manner against the requirement to develop an adequate record, and to consider the due process requirements of all participants. This section places the Postal Service on notice that failure to provide information necessary for the proceeding could result in the schedule being stayed until satisfactory compliance is achieved.
Subsection (a) begins by describing the applicability of § 3001.195 to Postal Service proposals based on baseline negotiated service agreements. It defines a baseline negotiated service agreement as a negotiated service agreement that is not predicated on a functionally equivalent negotiated service agreement currently in effect. This could include a new or unique negotiated service agreement that is being proposed for recommendation for the first time. It also could include a negotiated service agreement that could have been considered functionally equivalent to a previously recommended negotiated service agreement, but for the expiration of the previous negotiated service agreement. This category of negotiated service agreement is included because the rules for a functionally equivalent negotiated service agreement allow for reliance on evidence presented in the baseline docket. The passage of time after the expiration of an agreement (including the time that the agreement was in effect) potentially makes this evidence less reliable. Thus, a more comprehensive presentation is required.
In general, the Postal Service is required to respond to each element of § 3001.193 when submitting a request to consider a proposal based on a negotiated service agreement. In addition, subsection (a)(1) addresses an issue that is unique to consideration of a baseline negotiated service agreement. Subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) stress issues that the Commission would like the Postal Service to emphasize in its request.
Subsection (a)(1) requires the Postal Service to describe why the proposal is in the form of a negotiated service agreement as opposed to a less restrictive form of classification. The Commission's preference is to recommend classifications that are open to wide participation. Because negotiated service agreements are restrictive in participation, there is a potential for unwarranted discrimination. Proposals that exhibit unwarranted discrimination would not be fair and equitable under §§ 3622(b)(1) or 3323(c)(1), and could not be recommended. The response to this subsection will be used to analyze this issue.
Subsection (a)(2) requires the Postal Service to describe the operational bases of the negotiated service agreement. This requirement emphasizes that the Commission is interested in the specific details of the operational requirements placed on each party.
Subsection (a)(3) requires the Postal Service to describe the expectations of the parties regarding performance. This requirement emphasizes that the Commission is interested in the rationale for entering into the negotiated service agreement, and the anticipated future of the agreement.
Subsection (b) establishes the scheduling requirements for the Commission to consider Postal Service proposals predicated on baseline negotiated service agreements. The proposed scheduling requirement recognizes that a negotiated service agreement can take many forms, and may include unique and novel issues. Because of this, it is difficult to predict the duration of a proceeding before initial review of the actual request. A schedule will be established in each case, to allow for prompt issuance of a decision consistent with procedural fairness.
In general, the Postal Service is required to respond to each element of § 3001.193 when submitting a request to
Subsection (a) begins by describing the applicability of § 3001.196 to Postal Service proposals based on functionally equivalent negotiated service agreements. The purpose of proposing rules that expedite procedures for considering functionally equivalent negotiated service agreements is to assure that similarly situated mailers are given timely consideration and not placed at an undue disadvantage when seeking to secure a negotiated service agreement with the Postal Service.
Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) require the Postal Service to explain the similarities and differences between the functionally equivalent and baseline agreements. The Commission anticipates using this information to determine whether the proposal is in fact functionally equivalent to the proffered baseline agreement. This determination will bear on the decision of whether or not to proceed under § 3001.196. The comparison of similarities and differences will also alert the participants to areas of the agreement that may require closer inspection.
Assuming that the Postal Service is persuasive in arguing that its proposal is in fact functionally equivalent to an ongoing baseline agreement, subsection (a)(3) allows the Postal Service to cite and rely on record evidence from a baseline docket, or any other completed docket. It should be stressed that the Postal Service is expected to utilize this subsection as the primary method for expediting the procedural schedule. It is expected that the majority of the justification for the agreement has been filed in the baseline docket, and that much of this information will be applicable to the functionally equivalent docket. This should save the Postal Service time and effort by not having to recreate a substantial amount of evidence related to the agreement. If the proposed evidence has been litigated in a previous docket, there should be less need for discovery, or to litigate evidence in the new docket. Developing the record where possible in this fashion should save time and effort and help shorten the procedural schedule.
Subsection (a)(4) requires the Postal Service to provide any special studies pertinent to the negotiated service agreement. Consistent with the intent of focusing on the mailer-specific issues related to the functionally equivalent proposal, it is anticipated that special studies will analyze mailer specific information pertinent to the new proceeding, and thus should be highly relevant.
Subsection (a)(5) requires the Postal Service to identify circumstances that are unique to the new proceeding. While subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) focus more on the agreement itself, subsection (a)(5) focuses more on the mailer, and the specific interactions between the mailer and the Postal Service. This subpart will provide information relevant to the extent that the agreement is functionally equivalent to a baseline agreement. It will also provide mailer-specific information pertinent to the Commission's analysis.
The anticipated response to the subsection can best be explained by example. Using the Capital One NSA as a baseline, assume a functionally equivalent agreement for a mailer with one half the volume, and twice the return rate. The distinctive volume and return rate would be unique circumstances, which should be identified and discussed. A second example would be a description of the way that the second mailer prepares its mail versus the methods employed by Capital One.
Subsection (a)(6) provides the Postal Service with an opportunity to propose limiting issues to be considered in the proceeding. The responses to subsections (a)(1) through (a)(5) above should have provided the framework for identifying the relevant issues. The proposal to limit issues should focus the proceeding on relevant issues, and suggest elimination of issues that have been previously determined or that are outside the scope of the proceeding. The goal is to aid in expediting the procedural schedule. However, the Postal Service should not seek to avoid presenting the financial impact of the Negotiated Service Agreement over the duration of the agreement, or discussing the fairness and equity issues necessary for the Commission's consideration. These issues are material and relevant to every proceeding.
Subsection (b) requires the Postal Service to provide written notice of its request to certain participants. This is in addition to the requirement of providing notice by posting on the Commission's web site. The purpose of this is to reduce the potential for participants to allege that notice was inadequate. This purpose should be considered in light of the Commission's intent to limit the time period for intervention in functionally equivalent proceedings. Presumably, parties will be familiar with the nuances of the agreement through the baseline agreement proceeding and will need less time to consider whether or not to intervene. Limiting the intervention period will help expedite consideration of requests under this rule.
Subsections (c) and (d) establish the procedures for considering Postal Service proposals based on functionally equivalent negotiated service agreements. The schedule is expedited based on the assumption that the new proposal is functionally equivalent to a previously recommended negotiated service agreement, for which a Commission record has been developed that can be relied on in the new docket. If it is determined that the proposal does not represent a request for a functionally equivalent negotiated service agreement, § 3001.195 will become applicable.
The Commission will promptly determine, on the basis of materials submitted with the request, and argument presented at or before the initial pre-hearing conference, whether or not it is appropriate to proceed under the rules for functionally equivalent negotiated service agreements. If it is appropriate and no hearing is held, a schedule will be established which allows for a recommended decision to be issued not more than 60 days after determination is made to proceed under the functional equivalency rules. If it is appropriate and a hearing is scheduled, a schedule will be established which allows for a recommended decision to be issued not more than 120 days after determination is made to proceed under the functional equivalency rules.
Where there is no need to expand on the previous record other than to enter evidence pertinent to the specifics of the new proposal, and where no issues warrant further exploration, the issuance of the recommended decision could occur within 10 days of the determination to proceed under the rules for functionally equivalent negotiated service agreements. In such cases, the Postal Service practice of negotiating a stipulation and agreement, which typically helps narrow the issues
Proposed §§ 3001.197 and 3001.198 are reserved for use in future rulemakings governing specific rules for renewal and modifications of negotiated service agreements.
By this order, the Commission hereby gives notice that comments from interested persons concerning the proposed amendments to the Commission's rules are due on or before September 29, 2003. Reply comments may also be filed and are due October 14, 2003.
In conformance with § 3624(a) of title 39, the Commission designates Shelley S. Dreifuss, director of the Commission's office of the consumer advocate, to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding. Pursuant to this designation, Ms. Dreifuss will direct the activities of Commission personnel assigned to assist her and, upon request, will supply their names for the record. Neither Ms. Dreifuss nor any of the assigned personnel will participate in or provide advice on any Commission decision in this proceeding.
1. Docket No. RM2003-5 is established to consider Commission rules applicable to Postal Service proposals requesting Commission review of baseline negotiated service agreements and negotiated service agreements that are functionally equivalent to previously recommended negotiated service agreements.
2. Interested persons may submit comments no later than September 29, 2003.
3. Reply comments also may be filed and are due October 14, 2003.
4. Shelley S. Dreifuss, director of the office of the consumer advocate, is designated to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice of proposed rulemaking in the
By the Commission.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend 39 CFR part 3001 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 3001 continues to read as follows:
39 U.S.C. 404(b); 3603; 3622-24, 3661, 3663.
2. Amend § 3001.5 by adding new paragraph (r) to read as follows:
(r)
3. Revise § 3001.51 to read as follows:
The rules in this subpart govern the procedure with regard to requests of the Postal Service pursuant to § 3622 of the Act that the Commission submit a recommended decision on changes in a rate or rates of postage or in a fee or fees for postal service if the Postal Service determines that such changes would be in the public interest and in accordance with the policies of the Act. The Rules of General Applicability in Subpart A of this part are also applicable to proceedings on requests subject to this subpart. For requests of the Postal Service based on Negotiated Service Agreements, the rules applicable to negotiated service agreements, Subpart L, supersede the otherwise applicable rules of this subpart.
4. Revise § 3001.61 to read as follows:
The rules in this subpart govern the procedure with regard to requests of the Postal Service pursuant to § 3623 of the Act that the Commission submit a recommended decision on establishing or changing the mail classification schedule. The Rules of General Applicability in Subpart A of this part are also applicable to proceedings on requests subject to this subpart. For requests of the Postal Service based on Negotiated Service Agreements, the Rules Applicable to Negotiated Service Agreements, Subpart L, supersede the otherwise applicable rules of this subpart.
5. Amend Part 3001 by adding Subpart L—Rules Applicable to Negotiated Service Agreements to read as follows:
(a) The rules in this subpart govern requests of the Postal Service for recommended decisions pursuant to § 3622 or § 3623 that are based on Negotiated Service Agreements. The Rules of General Applicability in subpart A of this part are also applicable to proceedings on requests subject to this subpart. The requirements and procedures specified in these sections apply exclusively to requests predicated on Negotiated Service Agreements, and except where specifically noted, do not supersede any other rules applicable to Postal Service requests for recommendation of changes in rates or mail classifications.
(b) In administering this subpart, it shall be the policy of the Commission to recommend Negotiated Service Agreements that are consistent with statutory criteria, and benefit the Postal Service, without causing unreasonable harm to the marketplace. Except in extraordinary circumstances and for
(1) The renewal of the terms and conditions of a previously recommended Negotiated Service Agreement,
(2) Recommendation of a Negotiated Service Agreement that is functionally equivalent to a previously recommended Negotiated Service Agreement,
(a) Whenever the Postal Service proposes to establish or change rates or fees and/or the mail classification schedule based on a Negotiated Service Agreement, the Postal Service shall file with the Commission a formal request for a recommended decision. The request shall clearly state whether it is a request for a recommended decision pursuant to:
(1) The review of a baseline Negotiated Service Agreement,
(2) The review of a Negotiated Service Agreement that is functionally equivalent to a previously recommended Negotiated Service Agreement,
(3) The renewal of the terms and conditions of a previously recommended Negotiated Service Agreement,
(4) The modification of the terms and conditions of a previously recommended Negotiated Service Agreement,
(b) The Postal Service shall clearly identify all parties to the Negotiated Service Agreement. Identification by the Postal Service shall serve as Notice of Intervention for such parties. Parties to the Negotiated Service Agreement are to be considered co-proponents, procedurally and substantively, during the Commission's review of the proposed Negotiated Service Agreement.
(a) Simultaneously with the filing of the formal request for a recommended decision under this subpart, the Postal Service and its co-proponents shall file all of the prepared direct evidence upon which they propose to rely in the proceeding on the record before the Commission to establish that the proposed Negotiated Service Agreement is in the public interest and is in accordance with the policies and the applicable criteria of the Act. Such prepared direct evidence shall be in the form of prepared written testimony and documentary exhibits, which shall be filed in accordance with § 3001.31.
(b) Direct evidence may be filed in support of the Negotiated Service Agreement prepared by, or for, any party to the Negotiated Service Agreement. Direct evidence in support of the Negotiated Service Agreement prepared by, or for, any party to the Negotiated Service Agreement shall not be accepted without prior Postal Service review. The Postal Service shall affirm that the Postal Service has reviewed such testimony and that such testimony may be relied upon in presentation of the Postal Service's direct case.
(a)
(2) If any information required by paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section is not available and cannot be made available without undue burden, the request shall include a request for waiver of that requirement supported by a statement explaining with particularity:
(i) The information which is not available or cannot be made available without undue burden;
(ii) The reason or reasons that each such item of information is not available and cannot be made available without undue burden;
(iii) The steps or actions which would be needed to make each such item of information available, together with an estimate of the time and expense required therefor;
(iv) Whether it is contemplated that each such item of information will be supplied in the future and, if so, at what time; and
(v) Whether sufficiently reliable estimates are available to mitigate the need for such information, and if so, the specifics of such estimates.
(3) If the Postal Service believes that any of the data or other information required to be filed under § 3001.193 should not be required in light of the character of the request, it shall move for a waiver of that requirement, stating with particularity the reasons why the character of the request and its circumstances justify a waiver of the requirement.
(4) Grant of a waiver under (a)(2) or (a)(3) will be grounds for excluding from the proceeding a contention that the absence of the information should form a basis for rejection of the request, unless the party desiring to make such contention:
(i) Demonstrates that, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, it was clearly unreasonable for the Postal Service to propose the change in question without having first secured the information and submitted it in accordance with § 3001.193; or
(ii) Demonstrates other compelling and exceptional circumstances requiring that the absence of the information in question be treated as bearing on the merits of the proposal.
(5) The provisions of paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section for the Postal Service to include in its formal request certain alternative information in lieu of that specified by paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section are not in derogation of the Commission's and the presiding officer's authority, pursuant to §§ 3001.23 through 3001.28, respecting the provision of information at a time following receipt of the formal request.
(6) The Commission may request information in addition to that required by paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Be performed over the duration of the agreement, and for each individual year that the agreement is in effect;
(2) Provide such detail that the analysis of each component of a Negotiated Service Agreement can be independently reviewed;
(3) Be prepared in sufficient detail to allow independent replication, including citation to all referenced material;
(4) Include an analysis, which sets forth the estimated mailer-specific costs, volumes, and revenues of the Postal Service for each year that the Negotiated Service Agreement is to be in effect assuming the then effective postal rates and fees absent the implementation of the Negotiated Service Agreement;
(5) Include an analysis which sets forth actual and estimated mailer-specific costs, volumes, and revenues of the Postal Service which result from implementation of the Negotiated Service Agreement;
(6) Include a discussion of the effects of the Negotiated Service Agreement on contribution to the Postal Service (including consideration of the effect on contribution from mailers who are not parties to the agreement);
(7) Utilize mailer-specific costs, and provide the basis used to determine such costs, including a discussion of material variances between mailer-specific costs and system-wide average costs; and
(8) Utilize mailer-specific volumes and elasticity factors, and provide the bases used to determine such volumes and elasticity factors. If mailer-specific costs or elasticity factors are not available, the bases of the costs or elasticity factors that are proposed shall be provided, including a discussion of the suitability of the proposed costs or elasticity factors as a proxy for mailer-specific costs or elasticity factors.
(f)
(1) Competitors of the parties to the Negotiated Service Agreement other than the Postal Service;
(2) Competitors of the Postal Service; and
(3) Mail users.
The Postal Service shall include a copy of any completed special studies that were used to make such estimates. If special studies have not been performed, the Postal Service shall state this fact and explain the alternate bases of its estimates.
(g)
(h)
(1) Whenever the Service files a formal request it shall accompany the request with seven sets of workpapers, five for use by the Commission staff and two which shall be available for use by the public at the Commission's offices.
(2) Workpapers shall contain:
(i) Detailed information underlying the data and submissions for paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section;
(ii) A description of the methods used in collecting, summarizing and expanding the data used in the various submissions;
(iii) Summaries of sample data, allocation factors and other data used for the various submissions;
(iv) The expansion ratios used (where applicable); and
(v) The results of any special studies used to modify, expand, project, or audit routinely collected data.
(3) Workpapers shall be neat and legible and shall indicate how they relate to the data and submissions supplied in response to paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section.
(4) Workpapers shall include citations sufficient to enable a reviewer to trace any number used but not derived in the associated testimony back to published documents or, if not obtained from published documents, to primary data sources. Citations shall be sufficiently detailed to enable a reviewer to identify and locate the specific data used,
(i)
(2) The certificates required by paragraph (j)(1) of this section shall be signed by one or more representatives of the Postal Service authorized to make such certification. The signature of the official signing the document constitutes a representation that the official has read the document and that, to the best of his/ her knowledge, information and belief, every statement contained in the instrument is proper.
(j)
If the Postal Service fails to provide any information specified by this subpart, or otherwise required by the presiding officer or the Commission, the Commission, upon its own motion, or upon motion of any participant to the proceeding, may stay the proceeding until satisfactory compliance is achieved. The Commission will stay proceedings only if it finds that failure to supply adequate information interferes with the Commission's ability promptly to consider the request and to conduct its proceedings with expedition in accordance with the Act.
(a) This section governs Postal Service requests for a recommended decision in regard to a baseline Negotiated Service Agreement,
(1) A written justification for requesting a Negotiated Service Agreement classification as opposed to a more generally applicable form of classification;
(2) A description of the operational bases of the Negotiated Service Agreement, including activities to be performed and facilities to be used by both the Postal Service and the mailer under the agreement; and
(3) A statement of the parties' expectations regarding performance under the Negotiated Service Agreement, including the possibility of cancellation or re-negotiation of the agreement, and the perceived potential for renewal of the agreement for an additional period.
(b) The Commission will treat requests predicated on a baseline Negotiated Service Agreement as subject to the maximum expedition consistent with procedural fairness. A schedule will be established, in each case, to allow for prompt issuance of a decision.
(a) This section governs Postal Service requests for a recommended decision in regard to a Negotiated Service Agreement that is proffered as functionally equivalent to a Negotiated Service Agreement previously recommended by the Commission and currently in effect. The previously recommended Negotiated Service Agreement shall be referred to as the baseline agreement. The purpose of this section is to establish procedures that provide for accelerated review of functionally equivalent Negotiated Service Agreements. The Postal Service request shall include:
(1) A detailed description of how the proposed Negotiated Service Agreement is functionally equivalent to the baseline agreement;
(2) A detailed description of how the proposed Negotiated Service Agreement is different from the baseline agreement;
(3) Identification of the record testimony from the baseline agreement docket, or any other previously concluded docket, on which the Postal Service proposes to rely, including specific citation to the locations of such testimony;
(4) Any available special studies developing information pertinent to the proposed Negotiated Service Agreement;
(5) If applicable, the identification of circumstances unique to the request; and
(6) If applicable, a proposal for limitation of issues in the proceeding, except that the following issues will be relevant to every request predicated on a functionally equivalent Negotiated Service Agreement:
(i) The financial impact of the Negotiated Service Agreement on the Postal Service over the duration of the agreement;
(ii) The fairness and equity of the Negotiated Service Agreement in regard to other users of the mail; and
(iii) The fairness and equity of the Negotiated Service Agreement in regard to the competitors of the parties to the Negotiated Service Agreement.
(b) When the Postal Service submits a request predicated on a functionally equivalent Negotiated Service Agreement, it shall provide written notice of its request, either by hand delivery or by First-Class Mail, to all participants in the Commission docket established to consider the baseline agreement.
(c) The Commission will schedule a prehearing conference for each request. Participants shall be prepared to address whether or not it is appropriate to proceed under § 3001.196 at that time. After consideration of the material presented in support of the request, and the argument presented by the participants, if any, the Commission shall promptly issue a decision on whether or not to proceed under § 3001.196. If the Commission's decision is to not proceed under § 3001.196, the docket will proceed under § 3001.195.
(d) The Commission will treat requests predicated on functionally equivalent Negotiated Service Agreements as subject to accelerated review consistent with procedural fairness. If the Commission determines that it is appropriate to proceed under § 3001.196, a schedule will be established which allows a recommended decision to be issued not more than:
(1) 60 days after the determination is made to proceed under § 3001.196, if no hearing is held; or
(2) 120 days after the determination is made to proceed under § 3001.196, if a hearing is scheduled.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The KCAPCD revisions concern the emission of particulate matter (PM-10) from agricultural burning and prescribed burning. The SJVUAPCD revision concerns the emission of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from lime kilns. We are proposing to approve local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by October 6, 2003.
Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105;
You can inspect a copy of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see a copy of the submitted rule revisions and TSDs at the following locations:
A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at
Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; (415) 947-4118.
This proposal addresses the approval of local KCAPCD Rule 417 and SJVUAPCD Rule 4313. In the Rules section of this
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has submitted the following information collection to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for USAID, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington DC 20503. Copies of submission may be obtained by calling (202) 712-1365.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of funding to implement the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Land Contract Guarantee Pilot Program as required by section 310 F of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (Act). This section directs the Secretary to establish a pilot program to provide guarantees of loans made by private sellers of a farm or ranch on a contract land sale basis to qualified beginning farmers or ranchers.
This notice describes the eligibility and application requirements for the pilot program and the criteria that the Farm Service Agency (FSA) will consider in evaluating requests for guarantees under the program. The notice also describes actions that FSA will take if a buyer fails to pay on the contract.
FSA will begin accepting applications on September 4, 2003. Comments on the information collection associated with this notice must be received on or before November 3, 2003, to be given full consideration.
General information and the application form may be obtained from the FSA Web site at
Kathy Zeidler, Senior Loan Officer, or Galen VanVleet, Senior Loan Officer, USDA, FSA, Farm Loan Programs Loan Making Division, STOP 0522, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0522; telephone (202) 720-5199; e-mail:
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
The environmental impacts of this notice have been considered in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321,
A request for emergency clearance of the information collections associated with this notice was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) per 5 CFR 1320.13(a)(2)(iii). The Agency's information collection requirements, currently approved under OMB control numbers 0560-0154, 0560-0155, 0560-0166, 0560-0178, and 0575-0147, are not affected by this notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FSA will provide a regular submission of the information collection package to OMB at the end of the comment period announced in this notice:
Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of burden; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden collection on those who are to respond, including through use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments should be addressed to Kathy Zeidler, Senior Loan Officer, USDA, FSA, Farm Loan Programs Loan Making Division, STOP 0522, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0522. A comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 60 days of publication of this notice. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses, will be a matter of public record. Copies of the submission may be obtained from Kathy Zeidler by calling (202) 720-5199.
During FY 2003-2007 limited funds will be available for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Land Contract Guarantee Pilot Program. The pilot program will be implemented in the following States: Indiana, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Iowa. In each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007, depending on the availability of appropriations, up to five loans made by a private seller of a farm or ranch to a qualified beginning farmer or rancher on a land contract basis will be guaranteed in each of the pilot States. The intent of the pilot program is to determine if land contracts are a viable alternative for facilitating land transfers to beginning farmers and ranchers.
To the extent possible, the underwriting criteria of FSA's guaranteed loan program have been adopted. However, the structure of the loan guarantee under the pilot program is significantly different from FSA's existing guaranteed loan program, which compensates lenders for a percentage of the total loss of principal and interest suffered. Loss claim payments under the existing guaranteed program are made following liquidation of the loan and all collateral. The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Land Contract Guarantee Pilot Program will be structured to provide the seller of the land a “prompt payment” guarantee of the sale to the beginning farmer or rancher (buyer). FSA will provide a 10-year guarantee of two amortized annual installments, or an amount up to the total monetary amount of two amortized annual installments, on a land contract (
In the event that the buyer does not pay an annual installment due on the contract, or pays only part of an installment on the contract, the seller must take immediate action to enforce the terms of the contract and collect the defaulted amount from the buyer. At a minimum, the seller must make written demand on the buyer for payment of the defaulted amount. In the event that the buyer does not pay the defaulted amount within 30 days of the seller's written demand, the seller will make demand upon the Agency to pay the defaulted amount. The Agency will remit payment to the seller via the escrow agent and pursue collection of the defaulted installment amount from the buyer using all available means, including establishing repayment terms and administrative and Department of Treasury offset.
The guarantee will terminate if (1) the contract is paid in full; (2) the Agency pays two annual installments, or the total monetary amount of two installments; (3) the seller fails to seek payment of a defaulted installment from the buyer or does not otherwise enforce the terms of the contract; or (4) the seller terminates the contract. If none of these events occur, the guarantee will automatically terminate 10 years from the effective date of the guarantee.
(a) Has not operated a farm or ranch or who has operated a farm or ranch for not more than 10 years. This requirement also applies to all entity members;
(b) will materially and substantially participate in the operation of the farm or ranch.
(c) In the case of a loan made to an individual, individually or with the immediate family, material and substantial participation requires that the individual provide substantial day-to-day labor and management of the farm or ranch, consistent with the practices in the county or State where the farm is located.
(d) In the case of a loan to an entity, all members must materially and substantially participate in the operation of the farm or ranch. Material and substantial participation requires that the members provide some amount of the management, or labor and management, necessary for day-to-day activities, such that if the members did not provide these inputs, operation of the farm or ranch would be seriously impaired;
(e) agrees to participate in any loan assessment and financial management programs required by the Agency;
(f) does not own real farm or ranch property or who, directly or through interests in family farm entities, own real farm or ranch property, the aggregate acreage of which does not exceed 30 percent of the average farm or ranch acreage of the farms or ranches in the county where the property is located. If the farm is located in more than one county, the average farm acreage of the county where the buyer's residence is located will be used in the calculation. If the buyer's residence is not located on the farm, or if the buyer is an entity, the average farm acreage of the county where the major portion of
(g) demonstrates that the available resources of the buyer and spouse (if any) are not sufficient to enable the buyer to enter or continue farming or ranching on a viable scale;
(h) in the case of an entity, all the members are related by blood or marriage and all of the stockholders in a corporation are qualified beginning farmers or ranchers.
(a) Been the owner, manager or operator of a farm business for the year's complete production and marketing cycle as evidenced by tax returns, FSA farm records or similar documentation;
(b) been employed as a farm manager or farm management consultant for the year's complete production and marketing cycle; or
(c) participated in the operation of a farm by virtue of being raised on a farm or worked on a farm with significant responsibility for the day-to-day decisions for the year's complete production and marketing cycle.
Buyers and sellers can appeal adverse decisions made by the Agency in accordance with 7 CFR part 11.
(a) Sellers who contact FSA with an interest in a guarantee under the pilot program will be sent a letter outlining specific program details and benefits. To formally request a guarantee on their proposed land contract, sellers must sign and date this letter and return it to FSA. The signed and dated letter will be considered the seller's application for guarantee. FSA also may require the seller to submit other information necessary to process the guarantee.
(b) The prospective buyer must submit the following items to FSA:
(1) A completed form FSA-1980-25, “Application for Guarantee.”
(2) A brief written description of the buyer's farm training and/or experience.
(3) Income tax or other financial records acceptable to FSA from the past three years.
(4) Three years of production history immediately preceding the year of application, or the number of years available if the applicant has been farming less than three years.
(5) A brief written description of the proposed operation.
(6) Verification of off-farm employment and other non-farm income, if any. This will be required only when the buyer is relying on off-farm income to develop a feasible plan.
(7) Projected production, income and expenses, financial statement, and plan of operation, which may be submitted on Form FSA-431-2, “Farm and Home Plan,” or other similar plan of operation acceptable to FSA. The buyer may request Agency assistance in completing the plan.
(8) Applicable items required in 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G or its successor regulation.
(9) A copy of the proposed land contract to be entered into with the seller.
(10) Form FSA-440-32, “Request for Statement of Debts and Collateral,” or similar documentation, for all debts in excess of $1000.00.
(11) A credit report fee.
(12) Entity applicants must submit additional information for each entity member. The application must contain each entity member's name, address, Social Security number, percent ownership interest in the entity, and a current balance sheet.
(13) Any other documents required by the Agency and needed to process the application.
(c) If the buyer or seller propose to use a particular escrow agent for the land contract sale, they will provide the agent's name, address, and telephone number to the Agency.
(d) All forms listed are available at any FSA office or on the FSA Web site at
(a) Buyers must meet the following requirements to be eligible:
(1) The buyer must be a beginning farmer or rancher and must be the owner and operator of a family farm after the contract is completed. See paragraph IV. (b) for owner and operator requirements for entity buyers.
(2) The buyer must have participated in the business operations of a farm or ranch for at least three years.
(3) The buyer and anyone who will execute the Loan Payment Guarantee Agreement and Contract Modification
(4) When the guarantee is issued, the buyer and anyone who will execute the Agreement as the buyer must not be delinquent on any Federal debt, other than a debt under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, nor be a Federal judgment debtor on a non-tax debt.
(5) The buyer must be a citizen of the United States, United States non-citizen national, or a qualified alien under applicable Federal immigration laws. If the buyer is an entity, the majority of the entity must be owned by members meeting the citizenship test.
(6) The buyer and anyone who will execute the Agreement as the buyer must possess the legal capacity to enter into a legally binding agreement.
(7) The buyer, in past or present dealings with the Agency, must not have provided the Agency with false or misleading documents or statements.
(8) The buyer and anyone who will execute the Agreement as the buyer must not have been convicted of planting, cultivating, growing, producing, harvesting, or storing a controlled substance under Federal or State law within the last five crop years. “Controlled substance” is defined at 21 CFR 1308. Buyers must certify on the application that the buyer has not been convicted of such a crime within the relevant period.
(9) The buyer and anyone who will execute the Agreement as the buyer must have an acceptable credit history demonstrated by satisfactory debt repayment. A history of failures to repay past debts as they came due (including debts to the Internal Revenue Service) when the ability to repay was within their control will demonstrate an unacceptable credit history. Unacceptable credit history will not include isolated instances of late payments (which do not represent a pattern and were clearly beyond their control) or the lack of a credit history.
(10) The buyer must be unable to obtain sufficient credit elsewhere without a guarantee to finance actual needs at reasonable rates and terms.
(b) For entity buyers, the following additional eligibility criteria apply:
(1) The collective ownership interest of all entity members may exceed the family farm definition limits only if all of the entity members are related by blood or marriage, all of the entity members are or will be operators of the farm, and the majority interest holders meet the above requirements relating to citizenship, false or misleading information, credit history, and operation and ownership of the farm or ranch.
(2) Each entity member's ownership interest may not exceed the family farm definition.
(3) The entity must be controlled by farmers or ranchers engaged primarily and directly in farming or ranching in the United States after the guarantee is issued; and
(4) The entity members can not be entities themselves.
(5) The entity must be authorized to own and operate a farm in the State(s) in which the farm is located.
(6) If the entity members holding a majority interest are related by blood or marriage, at least one member of the entity also must operate the family farm and at least one member of the entity must own the family farm.
(7) If the entity members holding a majority interest are not related by blood or marriage, the entity members holding a majority interest must operate the family farm and entity members holding a majority interest or the entity must own the family farm.
(a) The proposed operation described on Form FSA-431-2 or similar plan acceptable to FSA must project a feasible plan. The projected income and expenses of the buyer and operation used to determine a feasible plan must be based on the buyer's proven record of production and financial management. For those farmers without a proven history, a combination of any actual history and any other reliable source of information which is agreeable to the buyer and the Agency will be used. The cash flow budget analyzed to determine a feasible plan must represent the projected cash flow of the operating cycle for the farm or ranch operation.
(b) The buyer must use the best sources of information available for estimating production when developing cash flow budgets. Deviations from historical performance may be acceptable, if the deviations are the direct result of specific changes in the operation, are reasonable, adequately justified, and acceptable to the Agency. For existing farmers, actual production for the past three years will be utilized. For those farmers without a proven history, a combination of any actual history and any other reliable source of information that is agreeable to the buyer and the Agency will be used. When the production of a growing commodity can be estimated, it must be considered when projecting yields.
(c) When the buyer's production history has been so severely affected by a declared disaster that an accurate projection cannot be made, the following applies:
(1) County average yields are used for the disaster year if the buyer's disaster year yields are less than the county average yields. If county average yields are not available, State average yields are used. Adjustments can be made, provided there is factual evidence to demonstrate that the yield used in the farm plan is the most probable to be realized.
(2) To calculate a historical yield, the crop year with the lowest actual or county average yield may be excluded, provided the buyer's yields were affected by disasters at least two of the previous five consecutive years.
(d) Buyers must use price forecasts that are reasonable, defensible, and historically supportable. Sources must be documented by the buyer and be acceptable to the Agency. When a feasible plan depends on income from other sources in addition to income from owned land, the income must be dependable and likely to continue throughout the term of the guarantee.
The guarantee may only be used for financing the purchase of a farm or ranch on a land contract basis. The farm or ranch land to be purchased must be located in a pilot State. Guarantees will only be provided on new contracts. Existing contracts are not eligible for a guarantee under the pilot program.
(a) The purchase price of the farm or ranch to be acquired cannot exceed the lesser of:
(1) $500,000 and
(2) its current market value as determined by Agency appraisal or estimate.
(b) The buyer must provide a cash downpayment of at least five percent of the purchase price of the farm or ranch being acquired on land contract.
The guarantee will be in effect for 10 years commencing with its stated effective date. The guarantee will cover two amortized annual installments, or an amount up to the total monetary
The interest rate charged by the seller for the 10-year term of the guarantee must be fixed at a rate not to exceed FSA's direct farm ownership (FO) loan interest rate in effect at the time the guarantee is issued, plus three percentage points (Interest rates are available in any FSA office). The seller and buyer may renegotiate the interest rate for the remaining term of the contract following expiration of the guarantee. The contract payments must be amortized for a minimum of 20 years. Balloon payments are prohibited during the 10-year term of the guarantee, and payments on the contract must be of equal amounts during the term of the guarantee.
The Agency may require an appraisal prior to, or as a condition of, approval of the guarantee. Any such appraisal will be obtained at the Agency's sole option and expense.
The buyer will obtain title clearance as provided in 7 CFR part 1927, subpart B, or its successor regulation prior to contract settlement and issuance of the guarantee.
The environmental and historic preservation requirements contained in 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G or its successor regulation must be met prior to approval of any guarantee request.
(a) Requests for guarantee will be processed based on the date the Agency receives a complete application as defined above. Each pilot State may approve up to five loan guarantees each fiscal year of the pilot program. Approval is also subject to the availability of guaranteed FO loan funds and the participation of an approved escrow agent.
(b) After a request for guarantee is approved, all parties to the guarantee (buyer, seller, escrow agent, and the Agency) will execute the Loan Payment Guarantee Agreement and Contract Modification. This Agreement will describe the conditions of the guarantee and the process for payment of claims. It will also outline the covenants and agreements of the buyer, seller, escrow agent, and the Agency.
Use of a third party escrow agent approved by the Agency is required. The buyer or seller, as applicable, will provide the Agency a copy of any escrow agreement executed by the parties. The escrow agent will:
(a) handle transactions relating to the land contract between the buyer and seller;
(b) receive contract installments and remit them to the seller;
(c) notify FSA and the seller in the event of default by the buyer;
(d) remit to the seller any defaulted installment amount paid by the Agency under the guarantee;
(e) notify FSA and the seller semi-annually of the outstanding balance on the contract and the status of payment;
(f) send a notice of payment due to the buyer at least 30 days prior to the installment due date; and
(g) perform other duties as required by State law and as agreed to by the buyer and the seller.
(a) At the Agency's request, the buyer will supply the Agency with a current balance sheet, income statement, cash flow budget, and any additional information needed to analyze the buyer's financial condition annually.
(b) With the Agency's prior written approval, the seller and buyer may modify the land contract provided that, in addition to a feasible plan for the upcoming operating cycle, a feasible plan can be reasonably projected throughout the remaining term of the guarantee. If a contract is modified, the seller must provide the Agency and escrow agent with a copy of the revised contract.
If the buyer fails to pay an annual amortized installment on the contract, or a portion of an installment on the contract, the escrow agent will notify the seller and the Agency in writing of the default. The seller must then take immediate action to enforce the terms of the contract and collect the defaulted amount from the buyer. At a minimum, the seller must make written demand on the buyer for payment of the defaulted amount, with a copy of the demand letter to the Agency. In the event that the buyer does not pay the defaulted amount within 30 days of the seller's written demand, the seller will make demand upon the Agency to pay the defaulted amount. The seller must make written demand upon the Agency within 90 days from the date the amount was due.
(a) When FSA has made a payment under this guarantee on behalf of the buyer, the amount paid will become immediately due and payable by the buyer. The unpaid balance of the amount paid on behalf of the buyer will bear interest from the date of advance by the Agency at the established Farm Loan Programs Nonprogram Credit Sales Real Property loan rate (available in any FSA office) in effect at that time. The Agency will notify the buyer of the available options for repaying the debt. At the Agency's discretion, a missed or partially missed amortized contract installment, delinquent real estate taxes, or insurance payments may be structured to be repaid consistent with the buyer's repayment ability not to exceed 7 years, or the termination date of the guarantee, whichever occurs first. Before any repayment plan can be approved, the buyer must provide the Agency with the best lien obtainable on all of the buyer's assets, including the buyer's interest in the real estate under contract. When the buyer is an entity, the best lien obtainable will be taken on all of the entity's assets, and all assets owned by the members of the entity, including their interest in the real estate under contract.
(b) Any amounts paid by the Agency on account of liabilities of the buyer will constitute a Federal debt owing to the Agency that is immediately due and payable by the buyer. If the debt is not restructured into a repayment plan or the delinquency otherwise cured, the Agency may use all remedies available to it, including offset under the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, to collect the debt from the buyer.
(c) Buyers with an Agency-approved repayment plan will supply the Agency, upon request, with a current balance sheet, income statement, cash flow budget, complete copy of their Federal income tax returns, and any additional information needed to analyze the buyer's financial condition annually.
(d) If the buyer fails to perform under an Agency-approved repayment plan, the debt will be treated as a non-program loan debt, and servicing will proceed in accordance with 7 CFR 1951 section 1951.468, or its successor regulation. In such case, the Agency may use all remedies available to it,
The guarantee and the Agency's obligations under it will terminate under the following circumstances:
(a) Full payment of the land contract;
(b) payment by the Agency of two annual installments on the contract, or an amount equal to two annual installments, if not repaid in full by the buyer. (An Agency-approved repayment plan will not constitute payment in full until such time as the entire amount due under the Agency-approved repayment plan is paid in full);
(c) the seller fails to seek payment of a delinquent installment from the buyer or otherwise does not enforce the terms of the land contract; or
(d) the seller terminates the land contract.
If none of these events occur, the guarantee will automatically terminate, without notice, 10 years from the effective date of the guarantee.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The USDA Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of reissuing 63 special use permits for outfitter and guide operations on the lower Rogue River from Lobster Creek to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids and the lower Illinois River from the confluence with the Rogue River to the mouth of Nancy Creek. The types of special use activities on the Rogue River include: commercial tour boats offering scenic trips and transport of guests to lodges in the Wild Section; fishing guides using both float craft and motorboats; livery services transporting people and freight or offering scenic trips; whitewater motorboat training; half-day float trips from Foster Bar to Agness; and commercial transport of lodge guests from Foster Bar to Paradise Lodge. On the Illinois River, the type of commercial activity is guided fishing. As a connected action, there is also a need to issue or reissue special use permits for the docks of the three commercial lodges in the Wild Section of the Rogue River.
Comments concerning the scope of this analysis should be received by October 3, 2003.
Send written comments to John Borton, District Ranger, Gold Beach Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest, 29279 Ellensburg, Gold Beach, OR 97444, Fax (541) 247-3617, e-mail:
Bill Blackwell, District Recreation, Lands and Minerals Staff, Gold Beach Ranger District, (541) 247-3600.
The Rogue River was designated a Wild and Scenic River by Congress in 1968. For the portion of the river where the outfitters and guides operate, the river is classified as either Recreational or Scenic from Lobster Creek to Watson Creek (approximately 24 river miles), and Wild from Watson Creek to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids (approximately 10 river miles). The Illinois River was designated Wild and Scenic in 1984 and is classified as Recreational from its confluence with the Rogue River upstream to the mouth of Nancy Creek.
Commercial fishing guides using motorboats and tour boats offering scenic trips started in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The number of guides and trips increased in the post-World War II era. The invention of hydro-jet powered motorboats in 1958 allowed boats to navigate the river during low summer flows. As the population has increased over the years, all types of recreational float craft and motorboat use has also increased. Today, thousands of people visit the Rogue River each year. The Rogue is internationally renowned for its fishing, and commercial fishing guides provide a recreational service to people who visit the area. The scenery of the Rogue is also internationally known, and each year thousands of people enjoy the recreational experience of riding on the tour boats that travel up the river.
In 1959, the Oregon State Marine Board was given responsibility to establish and administer boating regulations in the State of Oregon. In the 1970s, due to the increased amount of boating in the Wild Section of the Rogue River, the Marine Board, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, introduced a permit system to help limit the amount of use in the Wild Section. In 1974, the Marine Board eliminated motorboat use from the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids upstream to Grave Creek between May 15 and November 15. In 1976, after much public comment, the Marine Board limited commercial motorboats in the Wild Section from Watson Creek to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids between May 15 and November 15 to current permittees and at the use level that existed as of January 15, 1976.
In 1979, the Forest Service first started requiring permits for commercial motorboat activities in the Wild Section of the Rogue River. In 1981, a Forest Service permit was required for any commercial motorboat or float craft activity from Lobster Creek to Watson Creek as well as in the Wild Section. In 1984, the Marine Board decided to re-evaluate its role in the motorboat permit system and begin to solicit public comment. In 1986, the Gold Beach District Ranger wrote to the Marine Board and stated that the Forest Service would continue to administer the motorboat limits and regulations in the Wild Section as the Marine Board had done, with only minor variations. Later that year, the Marine Board decided to repeal their rules, consolidating the motorboat permit system with the Forest Service. The Forest Service continued to issue permits to the tour boats, fishing guides, livery services, and other uses for the same number of trips that had been issued previously by the Marine Board.
In 1995, the Forest Service limited the number of fishing guides in the Lobster Creek to Watson Creek area to those that were currently under permit. These permits allowed use any time of the year, but they could only be used by the permittees and there could be no employees operating under that permit. Also in 1995, the Forest Service limited the number of trips by the tour boats from Lobster Creek to Watson Creek, based on the season of year: shoulder-season (May 1 to June 15 and the day after Labor Day to October 31), main-season (June 16 to Labor Day), and off-season (November 1 to April 30).
Prior to 1999, some guides who operated under permits issued by Bureau of Land Management and jointly administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service would guide fishing trips entirely on the National Forest portion of the river. The language in these special use permits stated the outfitter and guide use was for the Rogue River from the Applegate
Also in 1999, Paradise Lodge was authorized to transport lodge guests via motorboat from Foster Bar to the lodge in the Wild Section. Terms and conditions of the special use permit for this activity were negotiated with the parties that appealed the decision the Forest Service had made concerning this activity through an informal resolution process.
In 2001, Riverhawks et al. filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court alleging the U.S. Forest Service had violated the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the National Forest Management Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by issuing special use permits and allowing motorboat use in the Wild Section of the Rogue River. The District Court ruled the Forest Service violated the procedural requirements of NEPA when reissuing the special use permits for outfitters and guides on the Rogue River, while all other claims made by the Plaintiffs were denied.
There are a variety of recreational activities that have become established on the lower Rogue and lower Illinois rivers and thousands of people participate in them each year. The commercial operations that provide these recreational activities on the Rogue River include guided fishing trips, scenic tours, half-day float trips, and the transport of guests to the lodges in the Wild Section. On the lower Illinois River, the commercial activity is guided fishing. These commercial operations are required to have special use permits for these activities by Forest Service policy (Forest Service Manual 2700).
The purpose of this proposal is to provide these recreational activities on the lower Rogue and lower Illinois Rivers through outfitter and guide services as outlined by Forest Service policy. There is a need to respond to those permittees that want to continue their commercial operations and reissue their existing special use permits that expire on December 31, 2004 and April 30, 2006. As a connected action, there is also a need to issue or reissue special use permits for the docks of the three commercial lodges in the Wild Section of the Rogue River. These docks are needed for the tour boats, livery service boats, and the boats that transport commercial lodge guests to Paradise Lodge to safely load and unload passengers and their belongings.
This proposal is in accordance with the Rogue National Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (1972) and the management decisions that have been made about limiting use since the Management Plan was issued. These decisions are described in the Supplementary Information section of this document. This proposal is also in accordance with the Illinois Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (1985). These plans were incorporated into the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1989) in their entirety. The Rogue River Management Plan states, “One of the key reasons for including the Rogue River in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was to protect and enhance the recreational values which the river possesses. These values are realized in a great variety of activities. They range from an individual pitting only his knowledge and skill against the sometimes hostile forces of nature to recreation uses where the facilities and equipment are so sophisticated that the river can be enjoyed with no special knowledge and skill. Since boating, fishing and sightseeing are the main recreational uses on the river, top priority for recreation development will be given to improving the quality of those activities.” The Siskiyou Land and Resource Management Plan states, “Increased emphasis has been placed on the Recreation program, the focus of which will be toward meeting the needs of the recreating public and toward working with four Southern Oregon Counties to assist them in developing their Economic development goals. These goals are based on the development of the Recreation/Tourism industry.”
The proposed action is to reissue 63 special use permits for outfitter and guide operations on the lower Rogue River from Lobster Creek to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids and the lower Illinois River from the confluence with the Rogue River to the mouth of Nancy Creek with the same terms and conditions as the current permits.
This proposed action does not include and is not addressing the permit system for private recreational motorboat trips in the Wild Section, private recreational motorboat or float use below the wild Section, or motorboat trips for ingress/egress purposes to private property along the Rogue River. These issues will be addressed in the revision of the rogue Comprehensive Wild and Scenic River Management Plan in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management.
The types of activities on the Rogue River that would be permitted include: Commercial tour boats offering scenic trips and transport of guests to lodges in the Wild Section; fishing guides using both float craft and motorboats; livery services transporting people and freight or offering scenic trips; whitewater motor boat training; half-day float trips from Foster Bar to Agness; and commercial transport of lodge guests from Foster Bar to Paradise Lodge. On the Illinois River, the type of permitted commercial activity is guided fishing. The following details the terms and conditions for each type of permit:
There are get guides currently operating the wild Section who originally authorized by the Oregon State Marine Board in 1976 or who bought a guide business that was authorized by the State. Their current permits autohrize use on the Rogue River from Lobster Creek to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids with a motorboat or float craft. These guides are limited to the number of trips and user days (number of clients) they are permitted on an annual basis. These permittees can operate year-round with a maximum of 394 trips a year in the Wild Section, cumulatively. Six of the permittees can hire employees, but any trips the employees make are counted towards the total number of trips and user days the permittee is allowed. Two of the permittees operate a livery service (transporting people and freight), scenic trips (maximum 32 trips), whitewater boat training, and guided raft trips from Foster Bar to Agness (maximum 31 trips). Three of the permittees can operate on the lower Illinois River. All of these various trips count towards the total annual number of trips and user days that the permittee is authorized.
Nine fishing guides who originally operated under the jointly managed Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service permits are now operating under Forest Service permits as described in the Supplementary Information section. These guides can use both float craft and motorboats. Of these nine guides, four can guide fishing trips in the Wild Section year-around as described above. Three guides can operate in the Wild Section from November 15 to May 14 with a maximum of 57 trips a year, cumulative. Six guides can operate from Foster Bar to Watson Creek and Foster Bar downstream to Lobster Creek for a cumulative maximum of 197 trips a year and eight guides can operate from Foster Bar to Watson Creek and Foster Bar downstream to Quosatana Creek for a cumulative maximum of 285 trips a year.
In addition to the Proposed Action, the No Action alternative will be analyzed. With the No Action alternative, the special use permits would not be reissued. The development of any other alternatives will be completed following the public response to initial scoping.
Scoping is an ongoing process throughout the planning process. A scoping letter will be mailed to those people and organizations on the Gold Beach Ranger District's mailing list that have indicated an interest in Rogue River management. A press release announcing the filing of this Notice of Intent will be sent to local newspapers and media. The public will be notified of any meetings regarding this proposal by mailings and press release sent to the local newspapers and media.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process under NEPA, which will guide the development of the draft EIS. The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public comment by January 2004. The comment period for the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the
At the end of this period, comments submitted to the Forest Service, including names and addresses of those who responded, will be considered part of the public record for this proposal and, as such, will be available for public review. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR part 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting 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 if 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 within a specified number of days.
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 EISs 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 EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft EIS. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS 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 on the draft EIS will be analyzed, considered, and responded to
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) announces the availability of $27.7 million in competitive grant funds for fiscal year 2003 to help independent agricultural producers enter into value-added activities. RBS hereby requests proposals from eligible independent producers, agricultural producer groups, farmer or rancher cooperatives, and majority-controlled producer-based business ventures interested in a competitively awarded grant to fund one of the following two activities: (1) Developing feasibility studies or business plans (including marketing plans or other planning activities) needed to establish a viable value-added marketing opportunity for an agricultural product; or (2) acquiring working capital to operate a value-added business venture or an alliance that will allow the producers to better compete in domestic and international markets. In order to provide program benefits to as many eligible applicants as possible, applications can only be for one or the other of these two activities, but not both. Value-added products are defined as follows: (1) A change in the physical state or form of the product (such as milling wheat into flour or making strawberries into jam); (2) the production of a product in a manner that enhances its value, as demonstrated through a business plan (such as organically produced products); (3) the physical segregation of an agricultural commodity or product in a manner that results in the enhancement of the value of that commodity or product (such as an identity preserved marketing system). As a result of the change in physical state or the manner in which the agricultural commodity or product is produced or segregated, the customer base for the commodity or product is expanded and a greater portion of revenue derived from the marketing, processing, or physical segregation is made available to the producer of the commodity or product. Value-added also includes using any agricultural product or commodity to produce renewable energy on a farm or ranch.
The maximum award per grant is $500,000. In order to maximize the distribution of program benefits, smaller grant requests under $500,000 will receive priority points. Priority is also being given to projects producing energy from biomass or demonstrating profitable use of innovative technologies.
Applications must be completed and submitted to the appropriate State USDA Rural Development office as soon as possible, but no later than 4 p.m. on October 20, 2003. Applications received after October 20, 2003, will not be considered. Late applications will not be accepted and will be returned to the applicant. Applicants must ensure that the service they use to deliver their applications can do so by the deadline. Due to recent security concerns, packages sent to the agency by mail have been delayed several days or even weeks.
Submit proposals and other required materials to your State USDA Rural Development Office. RBS is strongly encouraging the electronic submission of proposals. If proposals are electronically submitted, signed paper copies of the three required forms, SF-424 “Application for Federal Assistance,” SF-424A “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs,” and SF-424B “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs,” need to be mailed or faxed to the State office. A list of Rural Development State Offices, addresses, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers follows.
Telephone numbers listed are not toll free.
For further information contact your USDA State Rural Development Office. You may also obtain information from the RBS Web site at:
This solicitation is issued pursuant to section 231 of the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-224) as amended by section 6401 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171) authorizing the establishment of the Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development grants. The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated the program's administration to USDA's Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
The primary objective of this grant program is to help eligible independent producers of agricultural commodities, agricultural producer groups, farmer and rancher cooperatives, and majority-owned producer-based business ventures develop business plans for viable marketing opportunities and develop strategies to create marketing opportunities. Eligible agricultural producer groups, farmer and rancher cooperatives, and majority-controlled producer-based business ventures must limit their proposals to emerging markets. These grants will facilitate greater participation in emerging markets and new markets for value-added products. Grants will only be awarded if projects or ventures are determined to be economically viable and sustainable.
This grant program has a matching funds requirement. Applicants must provide matching funds at least equal to the grant. Other Federal grants cannot be used as matching funds. Grant funds and matching funds must be spent proportionately during the timeframe stated in the grant application. Grant funds will be disbursed pursuant to applicable provisions of 7 CFR parts 3015 and 3019. Matching funds must be used to support the overall purpose of the VADG program.
Potential recipients of the grant must be an independent producer, agricultural producer group, farmer or rancher cooperative, or majority-controlled producer-based business venture as defined in the “Definitions” section of this NOFA. If the applicant is an agricultural producer group, it must be providing assistance directly to a specifically identified group of independent producers. Grant funds cannot be used to support the organization's general operations. If the applicant is an unincorporated group (steering committee), they must form a legal entity before grant funds can be disbursed.
The project proposed must involve a value-added product as defined in the “Definitions” section of this NOFA.
Applications without sufficient information to determine their eligibility will not be considered.
A proposal must contain the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
8.
The amount of funds available for VADG grants in FY 2003 is $27.7 million. The actual number of grants funded will depend on the quality of proposals received and the amount of funding requested. The maximum amount of Federal funds awarded for any one proposal will be $500,000. However, priority points will be given to grant requests of less than the maximum.
No one applicant can receive more than one grant for any one purpose. An applicant cannot receive a grant for planning activities and a grant for working capital.
Grant funds may be used to pay up to 50 percent of the costs for carrying out relevant projects. Grant funds and the applicant's matching funds must be spent at approximately the same rate. The applicant's matching contribution in cash or in-kind must be in accordance with applicable provisions of 7 CFR parts 3015 and 3019.
For planning projects, grant and the recipient's matching funds may be used for, but are not limited to, hiring personnel including lawyers, accountants and other qualified consultants associated with the following purposes:
1. Conducting a feasibility analysis of a proposed value-added venture to help determine the potential success of the venture;
2. Developing a business operations plan that provides comprehensive details on the management, planning, and other operational aspects of a proposed venture;
3. Developing a business marketing plan for the proposed value-added product or products including the identification of a market window, the identification of potential buyers, a description of the distribution system, and possible promotional campaigns; or
4. Obtaining legal advice and assistance related to the proposed venture.
For working capital projects, grant and recipient's matching funds may be used to establish a working capital account to fund operations. Funds from this account can be used for, but are not limited to:
1. Hiring an attorney to provide legal advice and to draft articles of incorporation, bylaws, and other legal documents related to the proposed venture;
2. Hiring a Certified Public Accountant or other qualified individuals to design an accounting system for the proposed venture; or
3. Paying salaries, utilities, and other operating costs; financing inventories; purchasing office equipment, computers, and supplies; and financing other related activities necessary to establish alliances or business ventures that allow producers to better compete in domestic or international markets for value-added products.
Grant and matching funds cannot be used to:
1. Plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building or facility (including a processing facility);
2. Purchase, rent, or install fixed equipment including mobile and other processing equipment;
3. Pay for the preparation of the grant application;
4. Pay expenses not directly related to the funded venture;
5. Fund political or lobbying activities;
6. Pay costs incurred prior to receiving this grant;
7. Fund any activities prohibited by 7 CFR parts 3015 and 3019; and
8. Fund architectural or engineering design work for a specific physical facility.
9. Grant and Matching funds cannot be used to pay any expenses related to the production of any commodity or product to which value will be added.
State office personnel will initially review applications for eligibility, completeness, and responsiveness to this NOFA. Incomplete or non-responsive applications will be returned to the applicant and not evaluated further. If the submission deadline has not expired and time permits, ineligible applications will be returned to the applicants for possible revision. The State office will then conduct one review of all complete and eligible applications based on the selection criteria specified in the “Evaluation Criteria” section of this NOFA. The National office will then obtain two additional independent reviews. Points will be assigned based on the evaluation criteria. All scored applications will then be forwarded to the National Office, where the scoring will be reviewed and applications ranked. Applications will be listed in initial rank order and presented, along with funding level recommendations, to the Administrator of RBS, who will award the grants.
Evaluations of proposals will be based on the following criteria. Failure to address any one of the following criteria will disqualify the application. All proposals must be in compliance with this NOFA and applicable statutes.
Criteria for applications for Planning grants are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. For those applications proposing ventures that focus on the Presidential initiative of biomass production, five percent of the total score of the above seven criteria will be added to calculate the final score. For example, if an application is proposing to do a bio-energy project and scores a total of 30 points on criteria one through seven, 1.5 additional points (30 x .05) will be added making the final score 31.5.
Administrator priority points—Up to five (5) additional points may be awarded by the Administrator of RBS to recognize innovative technologies, insure geographic distribution of grants, or encourage value-added projects in under-served areas.
Criteria for applications for Working Capital are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. For those applications proposing ventures that focus on the Presidential initiative of biomass production, five percent of the total score of the above seven criteria will be added to calculate the final score. For example, if an application is proposing to do a bio-energy project and scores a total of 30 points on criteria one through seven, 1.5 additional points (30 x .05) will added making the final score 31.5.
Administrator priority points—Up to five (5) points may be awarded by the Administrator of RBS to recognize innovative technologies, to insure geographic distribution of grants, or to encourage value-added projects in under-served areas.
Copies of the score sheets will be posted on the VADG program's Web site.
The Agency is strongly encouraging the electronic submission of proposals to the appropriate USDA Rural Development State Office. Electronic submissions must be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, Rich Text Format (RTF), or Portable Document Format (PDF). If proposals are electronically submitted, signed paper copies of the three required forms, SF-424 “Application for Federal Assistance,” SF-424A “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs,” and SF-424B “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs,” need to be mailed to the state office. For strictly a paper submission, an original and two copies of the proposal, with all required forms, must be submitted in one package to the appropriate USDA Rural Development State Office. Do not submit any feasibility studies, marketing plans, or business plans at this time. Please refer to the list above for the address and e-mail of your State Office. Applications sent by facsimile will not be accepted.
The deadline for receipt of all applications is [Insert 45 days after publication in the
1. Sign a Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grant Agreement similar to the one published at the end of this NOFA.
2. Sign required Federal grant-making forms including Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions;” Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transactions;” Form AD-1949, “Certification Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants);” and Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement (Civil Rights).”
3. If the grant and matching funds are to be used as working capital, submit a feasibility study and business plan demonstrating the new venture is feasible and likely to be economically sustainable. These documents are to be
4. If requested by the USDA Rural Development State Office, submit copies of any contracts, letters of intent, or other documents cited in addressing any of the various “evaluation criteria”. If such a request is made, no funds will be released until those documents have been received and approved.
5. Use Standard Form 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement” to request advances and reimbursements. Requests are to be submitted on a monthly basis.
6. Submit a Standard Form 269, “Financial Status Report” and list expenditures according to agreed upon budget categories on a semi-annual basis. Reports are due by April 30 and October 30 after the grant is awarded.
7. Submit semi-annual performance reports which compare accomplishments to the objectives; if established objectives are not met, discuss problems, delays, or other problems that may affect completion of the project; establish objectives for the next reporting period; and discuss compliance with any special conditions on the use of awarded funds.
8. Upon completion of each task outlined in the proposal, grant recipients will deliver the results of the study or activity to the appropriate state office, accompanied by all applicable supporting data. These include, but are not limited to, feasibility studies, marketing plans, business plans, articles of incorporation and bylaws, and an accounting of how working capital funds were spent. All items delivered to the state offices will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law.
9. Maintain a financial management system that is acceptable to the Agency.
10. Collect and maintain data on race, sex, and national origin of Grantee's membership/ownership.
11. Submit a final project performance report.
Several other Federal statutes and regulations apply to proposals considered for review and to grants awarded. These include but are not limited to:
7 CFR part 15, subpart A—Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs of the Department of Agriculture—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
7 CFR part 3015—Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations;
7 CFR part 3017—Government wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Government wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants);
7 CFR part 3018—New Restrictions on Lobbying;
7 CFR part 3019—Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations; and
7 CFR part 3052—Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.
The reporting requirements contained in this notice have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Number 0570-0039.
This Grant Agreement (Agreement) dated __________, between __________ (Grantee), and the United States of America, acting through the Rural Business-Cooperative Service of the Department of Agriculture (Grantor), for $__________ in grant funds under the VADG program, delineates the agreement of the parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the grant;
The parties agree that:
1. All the terms and provisions of the VADG NOFA and application submitted by the Grantee for this VADG grant, including any attachments or amendments, are incorporated and included as part of this Agreement. Any changes to these documents or this agreement must be approved in writing by the Grantor.
2. As a condition of the Agreement, the Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with and will comply in the course of the Agreement with all applicable laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and other generally applicable requirements, including those contained in 7 CFR 3015.205(b), which are incorporated into this agreement by reference, and such other statutory provisions as are specifically contained herein. The Grantee will comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Executive Order 12250.
3. The provisions of 7 CFR part 3015, “Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations” and part 3019, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations,” as applicable are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference.
FURTHER, the Grantee agrees that it will:
1. Not use grant funds or matching funds to plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building or facility (including a processing facility); or to purchase, rent, or install fixed equipment.
2. Use Grant Funds and matching funds only for the purposes and activities specified in the proposal approved by the Agency including the approved budget. Any uses not provided for in the approved budget must be approved in writing by the Agency in advance of obligation by the Grantor.
3. Submit a feasibility study, business operations plans, and other studies and plans required by the Grantor if any part of the grant will be used to establish a working capital account.
4. Deliver the results of a study or activity to the Grantor upon completion of each task outlined in the proposal. These include, but are not limited to, feasibility studies, marketing plans, business operations plans, articles of incorporation and bylaws, and accounting of how working capital funds were spent. All items delivered to the Grantor will be held in confidence to the extent provided by law.
5. Request any cash advances in the minimum amount needed and timed to the actual, immediate cash requirements for carrying out the grant purpose. Standard Form 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” will be used for this purpose.
6. Submit a Standard Form 269, “Financial Status Report” and list expenditures according to agreed upon budget categories on a semi-annual basis. Reports are due by April 30 and October 30 after the grant is awarded.
7. Provide periodic reports as required by the Grantor. A financial status report and a project performance report will be required on a semi-annual basis (due April 30 and October 30). The financial status report must show how grant funds and matching funds have been used to date and project the funds needed and their purposes for the next quarter. A final report may serve as the last semi-annual report. Grantees shall constantly monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met and projected goals by time periods are being accomplished. The project performance reports shall include the following:
a. A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives for that period.
b. Reasons why established objectives were not met, if applicable.
c. Reasons for any problems, delays, or adverse conditions which will affect attainment of overall program objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular objectives during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accomplished by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation.
d. Objectives and timetables established for the next reporting period.
e. The final report will also address the following:
(i) What have been the most challenging or unexpected aspects of this program?
(ii) What advice you would give to other organizations planning a similar program. These should include strengths and limitations of the program. If you had the opportunity, what would you have done differently?
(iii) If an innovative approach was used successfully, the grantee should describe their program in detail so that other organizations might consider replication in their areas.
8. Collect and maintain data on race, sex, and national origin of Grantee's membership/ownership.
9. Provide Financial Management Systems which will include:
a. Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for grant-supported activities. Those records shall contain information pertaining to grant awards and authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, liabilities, outlays, and income.
b. Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property, and other assets. Grantees shall adequately safeguard all such assets and shall ensure that they are used solely for authorized purposes.
c. Accounting records supported by source documentation.
d. Grantee tracking of fund usage and records that show matching funds and grant funds are used in equal proportions. The grantee will provide verifiable documentation regarding matching fund usage,
10. Retain financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to the grant for a period of at least 3 years after grant closing, except that the records shall be retained beyond the 3-year period if audit findings have not been resolved. Microfilm or photocopies or similar methods may be substituted in lieu of original records. The Grantor and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the Grantee's which are pertinent to the specific grant program for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts.
11. Not encumber, transfer or dispose of the equipment or any part thereof, acquired wholly or in part with Grantor funds without the written consent of the Grantor.
12. Not duplicate other program purposes for which monies have been received, are committed, or are applied to from other sources (public or private).
Grantor agrees to make available to Grantee for the purpose of this Agreement funds in an amount not to exceed the Grant Funds. The funds will be reimbursed or advanced based on submission of Standard Form 270.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantee has this day authorized and caused this Agreement to be executed by—
September 9, 2003: 1 p.m.-5 p.m.
Broadcasting Board of Governors, Room 3321, 330 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20237.
The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will meet in closed session to review and discuss a number of issues relating to U.S. Government-funded non-military international broadcasting. If necessary, the Board will convene the following day to finish any other business. They will address internal procedural, budgetary, and personnel issues, as well as sensitive foreign policy issues relating to potential options in the U.S. international broadcasting field. This meeting is closed because if open it likely would either disclose matters that would be properly classified to be kept secret in the interest of foreign policy under the appropriate executive order (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(1)) or would disclose information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(9)(B)). In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely to the internal personnel and organizational issues of the BBG or the International Broadcasting Bureau, (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(2) and (6)).
Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact either Brenda Hardnett or Carol Booker at (202) 401-3736.
The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, DOC Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
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 20230.
DOC 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).
GQV, in conjunction with the 2004 Census Test Address Canvassing operation, and the Group Quarters Validation Followup (GQVF), is planned to address the following research question:
Can we operationalize appropriate census operations to ultimately distinguish housing units from GQs, assign the correct GQ classifications, collect information about the special place associated with each GQ, improve the assignment of GQs to the correct geography, and reduce duplication between GQs and housing units?
Properly identifying and classifying GQs and other non-traditional living quarters by using improved definitions and methods for distinguishing between GQs and housing units in census operations should improve the data quality of Census 2010 by reducing duplication and improving coverage.
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202)482-0266, Department of Commerce, room 6625, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Susan Schechter, OMB Desk Officer either by fax (202-395-7245) or e-mail (
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the “Corporation”), submitted the following information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (PRA 95) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Corporation has requested OMB to review and approve its emergency request by September 9, 2003, for a period of six months. A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Research and Policy Development, Ms. Theresa Hill, (202) 606-5000, Ext. 261, or by e-mail at
On August 18, 2003, the Corporation printed a
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the Corporation's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0114).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning right of first refusal of employment. A request for public comments was published in the
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Submit comments on or before October 6, 2003.
Submit comments including suggestions for reducing this burden to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVA), Room 4035 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405.
Julia Wise, Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 208-1168.
Right of First Refusal of Employment is a regulation which establishes policy regarding adversely affected or separated Government employees resulting from the conversion from in-house performance to performance by contract. The policy will enable these employees to have an opportunity to work for the contractor who is awarded the contract.
The information gathered will be used by the Government to gain knowledge of which employees, adversely affected or separated as a result of the contract award, have gained employment with the contractor within 90 days after contract performance begins.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0048).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning authorized negotiators. The clearance currently expires on October 31, 2003.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Submit comments on or before November 3, 2003.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVA), 1800 F Streets, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
Julia Wise, Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 208-1168.
Firms offering supplies or services to the Government under negotiated
Respondents:
Responses Per Respondent:
Total Responses:
Hours Per Response:
Total Burden Hours:
Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVA), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0048, Authorized Negotiators, in all correspondence.
Mississippi National Guard (MSNG), National Guard Bureau (NGB), Department of the Army (DA), DoD; National Forests in Mississippi, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice of intent.
NGB as lead agency, along with the U.S. Forest Service as a cooperating agency, will prepare an EIS for the renewal of the Special Use Permit (SUP) for Military Use of National Forest Lands at Camp Shelby, Mississippi. In addition, the EIS will address the implementation of the Master Plan for Camp Shelby.
Written comments may be forwarded to the Mississippi Army National Guard Environmental Office (MSARNG-ENV), ATTN: Brian Neely, Natural and Cultural Resources Manager, P.O. Box 5027, Jackson, MS 39296-5027.
Brian Neely, Natural and Cultural Resources Manager, at (601) 313-6128; or Colonel Robert A. Lee, Environmental Program Manager at (601) 313-6228.
The MSNG has historically utilized public lands for military activities under a special use permit administered by the U.S. Forest Service. The current permit is subject to renewal in December 2005. The SUP establishes the levels and types of military activities that may occur on National Forest lands. EISs completed in 1991, 1994, and 1998 evaluated current military activities at Camp Shelby. The proposed EIS will evaluate extending the SUP from 10 to 20 years and will now include an Operations and Maintenance plan with alternatives covering military activities proposed by the proponents (DA and NGB) and update previous analyses as necessary. The EIS will disclose and evaluate the environmental impacts associated with military use of National Forest lands. The U.S. Forest Service and the NGB will utilize the EIS in making decisions concerning military use of National Forest, DoD, and state lands at Camp Shelby. The U.S. Forest Service will make its decision concerning the renewal of the SUP based upon the findings of the EIS.
Public scoping meetings will be held at two locations: one in Hattiesburg and one on the Mississippi Gulf Coast area. Dates, times and exact locations for these meetings will be announced through letters, public notices, display advertisements, and legal advertisements and will be released to newspapers of general circulation a minimum of 15 days prior to the meetings.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The Department of the Army announces its intent to prepare an LEIS pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as implemented by Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508). The LEIS will analyze both the proposed withdrawal of lands supporting training exercises for the Montana Army National Guard (MTARNG) and the associated Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Headwaters Resource Management Plan Amendment. The BLM is participating as an active cooperation agency in the preparation of the LEIS.
Written comments or questions should be forwarded by mail to Ms. Sundi West, Montana Army National Guard Fort Harrison, P.O. Box
Ms. Susie Williams, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 106 North Parkmont, Butte, MT 59701, via phone at (406) 533-7638, or via email at
The objective of the LEIS is to provide the results of comprehensive analysis to the Secretary of Interior and the Department of the Army to develop findings and recommendations to Congress regarding the proposed land withdrawal, and to serve as a public information source. The study area for the environmental analysis will be resource-dependent and is likely to include all of Lewis and Clark County and Broadwater County for socio-economic resources, all MTARNG facilities for military mission, and the LHTA for biological and mineral resources.
The LEIS will analyze potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives including a no action alternative. Under the no action alternative, the current right-of-way grant from the BLM for use of the LHTA by the MTARNG would not be renewed in 2014 for continued military purposes. Other alternatives may consist of alternatives-shared management roles of the LHTA for the MTARNG and the BLM, alternative land use options, and alternative locations. The alternatives will be developed during preparation of the Draft LEIS as a result of public input.
Significant issues the LEIS will analyze include the following and as well as any additional issues raised during scoping: (1) Continued ability of Graymont Western's Indian Creek Limestone Mine to extract and process ore within the LHTA; (2) allocation and management of grazing allotments; (3) public access to the LHTA; (4) noise and dust generated during training exercises and vehicular traffic; (5) impacts to Broadwater County due to possible termination of payments in lieu of taxes by the BLM if the withdrawal is granted; (6) potential impacts to wildlife in the Elkhorn Management Area; (7) consistency of land management policy and implementation; (8) potential impacts to range management and cleanup activities; (9) owner access to, and use of, inholdings; and (10) impacts to local economies and MTARNG training facilities under the no action alternative.
The Department of the Army, through the MTARNG, is initiating a public scoping process for the purpose of determining public concerns and issues to be analyzed and addressed for this action. A public scoping meeting will be held at the Broadwater School Community Library, 201 North Spruce, Townsend, Montana, and at the Chamber of Commerce of Helena; 225 Cruse Avenue, Helena, Montana. A Public open house will occur at each site from 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. prior to each scoping meeting. The dates and times of these meetings will be announced in general public media.
A brief presentation will precede a request for public information and comments. MTARNG and BLM representatives will be available at these meetings to receive information and comments from agencies and the public regarding issues of concern. It is important that federal, state and local agencies, and interested individuals take this opportunity to provide information or identify environmental concerns that should be addressed during the analysis and preparation of the LEIS. Forms for written comments will also be available to submit written comments at these meetings.
Agencies and the public are also invited and encouraged to provide written comments in addition to, or in lieu of, oral comments at the public scoping meetings. To be most helpful, scoping comments should clearly describe specific information, data, issues or topics which the commenter believes the LEIS should address. To be considered in the LEIS, comments and suggestions should be received no later than 60 days following the public scooping meeting.
Department of Education.
The Acting Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 3, 2003.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Acting Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
Responses: 80.
Burden Hours: 1,002,050.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at her e-mail address
Department of Education.
The Acting Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 6, 2003.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Karen Lee, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the Internet address
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
Responses: 2,200.
Burden Hours: 1,100.
Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at his e-mail address
Department of Education.
Notice inviting applications for participation in the Distance Education Demonstration Program.
The Secretary of Education invites institutions of higher education (institutions), systems of institutions, and consortia of institutions to submit applications to participate in the Distance Education Demonstration Program authorized under section 486 of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). Under the Distance Education Demonstration Program, selected institutions providing distance education programs may receive waivers of specific statutory and regulatory provisions governing the student financial assistance programs authorized under Title IV of HEA.
Applications submitted by electronic mail should be submitted in Microsoft Word version 7 or lower or WordPerfect version 7, 8, or 9.
Further information concerning technical assistance may be found at the end of this notice and at the Distance Education Demonstration Program Web site:
Applications must be postmarked or submitted electronically on or before October 6, 2003.
An institution must show proof of mailing these documents by October 6, 2003. Proof of mailing consists of one of the following: (1) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service, (2) a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark, (3) a dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier, or (4) any other proof of mailing acceptable to the U.S. Secretary of Education.
If these documents are sent through the U.S. Postal Service, the Secretary does not accept either of the following as proof of mailing: (1) A private metered postmark, or (2) a mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. Institutions should note that the U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, an institution should check with its local post office. You are encouraged to use certified or at least first-class mail.
Applications that are hand-delivered will be accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. daily (Eastern time), except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Applications must be received by 5 p.m. on October 6, 2003.
Carney McCullough or David Bergeron via telephone at (202) 502-7575 or via Internet:
Information concerning the program can also be found on the Distance Education Demonstration Program Web site:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
There has been rapid growth in the number of institutions providing courses and degree programs in various modes of “distance education.” For purposes of the Distance Education Demonstration Program and this notice, “distance education” is defined as an educational process that is characterized by the separation, in time or place, between instructor and student. This process may include courses offered principally through the use of television, audio, or computer transmission, such as open broadcast, closed circuit, cable, microwave, or satellite transmission; audio or computer conferencing; video cassettes or discs; or correspondence.
The growth in distance education has occurred in response to increasing demand from students who have little or no options to enroll in more traditional programs, including working adults, parents, people who live in rural communities, and students with disabilities. Another reason for this growth is the potential for cost control. Distance education is also attractive to institutions that are unable to make large investments in new facilities to meet increased student demand. Additionally, through consortia and other agreements among institutions that provide distance education, many students are able to take advantage of a richer selection of course offerings tailored to their individual needs than are available at the institutions where they are enrolled.
Currently, some statutory provisions defining institutional eligibility for the Title IV, HEA programs limit the circumstances in which Title IV, HEA program funds can be provided to students enrolled in distance education. For example, institutions that offer more than 50 percent of their courses via distance education or enroll more than 50 percent of their students in distance education programs (hereafter referred to as “the 50 percent rules”) are not eligible to participate in the Title IV, HEA programs.
Other statutory and regulatory provisions are based on the patterns and structure of on-campus education and traditional academic terms. As such, they can be burdensome and difficult to apply to distance education programs. They may also limit institutions from structuring programs that may best meet the needs of distance education students, institutions, and systems and consortia of such institutions.
Enacted in 1998, as described in section 486(a) of the HEA, the purpose of the Distance Education Demonstration Program is to—
(1) Allow demonstration programs that are strictly monitored by the Department of Education (Department) to test the quality and viability of expanded distance education programs currently restricted under HEA;
(2) Provide for increased student access to higher education through distance education programs; and
(3) Help determine the—
(A) Most effective means of delivering quality education via distance education course offerings;
(B) Specific statutory and regulatory requirements which should be altered to
(C) Appropriate level of Federal assistance for students enrolled in distance education programs.
Under the Distance Education Demonstration Program, participants may offer Title IV, HEA program funds to students enrolled in educational programs utilizing distance education delivery methods for all or a portion of their classes without being subject to certain statutory and regulatory provisions, upon granting by the Secretary of an institution's request for waiver of these provisions. The purpose of these waivers is to test new ways of administering the Federal student assistance programs and to consider how the law and regulations might be altered to allow for expansion of aid to distance students and still ensure program integrity.
The legislation creating this program authorized the Secretary to select, from among eligible applicants, up to a total of 15 institutions, systems of institutions, or consortia of institutions to begin participation in the first year of the program. (For these purposes, a system of institutions could be a group of institutions with a common governing board. An example would be a community college system or a group of private institutions owned by the same corporation. A consortium of institutions could be two or more institutions that have agreed to collaborate on a common effort such as sharing distance education courses or a two-year and four-year institution cooperating to offer a bachelor's degree completion program.) The 15 participants for the first year of the program were selected in May of 1999 and began participation on July 1, 1999.
The Secretary is authorized to select, from among eligible applicants, up to a total of 35 additional institutions, systems of institutions, or consortia of institutions to begin participation in the third year of the program. Nine institutions, systems of institutions or consortia of institutions were selected in June 2001 and began participation on July 1, 2001. Additional institutions, systems of institutions, or consortia of institutions will be selected to increase the diversity of the types of institutions in the program. The Secretary anticipates that these additional institutions, systems or consortia selected will continue to participate until June 30, 2005. Participation will be conditioned upon their meeting the requirements of the Distance Education Demonstration Program and continued participation in Title IV, HEA programs. Institutions desiring to withdraw from the Distance Education Demonstration Program may do so without jeopardy to their participation in Title IV, HEA programs but must meet all the eligibility criteria in section 102 of HEA. Also, the scope of the participation, such as the specific distance education programs included and waivers provided, may be modified as agreed upon by the Secretary and the participant, to allow for changes in the programs offered, the modes of delivery used, the size of participants' distance programs, or other changes desired by the Secretary or the participant as experience is gained in the program.
On November 1, 2002, the Department published regulations that modified 34 CFR Sections 668.2, 668.3, and 668.8 that limited institutions in the area of distance learning. These changes were based, in part, on experiences gained from the Distance Education Demonstration Program. Since that time, we have decided that it would be appropriate to accept applications to participate in this program to determine what other barriers continue to exist and to increase the diversity of the types of participants in the Distance Education Demonstration Program. To that end, we are particularly seeking applications from eligible applicants that would increase the diversity of the types of participants in the Distance Education Demonstration Program, particularly in the number of institutions that exclusively provide instruction online.
The Department works closely with accrediting agencies and States to determine how their respective roles contribute to assuring quality and integrity in distance learning. Accrediting agencies play an important role in monitoring the demonstration programs, consistent with their responsibilities. Where State requirements are relevant to distance education programs, the Department works with States to determine how their monitoring role assists in ensuring program integrity.
The participants must agree to provide data and information that will assist the Secretary in evaluating the Distance Education Demonstration Program and in reporting to Congress as required by HEA. The data and information provided by participants will assist the Secretary in determining whether statutory and regulatory changes might be needed to support the growth of quality distance education courses and programs and the appropriate level of Federal assistance for students enrolled in distance education programs, two of the purposes of the program that are specified in the statute. A copy of the form containing the data collection requirements can be found on the program Web site.
The program is also designed to examine ways to assure the integrity of Title IV, HEA programs in the context of distance education. This examination is accomplished principally through the close monitoring of participants' administration of Title IV, HEA programs.
The following institutions are eligible to apply to participate in the Distance Education Demonstration Program:
(1) Institutions located in the United States that participate in the Title IV, HEA programs; and
(2) Institutions located in the United States that provide a two-year program that leads to an associate degree or a four-year program that leads to a baccalaureate or higher degree and would be eligible to participate in the Title IV, HEA programs but for the fact that they do not meet one or both of the 50 percent rules. Such institutions must apply to participate in Title IV, HEA programs at the same time they submit an application to the Distance Education Demonstration Program.
In addition, systems and consortia of these institutions are eligible to participate in this program. As stated earlier, the Secretary is particularly interested in including institutions that exclusively provide instruction on-line.
The Secretary may waive statutory and regulatory provisions. To obtain a waiver, an institution must request the waiver in its application to participate in the program and must provide reasons for the waiver. Where possible, the applicant should suggest an alternative that is designed to meet the same objectives as those achieved by the waived statutory or regulatory provision. For example, if an applicant seeks to waive the requirement that students must achieve satisfactory academic progress as defined in Department regulations, the applicant should suggest an alternative means to ensure that Federal student aid funds are provided only to students who are making progress towards a degree or certificate. An applicant need not include an alternative approach with regard to a request to waive one or both of the 50 percent rules.
The Secretary may waive the following HEA statutory provisions:
•
•
•
In addition to the aforementioned statutory provisions, the Secretary may waive the regulatory provisions implementing part G of HEA that inhibit the operation of quality distance education programs. Part G consists of sections 481 through 493B of HEA. These sections contain numerous provisions dealing with the Title IV, HEA programs including those that limit the amount of aid that can be provided for correspondence courses and programs. In general, the regulations implementing these provisions are contained in 34 CFR part 668.
(Under the Distance Education Demonstration Program, the Secretary is authorized to waive any regulations governing part F of Title IV, which deals with need analysis and costs of attendance. However, the Secretary is not authorized to issue regulations implementing part F; therefore, there are no regulations to waive.)
Each application proposal to participate in this program shall include—
1. The name, address, and Web site address, if any, of the institution, system, or members of the consortium seeking to participate, and the name, title, mailing and e-mail addresses, and telephone number of a contact person for the institution, system, or consortium;
2. A description of the distance education programs offered or to be offered for which the institution is seeking a waiver or waivers. An institution may request a waiver or waivers for one, several, or all of its distance education courses or programs. The description should include the types of programs, degrees or certificates offered, program goals, and the methods used or proposed to be used to deliver distance education;
3. A description of the applicant's consultation with a recognized accrediting agency or agencies with respect to quality assurances for the distance education programs to be offered;
4. A description of the types of students that the distance education programs are intended to serve, (
5. The Title IV, HEA programs under which distance education students will receive funds;
6. The specific statutory and regulatory provisions to be waived, the scope of each waiver, and the reason for each waiver. The applicant should propose an alternative to the provision or explain why no alternative is necessary;
7. An assurance that the institution, system, or a consortium will fully cooperate with the Department's ongoing evaluations of the program; and
8. A statement of the goals of the institution, system, or consortium for participation along with the method the institution will use to evaluate achievement of the goals.
In addition to the information described above, systems and consortia must provide the following additional information—
1. A description of the system or consortium and the relationship among the members of the system or consortium, a copy of any agreement governing the relationship of institutions that are members of the system or consortium, and a list of the institutions which are members;
2. A description of the manner in which the distance education programs are or will be conducted among the system and consortium members particularly as that manner is related to the waiver request; and
3. The manner in which Title IV, HEA program funds will be administered for the students in the distance education programs. (This would include such matters as the disbursement procedures that would be followed, the definition of an academic year that would be used, how attendance would be monitored, and the satisfactory academic progress rules that would be followed.)
In selecting applicants to participate in the Distance Education Demonstration Program, the Secretary will take into account the—
1. Number and quality of applications received;
2. Department's capacity to oversee and monitor the applicant's participation;
3. Applicant's financial responsibility, administrative capability, and the program or programs being offered via distance education; and
4. Necessity of including different types of participating institutions vis-à-vis size, mission, and geographic distribution, with an emphasis on institutions that provide education exclusively through on-line instruction.
As part of the selection process, the Department will screen the applications to ensure that applicants are eligible. Then, outside reviewers will recommend the best applications given the statutory criteria. The Secretary will make final selections, based on the recommendations of the outside reviewers and the criteria listed in HEA.
The HEA requires the Secretary to submit reports to Congress evaluating the Distance Education Demonstration Program annually and eighteen months after the initiation of the program. As specified in HEA, the evaluations are to include the following:
1. The extent to which the institution, system or consortium has met the goals set forth in its application to the Secretary, including the measures of program quality assurance.
2. The number and types of students participating in the programs offered, including the progress of participating students toward recognized certificates or degrees and the extent to which participation in such programs increased.
3. Issues related to student financial assistance for distance education.
4. Effective technologies for delivering distance education course offerings.
5. The extent to which statutory or regulatory requirements not waived under the Distance Education Demonstration Program present difficulties for students or institutions.
To assist the Secretary in conducting such evaluations, participants in the Distance Education Demonstration Program will be required to provide information to the Secretary, such as: Course level detail regarding their offerings, the degrees or certificates awarded for successful completion, data on persistence and completion, data regarding student demographics, information regarding tuition and fees charged by the participant, program design and use of technology, information regarding the educational environment and student support, and student satisfaction surveys.
The guidance provided below is intended to assist applicants in determining what information they may wish to include in their applications. This guidance is non-binding and does not constitute criteria for selection. Applications which do not include the information suggested in the guidance will be considered on the same basis as applications which include all or part of that information.
1. Applicants should consider describing the ways that they think their proposals will assist the Department in determining new ways of administering Federal student assistance programs that better meet the needs of distance students.
2. It is important that the accrediting and State authorizing agencies of the institution, or institutions that comprise a consortium or system, are willing to collaborate with the Department to determine how their complementary roles can best be structured to assure quality and integrity in institutions' distance education programs. To this end, applicants for this program should provide documentation that their accrediting agencies and States are willing to work with the Department to examine the respective roles of the agencies as they relate to institutions' distance education programs. In that documentation, accrediting agencies should certify that the individual distance programs that the institution includes in its application are within the scope of the institution's accreditation, and that the agency will review the program at an appropriate time. Consortiums and systems should also provide evidence that the agency or agencies which accredit the schools comprising the consortium or system are willing to work with the Department in evaluating issues relating to the quality of distance education offered by the institutions as a result of their membership in the consortium or system.
3. While the Department will evaluate applications using the statutory criteria, to the extent possible, the Department will view those criteria in the context of the delivery of student aid to distance students and the changes that are needed to facilitate that process. Because the delivery of student aid is so critical to improving access to distance education, an application should fully describe the applicant's ability to fully execute its plans for student aid delivery and specify waivers requested and substitutions and address fully the need for the waivers and substitutions.
4. Applicants should consider establishing both quantitative and qualitative objectives for their participation and include in the application a description of how they intend to measure goal attainment, including measures of program quality. The Department notes that quantitative measures are essential for understanding goal attainment.
5. A major concern of the Department is to ensure that Federal funds in the Distance Education Demonstration Program are used appropriately. An application should address how the applicant plans to document student eligibility, including documentation of student attendance.
6. Another major concern of the Department is that an applicant be committed as an institution to the success of its proposed activities. One way for an institution to demonstrate its commitment is to include with its application a letter from its chief executive officer (or comparable official) expressing support for the application and acknowledgement of the responsibilities that the institution would assume if the application were approved. Correspondingly, in the case of a consortium applicant, the submission of such a letter from the chief executive officer (or comparable official) of each of the participating institutions would demonstrate such commitment.
Interested parties are invited to consult the Distance Education Demonstration Program Web site for information about applying to participate in the Distance Education Demonstration Program and providing Federal financial aid to students enrolled in distance education programs. The Web site also contains the names and contact information for Department staff with expertise on various issues relating to the Distance Education Demonstration Program who are available to answer questions and provide technical assistance regarding eligibility and administration of Title IV, HEA student financial assistance programs.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
You also may view this document in text or PDF at the following site:
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-888-293-6498 or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
20 U.S.C. 1093.
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), DOE
Notice of document availability.
Copies of the Bonneville Purchasing Instructions (BPI), which contain the policy and establish the procedures that BPA uses in the solicitation, award, and administration of its purchases of goods and services, including construction, are available in printed form for $30, or without charge at the following Internet address:
Unbound copies of the BPI or BFAI may be obtained by sending a check for the proper amount to the Head of the Contracting Activity, Routing CK-1, Bonneville Power Administration, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208-3621.
Manager, Corporate Communications, 1-800-622-4519.
BPA was established in 1937 as a Federal Power Marketing Agency in the Pacific Northwest. BPA operations are financed from power revenues rather than annual appropriations. BPA's purchasing operations are conducted under 16 U.S.C. 832
BPA's solicitations and contracts include notice of applicability and availability of the BPI and the BFAI, as appropriate, for the information of offerors on particular purchases or financial assistance transactions.
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on August 20, 2003, IDACORP Energy L.P. (IELP) and Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (SET) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and 18 CFR part 33 for authority to transfer all of the wholesale power sales contracts of IELP to SET. The Applicants request that the Commission act on the application so that the transfer may be consummated before October 1, 2003
Take notice that on August 21, 2003, Citizens Communications Company (Citizens) and Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc. (VELCO) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a joint application pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization of a disposition of jurisdictional facilities whereby Citizens will sell certain transmission facilities to VELCO.
Take notice that on August 21, 2003, Butler Ridge, LLC (the Applicant), with its principal office at c/o Midwest Wind Energy, LLC, 205 W. Monroe Street, 4th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Applicant states that it is a Delaware limited liability company engaged directly and exclusively in the business of developing, owning and operating an approximately 54 MW wind generating facility located in Dodge County, Wisconsin. Applicant further states that electric energy produced by the facility will be sold exclusively at wholesale by Applicant.
Take notice that on August 21, 2003, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) submitted for filing a response to a deficiency letter issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on July 22, 2003 in the above-captioned proceeding. The proceeding involves an unexecuted service agreement between SPP and the Kansas Municipal Energy Agency.
SPP states that it served a copy of the filing on all parties on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.
Take notice that on August 20, 2003, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation (Central Hudson) tendered for filing proposed changes in its Rate Schedule FERC No. 202 which sets forth the terms and charges for substation service provided by Central Hudson to Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
Central Hudson requests waiver on the notice requirements set forth in 18 CFR 35.11 of the Regulations to permit charges to become effective January 1, 2003 as agreed to by the parties.
Central Hudson states that a copy of its filing was served on Con Edison and the State of New York Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on August 20, 2003, Avista Corporation (AVA) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a Notice of Termination of Rate Schedule No. 185, a Service Agreement with El Paso Merchant Energy, L.P. previously filed under the Commission's Docket No. ER98-4633-000, effective August 15, 2003.
Take notice that on August 21, 2003, Nevada Power Company (Nevada Power), tendered for filing pursuant to Section 35 of the Federal Power Act, an executed Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service Retail Access Transmission
Nevada Power Company has requested the Commission accept the Transmission Service Agreement and the Network Operating Agreement and permit service in accordance therewith effective October 1, 2003.
Take notice that on August 21, 2003, Nevada Power Company (Nevada Power), tendered for filing pursuant to Section 35 of the Federal Power Act, an executed Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service Retail Access Transmission Service (Transmission Service Agreement) between Nevada Power Company and Coral Power, L.L.C. as Scheduling Coordinator for Rouse Fashion Show Management, LLC., the End-Use Customer and an executed Network Operating Agreement between Nevada Power Company and Coral Power, L.L.C. The Transmission Service Agreement and the Network Operating Agreement are being filed in compliance with Section 29.5 of the Sierra Pacific Resources Operating Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Nevada Power Company has requested the Commission accept the Transmission Service Agreement and the Network Operating Agreement and permit service in accordance therewith effective October 1, 2003.
Take notice that on August 21, 2003, West Penn Power Company, dba Allegheny Power (Applicant), filed an Addendum to its Electric Service Agreement with PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, formerly Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, to add one new delivery point. An effective date for the new delivery point of September 1, 2003 is requested.
Applicant states that copies of the filing have been provided to the customer, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Virginia State Corporation Commission and the West Virginia Public Service Commission.
Take notice that, on August 21, 2003, Duke Energy Washoe, LLC tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation pursuant to 18 CFR 35.15, in order to reflect the cancellation of its market-based rate tariff, designated as FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, originally accepted for filing in Docket No. ER01-241-000.
Take notice that on August 21, 2003, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) tendered for filing revisions to its Long-Term Power Transactions Agreement with PacifiCorp (PAC) applicable under the APS-FERC Rate Schedule No. 182. APS requests an effective date of November 13, 2000 for the requested changes.
APS states that copies of this filing have been served on PAC, the California Public Utilities Commission, the Public Utility Commission of Oregon, the Utah Public Service Commission, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, the Montana Public Service Commission, the Public Service Commission of Wyoming, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, and the Arizona Corporation Commission.
Take notice that on August 21, 2003, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, Citizens Communications Company (Citizens) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposed changes in its Open Access Transmission Tariff, Block Loading Facilities Transmission Agreement (FERC Rate Schedule No. 28), and FPC No. 10 successor agreements (FERC Rate Schedule Nos. 29, 31 and 32). The changes are proposed in connection with a joint application by Citizens and Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc. (VELCO) pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization of the sale by Citizens of certain jurisdictional transmission facilities to VELCO. Citizens states that the purpose of the rate changes is to implement a stipulation that was recently entered into between and among Citizens, its major Vermont wholesale transmission customers, and the Vermont Department of Public Service.
Citizens states that copies of the filing were filed upon Citizens' jurisdictional customers, the Vermont Department of Public Service, and the Vermont Public Service Board.
Take notice that on August 21, 2003, Sierra Pacific Power Company and Nevada Power Company (collectively, Applicants) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and Section 35 of the Commission's Regulations, an amendment to Section 17.7 of Sierra Pacific Resources Operating Companies FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1 (the OATT). The Applicants state that this amendment is necessary to address requests for the extension of the commencement of service over Nevada Power's newly constructed Centennial Project. The Applicants request that the amendment be made effective as of May 1, 2003, so that it will apply equally to all Transmission Customers using the Centennial Project.
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 August 22, 2003, ISO New England Inc. (ISO) submitted a Compliance Filing in the above-captioned proceeding as directed by the Commission in its August 12, 2003 Order on Cost Information, 104 FERC § 61,199. The ISO states that copies of the filing have been served on all parties to the above-captioned proceeding.
Take notice that on August 22, 2003, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO the) tendered for filing an amendment to its May 23, 2003 filing in Docket No. ER03-869-000 in compliance with the Commission's deficiency letter request dated July 22, 2003.
The Midwest ISO states it has served copies of its filing on all affected customers. Midwest ISO also 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, as well as all state commissions within the region. Midwest 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 August 21, 2003, AES Delano, Inc. (Delano), pursuant to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Order in Docket No. ER00-891-000, submitted its triennial market power update. In addition, pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act, Delano submitted its second revision to FERC Electric Rate Schedule, Original Volume No. 1, and its supplemental code of conduct reflecting changed corporate affiliations.
Take notice that on August 22, 2003, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO), pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and Section 35.13 of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 35.13, submitted for filing a revised unexecuted Interconnection and Operating Agreement among American Transmission Company LLC and Upper Peninsula Power Company.
Midwest ISO states that a copy of this filing was served on American Transmission Company LLC and Upper Peninsula Power Company.
Take notice that on August 12, 2003, ConocoPhillips Company (ConocoPhillips) tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation for Tosco Power, Inc. (Tosco), of Tosco's market-based authority approved by the Commission in Docket No. ER96-2635-000 to be effective December 31, 2002. ConocoPhillips states that Tosco is no longer in existence.
Take notice that on August 12, 2003, AES Delano, Inc. submitted notification that Delano Energy Company, Inc. has changed its name to AES Delano, Inc.
Take notice that on August 22, 2003, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) tendered for filing an Interconnection Agreement by and between Con Edison and KeySpan-Ravenswood, LLC, dated August 1, 2003. Con Edison states that the agreement provides for the interconnection to Con Edison's transmission system of a 250 MW electric generating facility that KeySpan-Ravenswood is constructing and will operate in the Borough of Queens, New York.
Take notice that on August 22, 2003, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), submitted for filing an Interconnection Service Agreement (ISA) among PJM, Prince George's County, Maryland, A Body Corporate and Politic, and Potomac Electric Power Company and a notice of cancellation of an Interim ISA that has been superseded.
PJM requests a waiver of the Commission's 60-day notice requirement to permit a July 24, 2003 effective date for the ISA.
PJM states that copies of this filing were served upon the parties to the agreements and the state regulatory commissions within the PJM region.
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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the Ohio Drum Superfund Site (“the Site”) in Cleveland, Ohio, with five parties: DeSantis Paint Manufacturing Co., City Barrel & Drum Company, Elmer Freiberg, David Tvert, and Cuyahoga Chemical Company (“the settling parties”). The settlement requires DeSantis Paint Manufacturing Co. to pay $500.00 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. City Barrel & Drum Company will pay $5,000.00 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. Elmer Freiberg will pay $500.00 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. David Tvert will pay $10,000.00 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. Cuyahoga Chemical Company will pay $100.00 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund.
Under the terms of the settlement, the settling parties agree to pay their respective settlement amounts. In exchange for their payments, the United States covenants not to sue or take administrative action pursuant to section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), to recover costs that the United States paid in connection with the Site through February 1, 2003. In addition, the settling parties are entitled to protection from contribution actions or claims as provided by sections 113(f) and 122(h)(4) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9613(f) and 9622(h)(4), for response costs incurred by any person at the Site.
For thirty (30) days after the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA's Region 5 Office at 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, and at the Cleveland Public Library, Cleveland, Ohio.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 6, 2003.
The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at EPA's Record Center, 7th floor, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Peter Felitti, Associate Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Mail Code C-14J, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone (312) 886-5114. Comments should reference the Ohio Drum Superfund Site, Cleveland, Ohio, and EPA Docket No. V-W-03-C-749, and should be addressed to Peter Felitti, Associate Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Mail Code C-14J, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Peter Felitti, Associate Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Mail Code C-14J, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone (312) 886-5114.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601,
The Advisory Committee was established by Pub. L. 98-181, November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and to provide comments for the inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import Bank of the United States to Congress.
Tuesday, September 23, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in the Main Conference Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.
Agenda items include reports and discussion on the Advisory Committee's Sub-Committees on services and agriculture, status and implementation plan for 2002 Advisory Committee Recommendations and development of the 2003 Advisory Committee Report.
The meeting will be open to public participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) before or after the meeting. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please contact, prior to September 17, 2003, Teri Stumpf, Room 1203, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 565-3542 or TDD (202) 565-3377.
For further information, contact Teri Stumpf, Room 1203, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3502.
The Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee was established by Pub. L. 105-121, November 26, 1997, to advise the Board of Directors on the development and implementation of policies and programs designed to support the expansion of the Bank's financial commitments in Sub-Saharan Africa under the loan, guarantee and insurance programs of the Bank. Further, the committee shall make recommendations on how the Bank can facilitate greater support by U.S. commercial banks for trade with Sub-Saharan Africa.
Tuesday, September 16, 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Export-Import Bank in
This meeting will focus on identifying the specific recommendations by the Advisory Committee as to the continuing efforts to identify and facilitate US-African trade to be included in the 2003 report to Congress due at the end of this calendar year as well as to update the Advisory Committee on business development since the June committee meeting.
The meeting will be open to public participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) before or after the meeting. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please contact, prior to September 16, 2003, Barbara Ransom, Room 1241, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 565-3525 or TDD (202) 565-3377.
For further information, contact Barbara Ransom, Room 1241, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3525.
Monday, September 8, 2003, at 3:30 P.M.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil action or proceedings or arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.
Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties can review or obtain copies of agreements at the Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Room 940.
Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
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.
Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 515).
Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Public Health and Science; and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services (FNCS) and Research, Education and Economics (REE).
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) (a) provide notice of the first meeting of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, and (b) solicit written comments pertinent to review of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
(1) The Committee will meet on September 23 and 24, 2003, from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. (2) Written comments on the guidelines received by 5 p.m. E.D.T. on September 16, 2003 will be ensured transmission to the Committee prior to this meeting. Written comments will be accepted throughout the Committee's deliberations.
The first meeting will take place at the Hubert Humphrey Building, Room 800, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Written comments can be sent to
HHS Co-Executive Secretaries: Kathryn McMurry or Karyl Thomas Rattay (phone 202-690-7102), HHS Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Room 738-G, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201. USDA Co-Executive Secretaries: Carole Davis (phone 703-305-7600), USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1034, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, or Pamela Pehrsson (phone (301) 504-0716), USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center-West, Building 005, Room 309A, Beltsville, Maryland 20705. Additional information is available on the Internet at
In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act as amended (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) announces meetings of scientific peer review groups. The subcommittees listed below are part of the Agency's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committee.
The subcommittee meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Grant applications are to be reviewed and discussed at these meetings. These discussions are likely to involve information concerning individuals associated with the applications, including assessments of their personal qualifications to conduct their proposed projects. This information is exempt from mandatory disclosure under the above-cited statutes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Agenda items for these meetings are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the new fees the agency will assess for inspections of mammography facilities starting October 1, 2003. The Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 (the MQSA) requires FDA to assess and collect fees from mammography facilities to cover the costs of annual inspections required by the MQSA. Because these costs have increased since the last increase on February 13, 1998, FDA is raising the fees accordingly. This document explains which facilities are subject to payment of inspection fees, provides information on the costs included in developing inspection fees, and provides information on the inspection billing and collection processes. This is only the second increase in inspection fees under the MQSA since the initial fee was established in 1995.
Effective October 1, 2003, for all inspections conducted under section 354(g) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 263b(g)). Submit written comments by October 1, 2003.
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20857. Submit electronic comments to
John L. McCrohan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-240), Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-594-3332, FAX: 301-594-3306.
The MQSA requires all mammography facilities, other than facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs, to be accredited by an approved accreditation body and certified by the
An updated resource review has demonstrated that the recoverable costs of the MQSA inspection program have increased since 1998. In addition, the annual amount of fees collected under the current fee schedule has been well below the level authorized by Congress. Accordingly, the fees have been recalculated so that the aggregate amount of fees collected will equal the aggregate costs of the inspections conducted, as mandated by the MQSA.
Therefore, FDA is providing notice of the increased fees to be assessed starting on October 1, 2003, and additional information relating to those fees. Although the MQSA does not require FDA to solicit comments on fee assessment and collection, FDA is inviting comments from interested persons in order to have the benefit of additional views and information, as the agency continues to evaluate its fee assessment procedures.
Section 354(g)(1) of the PHS Act requires FDA, States as Certifier (SAC) States, or a State or local agency acting on behalf of the FDA, to conduct an annual inspection of each mammography facility. The purpose of the annual inspection is to determine facility compliance with quality standards established under the MQSA. Inspections will be conducted by inspectors who have met Federal training requirements and who are qualified by FDA.
Under ordinary circumstances, inspections will be conducted during the regular business hours of the facility or at a mutually agreed time. FDA normally will provide 5 working days advance notice of each annual inspection. If a significant deficiency is identified during an inspection, FDA will provide information on necessary corrective action and, in appropriate cases, will schedule a followup inspection after the facility has had a reasonable time to correct the deficiency. FDA normally will provide 5 working days advance notice of each followup inspection. FDA may make unannounced inspections or may provide shorter notice if prompt action is necessary to protect the public health (see section 354(g)(4) of the PHS Act).
Section 354(r) of the PHS Act requires FDA to assess and collect fees from persons who own or lease mammography facilities, or their agents, to cover the costs of inspections conducted by FDA, SAC States, or a State or local agency acting on behalf of FDA. Section 354(r) limits FDA's discretion in setting inspection fees in three ways: (1) Fees must be set so that, for a given fiscal year (FY), the aggregate amount of fees collected will equal the aggregate costs of inspections conducted; (2) a facility's liability for fees must be reasonably based on the proportion of the inspection costs that relate to the facility; and (3) governmental entities, as determined by FDA, are exempt from payment of fees.
FDA has determined that the following categories of costs are recoverable under section 354(r) of the PHS Act and has included them in the fees to be assessed beginning on October 1, 2003. These categories represent the same costs that have been assessed in fees since the beginning of the inspection program. Facilities are not being assessed for any new costs associated with inspections.
Cost categories are as follows: (1) Personnel costs of annual and followup inspections of mammography facilities, including administration and support; (2) purchase of equipment, calibration of instruments used in the inspections, and modification and maintenance of training facilities and laboratories to support the MQSA operations; (3) design, programming, and maintenance of data systems necessary to schedule and track inspections and to collect data during inspections; (4) training and qualification of inspectors (both FDA and State inspectors); (5) costs of billing facilities for fees due for annual and followup inspections and collecting facility payments; (6) tracking, coordination, and direction of inspections; and (7) overhead and support attributable to facility inspections.
Because most equipment used for inspections is durable and can be used for a period of years, it is not appropriate to recover the full costs of such expenditures in the year of purchase. To do so would result in the MQSA inspection fee varying widely from one year to the next. Instead, FDA recovers these costs over the useful life of the asset.
The recoverable portions of all fixed costs of the inspection program and appropriate variable costs are recovered in the annual inspection fee. This fee will vary depending on how many mammography units are used by a facility. All mammography facilities, except governmental entities, are subject to an inspection fee.
If the annual inspection of a facility identifies a deficiency that necessitates a followup inspection that facility will be assessed an additional fee to recover the costs of that additional inspection (unless it is a governmental entity). Facilities that do not require a followup inspection are not subject to this fee.
FDA reviewed the past methodologies for calculating the inspection fee, which accounted for differences in facility size. The same method was adopted for calculating the fees FDA will assess beginning on October 1, 2003. A facility's inspection fee will be based on the number of mammography units used by the facility.
The total recoverable aggregate cost of the MQSA inspection program is estimated to be $14.1 million in FY 2004. This is below the $16.4 million authorized by Congress for collections in FY 2004. To recover the costs of the inspection program, the facility portion of the fee is $1,545 and each unit portion is $204. The cost of each additional unit must be added to the facility portion of the fee to determine the total inspection fee. This new fee of $1,749 for a facility with one unit compares to the current fee of $1,549 for a facility with one unit.
FDA will assess the following fees, beginning on October 1, 2003, for facility inspections, shown in table 1 of this document:
FDA will continue to charge separately for annual and followup inspections. FDA believes it is more appropriate and equitable for the costs of followup inspections to be borne entirely by the facilities that require such inspections. FDA has again chosen to adopt a flat fee for followup inspections over an hourly rate that would vary the fee by the length of the inspection. This approach eliminates concerns about variations among inspectors and differential treatment of facilities.The fee schedule is subject to change each year to ensure that the aggregate amount of fees collected during any year equals the aggregate amount of costs for that year's facility inspections. FDA will monitor the adequacy of the fee on an annual basis to account for any major programmatic and budget changes.
FDA continues to use a uniform, national fee structure. The methodology adopted by FDA to determine inspection fees does not pass on the costs of inspecting governmental entities to other facilities. The entire cost of inspecting governmental entities has been and will continue to be borne by appropriated funds.
Under the MQSA, all certified mammography facilities except governmental entities, as determined by FDA, are subject to payment of inspection fees (see section 354(r) of the PHS Act). FDA will continue to use the definition that was previously developed and applied to determine whether a facility qualifies as a governmental entity for the purpose of determining whether a facility is exempt from payment of inspection fees under section 354(r) of the PHS Act. A facility may qualify as a governmental entity in two ways. First, a facility may qualify if any Federal department, State, district, territory, possession, Federally-recognized Indian tribe, city, county, town, village, municipal corporation, or similar political organization does the following: (1) Operates the facility; (2) pays the entire salary of all onsite personnel for the facility; (3) owns, rents, or leases all of the facility's mammography equipment; and (4) has the ultimate authority to make day-to-day decisions concerning the management and operation of the facility.
Second, a facility may qualify as a governmental entity if the facility provides services under the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act of 1990 (
Within 30 days following inspection, FDA mails a bill and a “Governmental Entity Declaration” form (Form 3422) to the inspected facility. Facilities who believe they meet the governmental entity criteria complete the form and return it in lieu of the inspection fee payment. The bill sets forth the type of inspection conducted (annual or follow-up), the fee to be paid, and the date payment is due (30 days after billing date). Inspection fees are billed to and collected from the party that operates the facility. If the facility is owned or controlled by an entity other than the operator, it is up to the parties to establish, through contract or otherwise, how the costs of facility inspections will be allocated.
If full payment is not received by the due date, a second bill is sent. At that time, interest begins to accrue at the prevailing rate set by the Department of the Treasury, a 6 percent late payment penalty is assessed in accordance with 45 CFR 30.13, and a $20 administrative fee is assessed for each 30-day period that a balance remains due. If payment is not received within 30 days of a third and final bill, FDA may initiate action to collect unpaid balances (with interest and penalties), including the use of collection agencies, the reporting of delinquencies to commercial credit reporting agencies, and forwarding delinquent accounts to the Department of the Treasury, Treasury Offset Program. Any questions or concerns about the billing and collection procedures may be addressed to Billing Inquiries c/o Mammography Quality Assurance Program, P.O. Box 6057, Columbia, MD 21045, 1-800-838-7715.
Although the MQSA does not require FDA to solicit comments on fee exemption, assessment and collection, FDA is inviting comments from interested persons in order to have the benefit of additional views.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Coast Guard, DHS, and Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice of public hearing; request for comments.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) will hold a public hearing to receive information relevant to the issuance or denial of the requisite federal license for the proposed El Paso Energy Bridge Gulf of Mexico, LLC (Energy Bridge GOM) Deepwater Port project. The proposed Energy Bridge GOM Deepwater Port would be located in West Cameron Area, South Addition, Block 603 (WC603) in the Central Area of the Gulf of Mexico, approximately 106 miles due south of the Louisiana coastline. We encourage interested individuals and organizations to attend the public hearing and submit comments. We also seek comments from anyone unable to attend the public hearing. In conjunction with the public hearing, the USCG and MARAD will also hold an informational open house regarding the proposed Energy Bridge GOM Deepwater Port project.
The public hearing will be held on Friday, October 3, 2003, 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., in New Orleans, Louisiana. The informational open house will be held on Friday, October 3, 2003, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., in New Orleans, LA. The public hearing may be adjourned as early as 5 p.m. if there is no significant attendance or participation during the first two hours. The public hearing will continue beyond 6 p.m. if necessary to ensure all individuals present at that time who wish to comment have an opportunity to do so.
Comments intended for inclusion in the public docket [USCG-2003-14294] must reach the Docket Management Facility on or before November 17, 2003.
The public hearing and informational open house will be held at the following location: New Orleans Marriott, 555 Canal Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, (504) 581-1000.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number USCG-2003-14294 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the following methods:
(1) Web Site:
(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3) Fax: 202-493-2251.
(4) Delivery: Room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(5) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
For further information concerning this notice, the Energy Bridge GOM Deepwater Port license application, or the public hearing or informational open house, contact Commander Mark Prescott, U.S. Coast Guard at (202) 267-0225 or
Whether or not you attend the public hearing or informational open house, we encourage you to submit written comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted, without change, to
The Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration will hold a public hearing from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Friday, October 3, 2003, at the New Orleans Marriott, 555 Canal Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. An informational open house will be held prior to the public meeting from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. at the same location. We invite the public and representatives of interested agencies to attend and provide comments on the proposed license application. If you plan to attend the public hearing or informational open house and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, contact the U.S. Coast Guard as indicated in
The proposed Energy Bridge GOM Deepwater Port would deliver natural gas to the United States Gulf Coast using existing gas supply and gathering systems in the Gulf of Mexico and Louisiana. Gas would then be delivered to shippers using the national pipeline grid through interconnections with major interstate and intrastate pipelines.
The project would consist of a Submerged Turret Loading (STL) system that would be comprised of a submerged turret buoy; chains, lines, and anchors; a flexible riser; and a subsea manifold. A 20-inch seabed pipeline would be constructed as part of the project.
Liquified natural gas (LNG) would be transported on an El Paso Energy Bridge Vessel (EPEBV) from various sources worldwide. When the EPEBV, a conventional LNG tanker fitted with regasification equipment on board the vessel, reached the location of the Deepwater Port, it would retrieve and connect to the STL system. The submerged buoy would be raised from its subsurface location, and drawn into an opening in the hull of the vessel. After the buoy was attached to the vessel, the on-board LNG regasification process would commence. The gas would then be discharged through the buoy into the subsea flexible riser, to the manifold, and finally to the pipeline which would enable additional natural gas supplies to enter key domestic markets in the United States.
The Energy Bridge GOM Deepwater Port license application was submitted to the Secretary of Transportation on December 20, 2002. The license application calls for construction of the Energy Bridge GOM Deepwater Port in an area situated in the Central Area of the Gulf of Mexico, approximately 106 miles south of the Louisiana coastline, in West Cameron Area, South Addition, Block 603 (WC603). Additional information concerning the contents of the application can be found online at
Any person who wishes may appear and speak or present evidence at this public hearing. Persons planning to speak at the hearing should contact the U.S. Coast Guard as indicated in
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of policy.
The Coast Guard announces that on September 27, 2003, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78), (revised) Annex IV will enter into force internationally. The United States is not a Party to MARPOL 73/78, Annex IV, however, U.S. flagged vessels visiting nations that are parties may need to demonstrate compliance with these MARPOL regulations on the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships. The Coast Guard plans to assist qualified U.S. flag vessels in demonstrating compliance with these MARPOL requirements by issuing a document certifying equivalent compliance with the revised Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78. Failure of a United States flagged vessel to have the appropriate certificate or a document stating shipboard equivalency to MARPOL 73/78, Annex IV could result in a port state detention abroad.
The MARPOL 73/78, Annex IV international requirements come into force September 27, 2003, for new ships built on or after September 27, 2003. For existing vessels, these MARPOL international requirements come into force September 27, 2008.
For new vessels, requests for documentation certifying equivalent compliance with the revised Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78 should be sent to the local Officer-in-Charge, Marine Inspection. This notice and documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG-2003-16010 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet at
If you have questions regarding this notice, you may call, fax, or e-mail Lieutenant Commander Brian Downey, Office of Compliance, (G-MOC-1): telephone 202-267-2735, fax 202-267-4394, e-mail
Starting September 27, 2003, certain U.S. flagged vessels visiting nations that are a party to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78), Annex IV (Sewage) (“MARPOL 73/78, Annex IV”) may need to demonstrate compliance with MARPOL 73/78, (revised) Annex IV—regulations on the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships.
The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) has agreed to revisions to Annex IV. MEPC of IMO has asked Annex IV Parties to implement the revised Annex IV immediately on the entry into force of the existing Annex to avoid the creation of a dual treaty regime between the existing and the revised Annex IV.
The MARPOL 73/78, (revised) Annex IV applies to all new vessels built on or after September 27, 2003, that are 400 Gross Tons (GT), International Tonnage Convention (ITC), or more and new vessels less than 400 GT ITC that are certified to carry more than 15 passengers. The Annex does not require existing vessels within these tonnage and passenger categories to comply until September 27, 2008. A copy of the text of the MARPOL 73/78, (revised) Annex IV, and a related MEPC circular
The U.S. Coast Guard plans to help the United States maritime industry demonstrate equivalent compliance with MARPOL 73/78, (revised) Annex IV to which the United States is not a Party. The United States considers a U.S. Coast Guard certified Marine Sanitation Device (MSD) to offer equivalent sewage pollution prevention to MSDs with an IMO Certificate of Type Test demonstrating compliance with the performance requirements of MARPOL 73/78, (revised) Annex IV. Therefore, any vessel with an installed and operational Coast Guard certified MSD which meets the criteria of 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 159 should be eligible to receive documentation certifying equivalent compliance with the revised Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78.
Because the United States is not a party to MARPOL 73/78, Annex IV, the Coast Guard cannot issue official international convention certificates as a Flag State. To facilitate commerce and reduce confusion, however, the Coast Guard plans to issue a Flag State document to demonstrate equivalent compliance with MARPOL 73/78, (revised) Annex IV for eligible vessels.
30-day notice of information collection under review: Report of complaint; Form I-847.
The Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until October 6, 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 regarding 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 Homeland Security Desk Officer, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20530.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please contact Richard A. Sloan 202-514-3291, Director, Regulations and Forms Services Division, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Room 4034, 425 I Street, NW., Washington, DC 20536. Additionally, comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time may also be directed to Mr. Richard A. Sloan.
If additional information is required contact: Ms. Terry O'Malley, Clearance Officer, United States Department of Homeland Security, 7th & D Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20530, (202) 358-3571.
Department of Interior, Office of the Secretary.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces an upcoming meeting of the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463).
Friday, September 12, 2003, Time 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Lehigh Valley Planning Commission, 961 Marcon Blvd, Suite 310, Allentown, PA 18103.
The agenda for the meeting will focus on implementation of the Management Action Plan for the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor and State Heritage Park. The Commission was established to assist the
The Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission was established by Public Law 100-692, November 18, 1988 and extended through Public Law 105-355, November 13, 1998.
C. Allen Sachse, Executive Director, Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission, 1 South Third Street, 8th Floor, Easton PA 18042, (610) 923-3548.
Department of the Interior.
Notice of proposed revised procedures.
This notice proposes revised Departmental policies and procedures for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended, Executive Order 11514, as amended, Executive Order 12114, and the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations. This action is necessary to update these procedures and to make them available to the public on the Department's Internet site. When adopted, these procedures will be published in Part 516 of the Departmental Manual (DM) and will be added to the Electronic Library of Interior Policies (ELIPS). ELIPS is located at:
Submit comments on or before October 6, 2003.
Comments may be mailed to: Department of the Interior; NEPA Revised Implementing Procedures; c/o The Content Analysis Team; US Forest Service; P.O. Box 221150; Salt Lake City, UT 84122. Comments may also be faxed to the Content Analysis Team at: 801-517-1015. Finally comments may be e-mailed to the team at:
Terence N. Martin, Team Leader, Natural Resources Management; Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance; 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. Telephone: 202-208-5465. e-mail:
These procedures address policy as well as procedure in order to assure compliance with the spirit and intent of NEPA. They update our policies and procedures in order to stay current with changing environmental laws and programs of the Federal government. It is the intent of these procedures to continue to set forth one set of broad Departmental directives and instructions to all bureaus and offices of the Department to follow in their NEPA compliance activities. In the current chapters, the Department's bureaus published appendices to Chapter 6 to further describe each bureau's NEPA compliance program. In order to more efficiently handle these appendices in the ELIPS system, it has been decided to rename them as new chapters to this DM part. Therefore, this publication expands the chapter numbering system from 516 DM 8 through 516 DM 15 to contain the old bureau appendices. These chapters have already received public review and are final. They may be viewed and downloaded from ELIPS. Comments are not being requested on these chapters. Chapters 8 through 15 may be revised in the future to further conform to the revised Chapters 1-7. If so, they will each appear for comment in the
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) it has been determined that this action is the implementation of policy and procedures applicable only to the Department of the Interior and not a significant regulatory action. These policies and procedures would not impose a compliance burden on the general economy.
This document is not subject to prior notice and opportunity to comment because it is a general statement of policy and procedure [(5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)]. However, notice and opportunity to comment is required by the CEQ Regulations [40 CFR 1507.3(a)].
This document is not subject to notice and comment under the Administrative Procedures Act, and, therefore, is not subject to the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
These policies and procedures do not comprise a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The document will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more and is expected to have no significant economic impacts. Further, it will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions and will
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501,
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this document does not have significant Federalism effects; and, therefore, a Federalism assessment is not required. The policies and procedures will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No intrusion on State policy or administration is expected, roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments will not change, and fiscal capacity will not be substantially, directly affected. Therefore, the document does not have significant effects or implications on Federalism.
This document does not require information collection as defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Therefore, this document does not constitute a new information collection system requiring Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Council on Environmental Quality does not direct agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis or document before establishing agency procedures that supplement the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA. Agency NEPA procedures are internal procedural guidance to assist agencies in the fulfillment of agency responsibilities under NEPA, but are not the agency's final determination of what level of NEPA analysis is required for a particular proposed action.
We have analyzed this document in accordance with section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and determined that issuance of this document will not affect the essential fish habitat of Federally managed species; and, therefore, an essential fish habitat consultation on this document is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, and 512 DM 2, we have assessed this document's impact on tribal trust resources and have determined that it does not directly affect tribal resources since it describes the Department's procedures for its compliance with NEPA.
Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001, requires a Statement of Energy Effects for significant energy actions. Significant energy actions are actions normally published in the
Executive Order 13212 of May 18, 2001, requires agencies to expedite energy-related projects by streamlining internal processes while maintaining safety, public health, and environmental protections. Today's publication is in conformance with this requirement as it promotes existing process streamlining requirements and revises the text to emphasize this concept (see Chapter 4, subpart 4.16).
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (March 15, 1988) and Part 318 of the Departmental Manual, the Department has reviewed today's notice to determine whether it would interfere with constitutionally protected property rights. Again, we believe that as internal instructions to bureaus on the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, this publication would not cause such interference.
NEPA, the National Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371
This Chapter establishes the Department's policies for complying with Title I of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) (NEPA); Section 2 of Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, as amended by Executive Order 11991; Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions; and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508; identified in this Part 516 as the CEQ Regulations).
It is the policy of the Department:
A. To provide leadership in protecting and enhancing those aspects of the quality of the Nation's environment which relate to or may be affected by the Department's policies, goals, programs, plans, or functions in furtherance of national environmental policy;
B. To the fullest practicable extent, to encourage public involvement in the development of Departmental plans and programs through local partnerships at the beginning of the NEPA process, and to provide timely information to the public to better assist in understanding such plans and programs affecting environmental quality and those aspects of the human environment as identified in Section 101 of NEPA;
C. To interpret and administer, to the fullest extent possible, the policies,
D. To consider and give important weight to environmental factors, along with other societal needs, in developing proposals and making decisions in order to achieve a proper balance between the development and utilization of natural, cultural, and human resources and the protection and enhancement of environmental quality;
E. To consult, coordinate, and cooperate with other Federal agencies and, particularly, State, local, Alaska Native Corporations, and Indian tribal governments in the development and implementation of the Department's plans and programs affecting environmental quality and, in turn, to give consideration to those activities that succeed in best addressing State and local concerns;
F. To be innovative in natural resource protection and to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve, coordinate, and direct its policies, plans, functions, programs, and resources in furtherance of national environmental goals;
G. To rigorously integrate systematic, interdisciplinary approaches into the design of all activities and to base decision making on adequate environmental data in order to identify reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts;
H. Where necessary, to monitor, evaluate, and control activities to protect and enhance the quality of the environment and to base decision making on monitoring data and evaluation results; and
I. To cooperate with and assist the CEQ.
The following responsibilities reflect the Secretary's decision that the officials responsible for making program decisions are also responsible for taking the requirements of NEPA into account in those decisions and will be held accountable for that responsibility:
(1) Is the Department's focal point on NEPA matters and is responsible for overseeing the Department's implementation of NEPA.
(2) Serves as the Department's principal contact with the CEQ.
(3) Assigns to the Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (OEPC), the responsibilities outlined for that Office in this Part.
Is responsible for providing legal advice in the Department's compliance with NEPA.
(1) Are responsible for compliance with NEPA, Executive Order 11514, as amended, the CEQ Regulations, and this Part for bureaus and offices under their jurisdiction.
(2) Shall ensure that, to the fullest extent possible, the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States administered under their jurisdiction are interpreted and administered in accordance with the requirements of NEPA.
(1) Must comply with the provisions of NEPA, Executive Order 11514, as amended, the CEQ Regulations, and this Part.
(2) Shall interpret and administer, to the fullest extent possible, the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States administered under their jurisdiction in accordance with the requirements of NEPA.
(3) Shall continue to review their statutory authorities, administrative regulations, policies, programs, and procedures, including those related to loans, grants, contracts, leases, licenses, or permits, in order to identify any deficiencies or inconsistencies therein which prohibit or limit full compliance with the intent, purpose, and provisions of NEPA and, in consultation with the Solicitor and the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, shall take or recommend, as appropriate, corrective actions as may be necessary to bring these authorities and policies into conformance with the intent, purpose, and procedures of NEPA.
(4) Shall monitor, evaluate, and control on a continuing basis their activities as needed to protect and enhance the quality of the environment. Such activities will include both those directed to controlling pollution and enhancing the environment and those designed to accomplish other program objectives which may affect the quality of the environment. They will develop programs and measures to protect and enhance environmental quality. They will assess progress in meeting the specific objectives of such activities as they affect the quality of the environment.
(5) Shall, in furtherance of public participation practices (see 1.2B, above), ensure that consensus-based management
(6) Shall use tiered and transferred analyses to help avoid needless repetition. They will require decision makers to produce NEPA documents that save resources and reduce the public's perception that NEPA documents merely accomplish compliance with a process and do not add to the general knowledge of environmental impacts to natural resources.
(7) Shall use adaptive management (see 516 DM 4.16) to fully comply with 40 CFR 1505.2 which requires a monitoring and enforcement program to be adopted, where applicable, for any mitigation activity.
(1) Shall comply fully with NEPA policies and procedures.
(2) Shall use information obtained in the NEPA process, including pertinent information provided by State and local agencies, Indian tribal governments, and interest groups, to identify reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the human environment while improving overall environmental results.
(3) Shall monitor, evaluate, and control their activities on a continuing basis to further protect and enhance the quality of the environment.
(1) In the management of the natural, cultural, and human resources under its jurisdiction, the Department must consider and balance a wide range of economic, environmental, and societal needs at the local, regional, national, and international levels, not all of which are quantifiable in comparable terms. In considering and balancing these objectives, Departmental plans, proposals, and decisions often require recognition of complements and resolution of conflicts among interrelated uses of these natural, cultural, and human resources within technological, budgetary, and legal constraints. Various Departmental conflict resolution mechanisms are available to assist this balancing effort.
(2) Departmental project reports, program proposals, issue papers, and other decision documents must carefully analyze the various objectives, resources, and constraints, and comprehensively and objectively evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed actions and their reasonable alternatives. Where appropriate, these documents will contain or reference supporting and underlying economic, environmental, technological, and other societal analyses in language that all participants can understand and use.
(3) The underlying environmental analyses will factually, objectively, and comprehensively analyze the environmental effects of proposed actions and their reasonable alternatives. They will systematically analyze the environmental impacts of alternatives, and particularly those alternatives and measures that would reduce, mitigate or prevent adverse environmental impacts or that would enhance environmental quality. However, such an environmental analysis is not, in and of itself, a program proposal or the decision document, is not a justification of a proposal, and will not support or deprecate the overall merits of a proposal or its various alternatives.
(4) Environmental analyses shall strive to provide baseline data where possible and shall provide monitoring and evaluation tools as necessary to ensure that an activity
(5) If proposed actions are planned for the same geographic area or are otherwise closely related, environmental analysis should be integrated to ensure adequate consideration of resource use interactions, to reduce resource conflicts, to establish baseline data, to monitor and evaluate changes in such data, to adapt actions or groups of actions accordingly, and to comply with NEPA and the CEQ Regulations. Proposals shall not be segmented in order to reduce the levels of environmental impacts reported in NEPA documents.
(6) When proposed actions involve approval processes of other agencies, the Department shall use its lead role to identify opportunities to consolidate those processes.
Officials responsible for development or conduct of planning and decisionmaking systems within the Department shall incorporate environmental planning as an integral part of these systems in order to ensure that environmental values and impacts are fully considered, facilitate any necessary documentation of those considerations, and identify reasonable alternatives in the design and implementation of activities that minimize adverse environmental impacts. An interdisciplinary approach shall be initiated at the earliest possible time to provide for consultation among all participants for each planning or decision making endeavor. This interdisciplinary approach should, to the extent possible, have the capacity to consider innovative and creative solutions from all participants.
Officials responsible for the development or conduct of loan, grant, contract, lease, license, permit, or other externally initiated activities shall require applicants, to the extent necessary and practicable, to provide environmental information, analyses, and reports as an integral part of their applications. As with internally initiated proposals, officials shall encourage applicants and other interested parties to consult with the Department and provide their comments, recommendations, and suggestions for improvement.
(1) Officials responsible for planning or implementing Departmental plans and programs will develop and utilize procedures to consult, coordinate, and cooperate with relevant State, local, and Indian tribal governments; other bureaus and Federal agencies; and public and private organizations and individuals concerning the environmental effects of these plans and programs on their jurisdictions or interests. Such efforts should, in accordance with FACA, include consensus-based management whenever possible. This is a planning process that incorporates direct community involvement into bureau activities from initial scoping to implementation of the bureau or office decision. All bureau NEPA and planning procedures will be made available to the public.
(2) Bureaus and offices will use, to the maximum extent possible, existing notification, coordination, and review mechanisms established by the Office of Management and Budget and CEQ. However, use of these mechanisms must not be a substitute for early consultation, coordination, and cooperation with others, especially State, local, and Indian tribal governments.
(3) Bureaus and offices are encouraged to expand, develop, and use new forms of notification, coordination, and review, particularly by electronic means and the Internet. Bureaus are also encouraged to stay abreast of and use new technologies in environmental data gathering and problem solving.
(1) Technical assistance, advice, data, and information useful in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environment will be made available to other Federal agencies; State, local, and Indian tribal governments; institutions; and other entities as appropriate.
(2) Information regarding existing or potential environmental problems and control methods developed as a part of research, development, demonstration, test, or evaluation activities will be made available to other Federal agencies; State, local, and Indian tribal governments; institutions; and other entities as appropriate.
(3) Recognizing the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems and consistent with the foreign policy of the United States, appropriate support will be made available (in consultation with States or Tribal governments, if applicable) to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of the world environment.
(1) Officials responsible for protecting, conserving, developing, or managing resources under the Department's jurisdiction shall coordinate and cooperate with State, local, and Indian tribal governments; other bureaus and Federal agencies; and public and private organizations and individuals, and provide them with timely information concerning the environmental effects of these entities' plans and programs.
(2) Bureaus and offices are encouraged to participate early in the planning processes of other agencies and organizations in order to ensure full cooperation with, and understanding of, the Department's programs and interests in natural, cultural, and human resources.
(3) Bureaus and offices will use, to the fullest extent possible, existing Departmental review mechanisms to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and to avoid confusion by other organizations.
(4) Bureaus and offices will work closely with other Federal agencies to ensure that similar or related proposed actions in the same geographic area are fully evaluated to determine if agency analyses can be integrated so that one NEPA compliance document can be used by all for their individual permitting and licensing needs.
A. Bureaus and offices, in consultation with the Office of Communications, will develop and implement procedures to ensure the fullest practicable provision of timely public information and understanding of their plans and programs with environmental impacts including information on the environmental impacts of alternative courses of action. This is to include public involvement in the development of NEPA analyses and documents.
B. These procedures will include, wherever appropriate, provision for public meetings in order to obtain the views of interested parties, newsletters, and status reports of NEPA compliance activities. Public information shall include all necessary policies and procedures concerning plans and programs in a readily accessible, consistent format.
C. Bureaus and offices will also coordinate and collaborate with State and local agencies and Indian tribal governments in developing and using similar procedures for informing the public concerning their activities affecting the quality of the environment. (See also 301 DM 2.)
A. This Part provides Department-wide instructions for complying with NEPA, Executive Orders 11514, as amended by 11991 (Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality) and 12114 (Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions), and the CEQ Regulations.
B. The Department hereby adopts the CEQ Regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA [Sec. 102(2)(C)] except where compliance would be inconsistent with other statutory requirements. In the case of any apparent discrepancies between these procedures and the NEPA statute; Executive Orders 11514, 11991, and 12114; or the mandatory provisions of the CEQ Regulations, the laws, executive orders, and regulations shall govern.
C. Instructions supplementing the CEQ Regulations are provided in Chapters 2-7 of this Part. Citations in brackets refer to the CEQ Regulations.
D. Instructions specific to each bureau are found in Chapters 8 through 15. This portion of the manual may expand or contract depending on the number of bureaus existing at any particular time. In addition, bureaus may prepare handbooks or other technical guidance for their personnel on how to apply this Part to principal programs. In the case of any apparent discrepancies between these procedures and bureau handbooks or technical guidance, 516 DM 2-7 shall govern.
This Chapter provides supplementary instructions for implementing those portions of the CEQ Regulations pertaining to initiating the NEPA process. The numbers in parentheses signify the appropriate citation in the CEQ Regulations.
A. Bureaus shall initiate early consultation and coordination with other bureaus and any Federal agency having jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental issue that should be addressed, and with appropriate Federal, State, local and Indian tribal governments authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards or to manage and protect natural resources.
B. Bureaus shall also initiate the consultation process with interested parties and organizations at the time an application is received, or when the bureau initiates action on an agency plan or project requiring NEPA compliance.
C. Bureaus shall revise or amend program regulations, requirements, and directives to ensure that private or non-Federal applicants are informed of any environmental information required to be included in their applications and of any consultation with other Federal agencies, or State, local, or Indian tribal governments required prior to making the application. A discussion and a list of these regulations, requirements, and directives are found in 516 DM 6.4 and 6.5. The specific regulations, requirements, and directives for each bureau are found in separate chapters of this Part beginning with Chapter 8.
D. It is imperative that bureaus enlist the participation of all stakeholders as early as possible (including any necessary community-based training) in order to reduce costs, prevent delays, and to promote efficiency in the NEPA process. It is the intent of these procedures to achieve early consensus on the scope of NEPA compliance and the methodologies for collecting needed baseline data. Consensus-based management [as described in 516 DM 1.5(A)(1)] should be used to facilitate this process. Further, it is the intent of these procedures to avoid the late introduction of issues and alternatives that should have been identified initially during scoping.
E. Bureaus shall engage in a rigorous interdisciplinary approach at the earliest possible time to ensure adequate identification and consideration of the wide variety of environmental factors and considerations inherent in NEPA compliance activities.
(1) The following criteria will be used to determine actions to be categorically excluded from the NEPA process: (a) The action or group of actions would have no significant individual or cumulative effect on the quality of the human environment [NEPA; Section 102(2)(c)]; and (b) The action or group of actions would not involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources [NEPA; Section 102(2)(e)].
(2) Based on the above criteria, the classes of actions listed in Appendix 1 to this Chapter are categorically excluded, Department-wide, from the NEPA process. A list of CX specific to bureau programs will be found in the bureau chapters beginning with Chapter 8. Note that 1508.18(a) excludes judicial or administrative civil or criminal enforcement actions.
(3) The CEQ Regulations at 40 CFR 1508.4 require agency procedures to provide for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect thus requiring additional analysis and action. The exceptions to categorical exclusions listed in Appendix 2 of this Chapter apply to extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect. Any action that is normally categorically excluded must be subjected to sufficient environmental review to determine whether it meets any of the extraordinary circumstances, in which case, environmental documents must be prepared for the action. Bureaus are reminded and encouraged to work within existing administrative frameworks, including any existing programmatic agreements, when deciding how to apply any of the Appendix 2 extraordinary circumstances.
A FONSI will be prepared as a separate covering document based upon a review of an EA. Accordingly, the words
An NOI will be prepared as soon as practicable after a decision to prepare an EIS and shall be published in the
F. Existing environmental analyses should be used in analyzing impacts of a proposed action to the extent possible and appropriate. CEQ Regulations encourage agencies to make the best use of existing NEPA documents and to avoid redundancy and unneeded paperwork through supplementing, incorporating by reference, or adopting previous environmental analyses. Use of existing documents carries with it a presumption that the bureaus will determine, in a deliberative manner and through agency procedures, that existing environmental analyses still adequately cover current actions.
A. The AS/PMB shall designate lead bureaus within the Department when bureaus under more than one Assistant Secretary are involved and cannot reach agreement on lead bureau status. The AS/PMB shall represent the Department in consultations with CEQ or other Federal agencies in the resolution of lead agency determinations.
B. Bureaus will inform the OEPC of any agreements to assume lead agency status. OEPC will assist in the coordination and documentation of any AS/PMB designations made in 2.4A.
C. To eliminate duplication with State and local procedures, a non-Federal agency (including Indian tribal governments) may be designated as a joint lead agency when it has a duty to comply with State or local requirements that are comparable to the NEPA requirements.
D. In general, 40 CFR 1501.5 describes the selection of lead agencies, the settlement of lead agency disputes, and the concept of joint lead. While the joint lead relationship is not precluded among several Federal agencies, the Department recommends that it be applied sparingly. Instead, the Department recommends that one Federal agency be selected as the lead with the remaining Federal, State, Indian tribal governments, and local agencies assuming the role of cooperating agency. In this manner, the other Federal, State, and local agencies can ensure themselves that the ensuing NEPA document will meet their needs for adoption and application to their related decision, if one exists. If joint lead is dictated by other law, regulation, policy, or practice, then only one Federal agency may be the official filing agency for the EIS.
E. Lead agency designations may be required by law in certain circumstances.
A. The OEPC will assist Bureaus in determining cooperating agencies and coordinate requests from non-Interior agencies.
B. Bureaus will inform the OEPC of any agreements to assume cooperating agency status or any declinations pursuant to Section 1501.6(c).
C. Upon the request of the lead agency, any Federal agency with jurisdiction by law shall, and any Federal agency with special expertise may, be a cooperating agency. Any non-Federal agency (State, tribal, or local) may be a cooperating agency by agreement when it has jurisdiction by law (40 CFR 1508.15) or special expertise (40 CFR 1508.26) and meets the requirements of 40 CFR 1501.6. Bureaus will consult with the Solicitor's Office in cases where such non-Federal agencies are also applicants before the Department to determine relative lead/cooperating agency responsibilities.
D. Bureaus and potential cooperating agencies may determine by letter or memorandum their respective roles, assignment of issues, and commitment to keeping the NEPA process on track and within time schedules.
A. The invitation requirement in Section 1501.7(a)(1) may be satisfied by including such an invitation in the NOI.
B. Scoping is a process which continues throughout the planning and early stages of preparation of an EIS. Bureaus are encouraged through scoping to engage the public in the early identification of concerns, potential impacts, and possible alternative actions. Scoping requires interdisciplinary considerations. Scoping is an opportunity to bring agencies and applicants together to lay the groundwork for setting time limits, expediting reviews where possible, integrating other environmental reviews, and identifying any major obstacles that could delay the process.
C. Scoping should encourage the responsible official to integrate analyses required by other environmental laws. Scoping should also be used to integrate other planning activities for separate projects that may have similar or cumulative impacts. Integrated analysis facilitates the resolution of resource conflicts and minimizes redundancy.
D. Through scoping meetings, newsletters, or other communication methods, it should be made clear that the lead agency is ultimately responsible for the scope of an EIS and that suggestions obtained during scoping (see B and C above) are considered to be advisory.
A. Time limits are an important consideration and, when used diligently, can contribute greatly to a more efficient NEPA process. Bureaus are encouraged to set time limits of their own and to respond favorably to applicant requests for time limits and set them consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 1501.8. Bureaus should work with cooperating agencies and agencies with which they must consult in setting time limits and encourage their commitment in meeting the time frames established.
B. When time limits are established, they should reflect the availability of personnel and funds. Efficiency of the NEPA process is dependent on the management capabilities of the lead bureau, which is encouraged to assemble a sufficiently well qualified staff to ensure timely completion of NEPA documents.
The following actions are CXs pursuant to 516 DM 2.3A(2). However, environmental documents will be prepared for individual actions within these CX if any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 516 DM 2, Appendix 2, apply.
Extraordinary circumstances exist for individual actions within CXs which may:
This Chapter provides supplementary instructions for implementing those portions of the CEQ Regulations pertaining to EAs.
A. An EA will be prepared for all actions, except those covered by a categorical exclusion, those covered sufficiently by an earlier environmental document, or those actions for which a decision has already been made to prepare an EIS. The purpose of an EA is to allow the responsible official to determine whether to prepare an EIS or a FONSI.
B. In addition, an EA may be prepared on any action at any time in order to assist in planning and decision making, to aid an agency's compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary, or to facilitate EIS preparation.
A. The public must be provided notice of the availability of EAs (40 CFR 1506.6).
B. Bureaus and offices, when conducting the EA process, shall provide the opportunity for public participation and shall consider the public comments on the pending plan or program.
C. The scoping process may be applied to an EA (40 CFR 1501.7).
A. At a minimum, an EA will include brief discussions of the proposal, the need for the proposal, alternatives [as required by Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA], the environmental impacts of the proposed action and such alternatives, and a listing of agencies and persons consulted [1508.9(b)].
B. In addition, an EA may describe a broader range of alternatives and proposed mitigation measures to facilitate planning and decision making.
C. The level of detail and depth of impact analysis should normally be limited to that needed to determine whether there would be significant environmental effects.
D. An EA will contain objective analyses that support its environmental impact conclusions. It will not conclude whether an EIS will be prepared. This conclusion will be made upon review of the EA by the responsible bureau official and documented in either a NOI or a FONSI.
E. Previous NEPA analyses should be used in a tiered analysis or transferred and used in a subsequent analysis to enhance the content of an EA whenever possible.
A. An EA may be prepared in any format useful to facilitate planning, decision making, and appropriate public participation.
B. An EA may be combined with any other planning or decision making document; however, that portion which analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposal and alternatives will be clearly and separately identified and not spread throughout or interwoven into other sections of the document.
A. An EA prepared for a proposal before the Department by another agency, entity, or person, including an applicant, may be adopted if, upon independent evaluation by the responsible official, it is found to comply with this Chapter and relevant provisions of the CEQ Regulations.
B. When appropriate and efficient, a responsible official may augment such an EA when it is essentially, but not entirely, in compliance, in order to make it so.
C. If such an EA or augmented EA is adopted, responsible officials must prepare their own NOI or FONSI that acknowledges the origin of the EA and takes full responsibility for its scope and content.
D. Adoption or augmentation of an EA shall receive the same public participation that the EA would have received if it had originated with the adopting or augmenting bureau or office.
This Chapter provides supplementary instructions for implementing those portions of the CEQ regulations pertaining to EIS.
NEPA requires that an EIS be prepared by the responsible Federal official. This official is normally the lowest-level official who has overall responsibility for formulating, reviewing, or proposing an action or, alternatively, has been delegated the authority or responsibility to develop, approve, or adopt a proposal or action. Preparation at this level will ensure that the NEPA process will be incorporated into the planning process and that the EIS will accompany the proposal through existing review processes.
A. For such actions as broad programmatic decisions, rulemakings, or resource management plans, an EIS should be commenced whenever a proposed action has been defined. These types of actions can be inherently vague and difficult to analyze until the proposed action is defined. At that point, concurrent drafting of the proposal and its accompanying EIS should be commenced.
B. The feasibility analysis (go/no-go) stage, at which time an EIS is to be prepared for proposed projects undertaken by DOI, is to be interpreted as the stage prior to the first point of major commitment to the proposal. For example, this would normally be at the authorization stage for proposals requiring Congressional authorization; the location or corridor stage for transportation, transmission, and communication projects; and the notice of sale stage for offshore mineral resources proposals [40 CFR 1502.5(a)].
C. For situations involving applications to DOI or the bureaus, an EIS need not be commenced until an application is essentially complete;
Bureaus will ensure that the length of EISs is no greater than necessary to comply with NEPA, the CEQ regulations, and this Chapter.
A. Supplements are required if an agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action relevant to environmental concerns or there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.
B. A bureau and/or the appropriate program Assistant Secretary will consult with the OEPC and the Office of the Solicitor prior to proposing to CEQ to prepare a supplemental statement using alternative arrangements such as issuing a final supplement without preparing an intervening draft.
C. If, after a decision has been made based on a final EIS, a described proposal is further defined or modified and if its changed effects are not significant and still within the scope of the earlier EIS, an EA, and a FONSI may be prepared for subsequent decisions rather than a supplement.
A. Proposed departures from the standard format described in the CEQ regulations and this Chapter must be approved by the OEPC.
B. The section listing the preparers of the EIS will also include other sources of information, including a bibliography or list of cited references, when appropriate.
C. The section listing the distribution of the EIS will also fully describe the consultation and public involvement processes used in planning the proposal and in preparing the EIS, if this information is not discussed elsewhere in the document. The section will also describe the level to which the public contributed usable data for the document.
D. If CEQ's standard format is not used or if the EIS is combined with another planning or decision making document, the section which analyzes the environmental consequences of the proposal and its alternatives will be clearly and separately identified and not interwoven into other portions of or spread throughout the document.
The cover sheet will also indicate whether the EIS is intended to serve any other environmental review or consultation requirements pursuant to Section 1502.25.
The emphasis in the summary should be on those considerations, controversies, and issues that significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
This section shall present the purpose of and need for the agency action. The purpose and need shall be described in sufficient detail to aid in the development of an appropriate range of alternatives. Care should be taken to ensure an objective presentation and not a justification.
A. The following terms are commonly used in NEPA compliance activities and are described below for clarification.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
B. As a general rule, the following guidance will apply:
(1) For internally initiated proposals, i.e., for those cases where the Department conducts or controls the planning process, both the draft and final EIS shall identify the bureau's proposed action.
(2) For externally initiated proposals, i.e., for those cases where the Department is reacting to an application or similar request,
(a) the draft and final EIS shall identify the applicant's proposed action, and
(b) the draft EIS should also identify the bureau's preferred alternative, if one or more exists, and the final EIS should identify the bureau's preferred alternative unless another law prohibits the expression of a preference.
(3) Proposed departures from this guidance must be approved by the OEPC and the Office of the Solicitor.
C. Certain mitigation measures can be clearly integral to the proposed action and its alternatives and should be incorporated into and analyzed as a part of the proposal and appropriate alternatives. When this is done, these measures are no longer considered independently with other mitigation. Where appropriate, major mitigation measures may be identified and analyzed as separate alternatives where the environmental consequences are distinct and significant enough to warrant separate evaluation.
D. In practicing consensus-based management during the development of an EIS, bureaus should give full consideration to any alternative(s) put forth by participating communities. While there can be no guarantee that a community's proposed alternative will be taken as the agency proposed action, bureaus must be able to show that a community's work is reflected in the evaluation of the proposed action and the final decision. To be considered, the community's alternative must be fully consistent with NEPA, the CEQ Regulations, this Departmental Manual part, and all applicable Departmental and bureau written policies and guidance.
If an EIS is intended to serve other environmental review or consultation requirements pursuant to Section 1502.25, any more detailed information needed to comply with these requirements may be included as an appendix.
A. Tiering is a tool to prevent repetitive discussions and to focus on issues currently before the decision maker. In this process, earlier documents from which later documents are tiered, must be reliable and kept current. Tiered documents must make a finding that conditions described in earlier documents are still in effect or must revise any analyses that are out of date.
B. In some cases, transferring or combining information from previous NEPA documents can be done to reduce repetitive discussions and duplication of effort (see 4.20, below).
C. Bureaus must maintain access to such things as: sources of similar information, examples of tiered and transferred analyses, a set of procedural steps to make the most of tiered and transferred analyses, knowledge of when to use previous material, and how to used tiered and transferred analyses without sacrificing references to original sources.
Citations of specific topics will include the pertinent page numbers. All literature references will be listed in the bibliography.
The references to overall costs in this section are not limited to market costs, but include other costs to society such as social costs due to delay.
Conclusions about environmental effects will be preceded by an analysis that supports
Adaptive management is a system of management practices based on clearly identified outcomes, monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting outcomes, and, if not, facilitating management changes that will best ensure that outcomes are met or to re-evaluate the outcomes. Adaptive management recognizes that knowledge about natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain and is the preferred method of management in these cases. Bureaus are encouraged to build adaptive management practice into their proposed actions and NEPA compliance activities and train personnel in this important environmental concept.
A. A list of related environmental review and consultation requirements is available from the OEPC.
B. If the EIS is intended to serve as the vehicle to fully or partially comply with any of these requirements, the associated analyses, studies, or surveys will be identified as such and discussed in the text of the EIS and the cover sheet will so indicate. Any supporting analyses or reports will be referenced or included as an appendix and shall be sent to reviewing agencies as appropriate in accordance with applicable regulations or procedures.
C. The draft EIS should list all Federal permits, licenses, or approvals that must be obtained to implement the proposal. To the fullest extent possible, the environmental analyses for these related permits, licenses, and approvals shall be integrated and performed concurrently. Bureaus shall ensure that they have a process in place to make integrated analyses a standard part of their NEPA compliance efforts.
A. Comments from State agencies will be requested through procedures established by the Governor pursuant to Executive Order 12372, and may be requested from local agencies through these procedures to the extent that they include the affected local jurisdictions.
B. When the proposed action may affect the environment of Indian trust or restricted land or other Indian trust resources, trust assets, or tribal health and safety, comments will be requested from the Indian tribal government unless the Indian tribal government has designated an alternate review process.
C. The comments of other Departmental bureaus and offices must also be requested. In order to do this, the preparing bureau must furnish copies of the environmental document to the other bureaus in quantities sufficient to allow simultaneous review. Bureaus may be removed from this circulation following consultation with, and concurrence of, a bureau.
A. Preparation of a final EIS need not be delayed in those cases where a Federal agency, external to DOI and from which comments are required to be obtained [40 CFR 1503.1(a)(1)], does not comment within the prescribed time period. Informal attempts will be made to determine the status of any such comments and every reasonable attempt should be made to include the comments and a response in the final EIS.
B. When other commenters are late, their comments should be included in the final EIS to the extent practicable.
C. For those EISs requiring the approval of the AS/PMB pursuant to 516 DM 6.3, bureaus will consult with the OEPC when they propose to prepare an abbreviated final EIS [40 CFR 1503.4(c)].
Bureaus will incorporate in their appropriate program regulations provisions for the preparation of an EIS by a State agency to the extent authorized in Section 102(2)(D) of NEPA. Eligible programs are listed in Appendix 1 to this Chapter.
A. Bureaus are responsible for preparation of their environmental documents and independent evaluation of environmental documents prepared by others for a bureau.
B. A contractor may be used to prepare any environmental document in accordance with the standards of 40 CFR 1506.5(c).
The OEPC may provide further guidance concerning NEPA pursuant to its organizational responsibilities (110 DM 22) and through supplemental directives (381 DM 4.5B). Current guidance is located in the Environmental Memoranda Series periodically updated by OEPC and available on the OEPC Web site.
The Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, in consultation with the OEPC, shall:
A. Identify in the annual submittal to OMB of the Department's proposed legislative program any requirements for, and the status of, any environmental documents.
B. When required, ensure that a legislative EIS is included as a part of the formal transmittal of a legislative proposal to the Congress.
A. The minimum review period for a draft EIS will be forty-five (45) days from the date of publication by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the notice of availability.
B. For those EISs requiring the approval of the AS/PMB pursuant to 516 DM 6.3, the OEPC will be responsible for consulting with the EPA and/or CEQ about any proposed reductions in time periods or any extensions of time periods proposed by the bureaus.
A. Anadromous Fish Conservation (11.405).
B. Fish Restoration (15.605).
C. Wildlife Restoration (15.611).
D. Endangered Species Conservation (15.615).
A. Historic Preservation Grants-in-Aid (15.904).
B. Outdoor Recreation-Acquisition Development and Planning (15.916).
A. Regulation of Surface Coal Mining and Surface Effects of Underground Coal Mining (15.250).
B. Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program (15.252).
A. Economic and Political Development of the Territories and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (15.875).
This Chapter provides supplementary instructions for implementing those portions of the CEQ Regulations pertaining to decision making.
A. Upon receipt of advice that another Federal agency intends to refer a Departmental matter to CEQ, the lead bureau will immediately meet with that Federal agency to attempt to resolve the issues raised and expeditiously notify its Assistant Secretary and the OEPC.
B. Upon any referral of a Departmental matter to CEQ by another Federal agency, the OEPC will be responsible for coordinating the Department's role with CEQ. The lead bureau will be responsible for developing and presenting the Department's position at CEQ including preparation of briefing papers and visual aids.
A. Procedures for decisions by the Secretary/Deputy Secretary are specified in 301 DM 1. Assistant Secretaries should follow a similar process when an environmental document accompanies a proposal for their decision.
B. Bureaus will incorporate in their decision making procedures and NEPA handbooks provisions for consideration of environmental factors and relevant environmental documents. The major decision points for principal programs likely to have significant environmental effects will be identified in the bureau chapters on “Managing the NEPA Process” beginning with Chapter 8 of this Part.
C. Relevant environmental documents, including supplements, will be included as part of the record in formal rulemaking or adjudicatory proceedings.
D. Relevant environmental documents, comments, and responses will accompany proposals through existing review processes so that Departmental officials use them in making decisions.
E. The decision maker will consider the environmental impacts of the alternatives described in any relevant environmental document and the range of these alternatives must encompass the alternatives considered by the decision maker.
F. To the extent practicable, the decision maker will consider other substantive and legal obligations beyond the immediate context of the proposed action.
A. Any decision documents prepared pursuant to 301 DM 1 for proposals involving an EIS shall incorporate all appropriate provisions of Section 1505.2(b) and (c).
B. If a decision document incorporating these provisions is made available to the public following a decision, it will serve the purpose of a record of decision.
The terms “monitoring” and “conditions” will be interpreted as being related to factors affecting the quality of the natural and human environment.
A bureau will immediately notify its Assistant Secretary, the Solicitor, and the OEPC of any situations described in Section 1506.1(b).
For those EISs requiring the approval of the AS/PMB pursuant to 516 DM 6.3, the responsible official will consult with the OEPC before making any request for reducing the time period before a decision or action.
In the event of an emergency situation, a bureau will immediately take any necessary action to prevent or reduce risks to public health or safety or serious resource losses. If the agency action has significant environmental impacts, a bureau will immediately consult with its Assistant Secretary, the Solicitor, OEPC, and (together with OEPC) CEQ about compliance with NEPA. Upon learning of the emergency situation, the OEPC will immediately notify CEQ. During follow-up activities OEPC and the bureau will jointly be responsible for consulting with CEQ. Paragraph 1506.11 applies only to the emergency and not to any related recovery actions after the emergency has passed. If the agency action does not have significant environmental impacts, a bureau will consult with OPEC to consider any appropriate action.
This Chapter provides supplementary instructions for implementing those provisions of the CEQ Regulations pertaining to procedures for implementing and managing the NEPA process.
A.
B.
A. A program Assistant Secretary is authorized to approve an EIS in those cases where the responsibility for the decision for which the EIS has been prepared rests with the Assistant Secretary or below. The Assistant Secretary may further assign the authority to approve the EIS if he or she chooses. The AS/PMB will make certain that each program Assistant Secretary has adequate safeguards to ensure that the EISs comply with NEPA, the CEQ Regulations, and the Departmental Manual.
B. The AS/PMB is authorized to approve an EIS in those cases where the decision for which the EIS has been prepared will occur at a level in the Department above an individual program Assistant Secretary.
A. Bureaus and offices shall:
(1) Prepare NEPA handbooks providing guidance on how to implement NEPA in principal program areas.
(2) Prepare program regulations or directives for applicants.
(3) Propose and apply categorical exclusions.
(4) Prepare and approve EAs.
(5) Decide whether to prepare an EIS.
(6) Prepare and publish NOIs and FONSIs.
(7) Prepare and, when assigned, approve EISs.
B. Assistant Secretaries shall:
(1) Approve bureau handbooks.
(2) Approve regulations or directives for applicants.
(3) Approve proposed categorical exclusions.
(4) Approve EISs pursuant to 516 DM 6.3.
C. The AS/PMB shall:
(1) Concur with regulations or directives for applicants.
(2) Concur with proposed categorical exclusions.
(3) Approve EISs pursuant to 516 DM 6.3.
A. Requirements specific to bureaus appear as separate chapters beginning with Chapter 8 of this Part and include the following:
(1) Identification of officials and organizational elements responsible for NEPA compliance.
(2) List of program regulations or directives which provide information to applicants.
(3) Identification of major decision points in principal programs for which an EIS is normally prepared.
(4) List of categorical exclusions.
B. Bureau requirements are found in the following chapters for the current bureaus:
(1) Fish and Wildlife Service (Chapter 8; formerly Appendix 1).
(2) Geological Survey (Chapter 9; formerly Appendix 2).
(3) Bureau of Indian Affairs (Chapter 10; formerly Appendix 4).
(4) Bureau of Land Management (Chapter 11; formerly Appendix 5).
(5) National Park Service (Chapter 12; formerly Appendix 7).
(6) Office of Surface Mining (Chapter 13; formerly Appendix 8).
(7) Bureau of Reclamation (Chapter 14; formerly Appendix 9).
(8) Minerals Management Service (Chapter 15; formerly Appendix 10).
C. The Office of the Secretary and other Departmental Offices do not have separate chapters but must comply with this Part and will consult with the OEPC about compliance activities.
The OEPC will periodically publish a Departmental list of bureau contacts where information about the NEPA process and the status of EISs may be obtained. This list will be available on OEPC's Web site.
A. These procedures implement the policy and directives of Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190, 83 Stat. 852, January 1, 1970, NEPA); Section 2(f) of Executive Order No. 11514 (March 5, 1970); the CEQ Regulations (43 FR 55990, November 28, 1978; CEQ); Bulletin No. 72-6 of the Office of Management and Budget (September 14, 1971); and provide guidance to bureaus and offices of the Department in the review of EISs prepared by and for other Federal agencies.
B. In accordance with 112 DM 4.2F, these procedures further govern the Department's environmental review of non-Interior proposals such as regulations, applications, plans, reports, and other environmental documents which affect the interests of the Department. Such proposals are prepared, circulated, and reviewed under a wide variety of statutes and regulations. These procedures ensure that the Department responds to these review requests with coordinated comments and recommendations under Interior's various authorities.
The Department considers it a priority to provide competent and timely review comments on EISs and other environmental or project review documents prepared by other Federal agencies for their major actions which significantly affect the quality of the human environment. All such documents are hereinafter referred to as “environmental review documents.” The term “environmental review document” as used in this chapter is separate from and broader than the term “environmental document” found in 40 CFR 1508.10 of the CEQ Regulations. These reviews are predicated on the Department's jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the environmental impact involved and shall provide constructive comments to other Federal agencies to assist them in meeting their environmental responsibilities.
Shall be the Department's contact point for the receipt of requests for reviews of environmental review documents prepared by or for other Federal agencies. This authority shall be carried out through the Director, OEPC.
(1) Shall determine whether such review requests are to be answered by a Secretarial Officer, the Director, OEPC, or by a Regional Environmental Officer, and determine which bureaus and/or offices shall perform such reviews;
(2) Shall prepare, or where appropriate, shall designate a lead bureau responsible for preparing the Department's review comments. The lead bureau may be a bureau, Secretarial office, other Departmental office, or task force and shall be that organizational entity with the most significant jurisdiction or environmental expertise in regard to the requested review;
(3) Shall establish review schedules and target dates for responding to review requests and monitor their compliance;
(4) Shall review, sign, and transmit the Department's review comments to the requesting agency;
(5) Shall consult with the requesting agency on the Department's review comments on an “as needed” basis to ensure resolution of the Department's concerns; and
(6) Shall consult with the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs and the Solicitor when environmental reviews pertain to legislative or legal matters, respectively.
Shall ensure that requests for reviews of environmental review documents prepared by other Federal agencies that accompany or pertain to legislative proposals are immediately referred to the AS/PMB.
When designated by the Director, OEPC, shall review, sign, and transmit the Department's review comments to the requesting agency.
(1) Shall designate officials and organizational elements responsible for the coordination and conduct of environmental reviews and report this information to the Director, OEPC;
(2) Shall provide the Director, OEPC, with appropriate information and material concerning their delegated jurisdiction and special expertise in order to assist in assigning review responsibilities;
(3) Shall conduct reviews based upon their areas of jurisdiction or special expertise and provide comments to the designated lead bureau or office assigned responsibilities for preparing Departmental comments;
(4) When designated lead bureau by the Director, OEPC, shall prepare and forward the Department's review comments as instructed;
(5) Shall ensure that review schedules for discharging assigned responsibilities are met and promptly inform other concerned offices if established target dates cannot be met and when they will be met;
(6) Shall provide a single, unified bureau response to the lead bureau, as directed;
(7) Shall ensure that the policies of 516 DM 7.2 regarding competency and timeliness are carried out; and
(8) Shall provide the necessary authority to those designated in E.1 above to carry out all the requirements of 516 DM 7.
(1) Federal agencies and applicants for Federal assistance may circulate descriptions of proposed actions for the purpose of soliciting information concerning environmental impacts in order to determine whether to prepare EISs. Such descriptions of proposed actions are not substitutes for EISs.
(2) Requests for reviews of descriptions of proposed actions are not required to be processed through the OEPC. Review comments may be handled independently by bureaus and offices, with the Regional Environmental Officer or Director, OEPC, being advised of significant or highly controversial issues. Review comments are for the purpose of providing informal technical assistance to the requesting agency and should state that they do not represent the views and comments of the Department.
(1) EAs or reports are not substitutes for EISs. These assessments or reports may be prepared by Federal agencies, their consultants, or applicants for Federal assistance. They are prepared either to provide information in order to determine whether an EIS should be prepared, or to provide input into an EIS. If they are separately circulated, it is generally for the purpose of soliciting additional information concerning environmental impacts.
(2) Requests for reviews of EAs or reports are not required to be processed through the OEPC. Review comments may be handled independently by bureaus and offices, with the Regional Environmental Officer or Director, OEPC, being advised of significant or highly controversial issues. If a bureau requests and OEPC agrees, a control number may be assigned with appropriate instructions. Review comments are for the purpose of providing informal technical assistance to the requesting agency and should state that they do not represent the views and comments of the Department.
(1) Findings of No Significant Impact are prepared by Federal agencies to document that there is no need to prepare an EIS. A FONSI is a statement for the record by the proponent Federal agency that it has reviewed the environmental impact of its proposed action (in an EA), that it determines that the action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and that an EIS is not required. Such findings are not normally circulated.
(2) Findings of No Significant Impact are not required to be processed through the OEPC. Review comments may be handled independently by bureaus and offices, with the Regional Environmental Officer or Director, OEPC, being advised of significant or highly controversial issues.
(1) Notices of intent and scoping requests mark the beginning of the formal review process. Notices of intent are published in the
(2) Reviews of notices of intent and scoping requests are processed through the OEPC with instructions to bureaus to comment directly to the requesting agency. Review comments are for the purpose of providing informal technical assistance to the requesting agency and should state that they do not represent the views and comments of the Department.
(1) Preliminary, proposed, or working draft EISs are sometimes prepared and circulated by Federal agencies and applicants for Federal assistance for consultative purposes.
(2) Requests for reviews of these types of draft EISs are not required to be processed through the OEPC. Review comments may be handled independently by bureaus and offices with the Regional Environmental Officer or Director, OEPC, being advised of significant or highly controversial issues. Review comments are for the purpose of providing informal technical assistance to the requesting agency and should state that they do not represent the views and comments of the Department.
(1) Draft EISs are prepared by Federal agencies under the provisions of Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA and provisions of the CEQ Regulations. They are filed with the EPA and officially circulated to other Federal, State, and local agencies [see 40 CFR 1503.1(a)] for review based upon their jurisdiction by law or special environmental expertise.
(2) All requests from other Federal agencies for review of draft EISs shall be made through the Director, OEPC. Review comments shall be handled in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and guidance memoranda may be issued and updated by the OEPC.
(1) Final EISs are prepared by Federal agencies following receipt and consideration of review comments. They are filed with the EPA and are circulated to the public for an administrative waiting period of thirty days and sometimes for comment.
(2) The Director, OEPC, shall review final EISs to determine whether they reflect adequate consideration of the Department's comments. Bureaus and offices shall not comment independently on final EISs, but shall inform the Director, OEPC, of their views. Any review comments shall be handled in accordance with the instructions of the OEPC.
(1) The Department receives draft and final environmental review documents associated with applications for other Federal licenses and permits. This activity largely involves the regulatory program of the Corps of Engineers and the hydroelectric and natural gas pipeline licensing programs of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
(2) Environmental review of applications is generally handled in the same manner as for draft and final EISs. Additional review guidance may be made available as necessary to efficiently manage this activity. Bureau reviewers should consult with the OEPC for the most current review guidance.
(3) While review of NEPA compliance documents associated with Corps of Engineers permit applications is managed in accordance with this Chapter, review of Corps of Engineers permit applications is managed in accordance with 503 DM 1. Reviewers are referred to that Manual Part and to 7.5C.(3) below for the processing of concurrent reviews.
(1) The Department receives draft and final project plans and reports under various authorities which do not have environmental review documents circulated with them. This may be because NEPA compliance has been completed, will be completed on a slightly different schedule, NEPA does not apply, or other reasons.
(2) Environmental review of these documents is handled in the same manner as for draft and final EISs. Additional review guidance may be made available as necessary to efficiently manage this activity. Bureau reviewers should consult with the OEPC for the most current review guidance.
(1) The Department circulates and controls the review of advance notices of proposed rulemaking, proposed rulemaking, and final rulemaking which are environmental in nature and may impact the Department's natural resources and programs.
(2) Environmental review of these documents is handled in the same manner as for draft and final EISs. Additional review guidance may be made available as necessary to efficiently manage this activity. Bureau reviewers should consult with the OEPC for the most current review guidance.
(1) The Department receives draft and final project plans prepared pursuant to other environmental statutes [
(2) Environmental review of these documents is handled consistently with the policies and provisions of this part, and in accordance with further guidance from the Director, OEPC. Additional review guidance may be made available as necessary to efficiently manage this activity. Bureau reviewers should consult with the OEPC for the most current review guidance.
(1) Under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, the Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land and the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.
(2) Environmental review of Section 4(f) documents is handled in the same manner as for draft and final EISs. Additional review guidance may be made available as necessary to efficiently manage this activity. Bureau reviewers should consult with the OEPC for the most current review guidance.
(1) Departmental comments on environmental review documents prepared by other Federal agencies shall be based upon the Department's jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the environmental impact of the proposed action or alternatives to the action. The adequacy of the document in regard to applicable statutes is the responsibility of the agency that prepared the document and any comments on its adequacy shall be limited to the Department's jurisdiction or environmental expertise.
(2) Reviews shall be conducted in sufficient detail to ensure that both potentially beneficial and adverse environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives, including cumulative and secondary effects, are adequately identified. Wherever possible, and within the Department's competence and resources, other agencies will be advised on ways to avoid or minimize adverse impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and on alternatives to the proposed action that may have been overlooked or inadequately treated.
(3) Review comments should not capsulate or restate the environmental review document, but should provide clear, concise, substantive, fully justified, and complete comments on the stated or unstated environmental impacts of the proposed action and, if appropriate, on alternatives to the action. Comments, either positive or negative, shall be objective and constructive.
(4) Departmental review comments shall be organized as follows:
(a)
The Departmental review control number shall be typed in the upper left hand corner below the Departmental seal on the letterhead page of the comments.
(b)
The introductory paragraph shall reference the other Federal agency's review request, including the date, the type of review requested, the subject of the review; and, where appropriate, the geographic location of the subject and the other agency's control number.
(c)
This section will include those comments of a general nature and those which occur throughout the review which ought to be consolidated in order to avoid needless repetition.
(d)
The format of this section shall follow the organization of the other agency's environmental review document. These comments shall not approve, disapprove, support, or object to proposed actions of other Federal agencies, but shall constructively and objectively comment on the environmental impact of the proposed action, and on the adequacy of the statement in describing the environmental impacts of the action, the alternatives (if appropriate), and the impacts of the alternatives. Comments shall specify any corrections, additions, or other changes required to make the statement adequate.
(e)
In general, the Department will not take a position on the proposed action of another Federal agency, but will limit its comments to those above. However, in those cases where the Department has jurisdiction by statute, executive order, memorandum of agreement, or other authority, the Department may comment on the proposed action. These comments shall be provided in this section and may take the form of support for, concurrence with, concern over, or objection to the proposed action and/or the alternatives.
Bureau and office reviews of EISs prepared by other Federal agencies are considered informal inputs to the Department's comments and their content will generally conform to paragraph 7.5A of this chapter with the substitution of the bureau's or office's delegated jurisdiction or special environmental expertise for that of the Department.
(1) Where the Department, because of other authority or agreement, is concurrently requested to review a proposal as well as its EIS, the Department's comments on the proposal shall be separately identified and placed in front of the comments on the EIS. A summary of the Department's position, if any, on the proposal and its environmental impact shall be separately identified and follow the review comments on the EIS.
(2) Where another Federal agency elects to combine other related reviews into the review of the EIS by including additional or more specific information into the statement, the introduction to the Department's review comments will acknowledge the additional review request and the review comments will be incorporated into appropriate parts of the combined statement review. A summary of the Department's position, if any, on the environmental impacts of the proposal and any alternatives shall be separately identified and follow the detailed review comments on the combined statement.
(3) In some cases, the concurrent review is not an integral part of the environmental compliance review but is being processed within the same general time period as the environmental review. If there is also an environmental review being processed by the OEPC, there is potential for two sets of conflicting comments to reach the requesting agency. Bureaus must recognize that this possibility exists and must check with the Regional Environmental Officer to determine the status of any environmental review prior to forwarding the concurrent review comments to the requesting agency. Any conflicts must be resolved before the separate comments may be filed. One review may be held up pending completion of the concurrent review and consideration of filing a single comment letter. A time extension may be necessary and must be obtained if a review is to be held up pending completion of a concurrent review.
(4) The Department's intervention in another agency's adjudicatory process is also a concurrent review. Such reviews are governed by 452 DM 2 which must be consulted in applicable cases. The most common cases involve the Department's review of hydroelectric and natural gas applications of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In these cases, it is recommended that bureaus consult frequently with the appropriate attorney of record in the Office of the Solicitor.
A. Prior to the public availability of another Federal agency's final EIS, the Department shall not independently release to the public its comments on that agency's draft EIS. In accordance with Section 1506.6(f) of the CEQ Regulations, the agency that prepared the statement is responsible for making the comments available to the public, and requests for copies of the Department's comments shall be referred to that agency. Exceptions to this procedure shall be made by the OEPC and the Office of the Solicitor.
B. The availability of various internal Departmental memoranda, such as the review comments of bureaus, offices, task forces, and individuals, which are used as inputs to the Department's review comments is governed by the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. Section 552) and the Departmental procedures established by 43 CFR 2. Upon receipt of such requests and in addition to following the procedures above in A., the responsible bureau or office shall notify and consult their bureau Freedom of Information Act Officer and the OEPC to coordinate any responses.
(1) All requests for reviews of environmental review documents prepared by or for other Federal agencies shall be received and controlled by the Director, OEPC.
(2) If a bureau or office, whether at headquarters or field level, receives an environmental review document for review directly from outside of the Department, it should ascertain whether the document is a preliminary, proposed, or working draft circulated for technical assistance or input in order to prepare a draft document or whether the document is in fact a draft environmental review document being circulated for official review.
(a) If the document is a preliminary, proposed, or working draft, the bureau or office should handle independently and provide whatever technical assistance possible, within the limits of their resources, to the requesting agency. The response should clearly indicate the type of assistance being provided and state that it does not represent the Department's review of the document. Each bureau or office should provide the Regional Environmental Officer and the Director, OEPC, copies of any comments involving significant or controversial issues.
(b) If the document is a draft or final environmental review document circulated for official review, the bureau or office should inform the requesting agency of the Department's procedures in subparagraph (1) above and promptly refer the request and the document to the Director, OEPC, for processing.
(3) All bureaus and offices processing and reviewing environmental review documents of other Federal agencies will do so within the time limits specified by the Director, OEPC. From thirty (30) to forty-five (45) days are normally available for responding to other Federal agency review requests. Whenever possible the Director, OEPC, shall seek a forty-five (45) day review period. Further extensions shall be handled in accordance with paragraph 7.7B (3) of this chapter.
(4) The Department's review comments on other Federal agencies' environmental review documents shall reflect the full and balanced interests of the Department in the protection and enhancement of the environment. Lead bureaus shall be responsible for resolving any intra-Departmental differences in bureau or office review comments submitted to them. The OEPC is available for guidance and assistance in this regard. In cases where agreement cannot be reached, the matter shall be referred through channels to the AS/PMB with attempts to resolve the disagreement at each intervening management level. The OEPC will assist in facilitating this process.
(1) The OEPC shall secure and distribute sufficient copies of environmental review documents for Departmental review. Bureaus and offices should keep the OEPC informed as to their needs for review copies, which shall be kept to a minimum, and shall develop internal procedures to efficiently and expeditiously distribute environmental review documents to reviewing offices.
(2) Reviewing bureaus and offices which cannot meet the review schedule shall so inform the lead bureau and shall provide the date that the review will be delivered. The lead bureau shall inform the OEPC in cases of headquarters-level response, or the Regional Environmental Officer in cases of field-level response, if it cannot meet the schedule, why it cannot, and when it will. The OEPC or the Regional Environmental Officer shall be responsible for informing the other Federal agency of any changes in the review schedule.
(3) Reviewing offices shall route their review comments through channels to the lead bureau, with a copy to the OEPC. When, in cases, of headquarters-level response, review comments cannot reach the lead bureau within the established review schedule, reviewing bureaus and offices shall
(4) In cases of headquarters-level response:
(a) The lead bureau shall route the completed comments through channels to the OEPC in both paper copy and electronic word processor format. Copies shall be prepared and attached for all bureaus and offices from whom review comments were requested, for the OEPC, and for the Regional Environmental Officer when the review pertains to a project within a regional jurisdiction. In addition, original copies of all review comments received or documentation that none were provided shall accompany the Department's comments through the clearance process and shall be retained by the OEPC.
(b) The OEPC shall review, secure any necessary additional surnames, surname, and either sign the Department's comments or transmit the Department's comments to another appropriate Secretarial Officer for signature. Upon signature, the OEPC shall transmit the comments to the requesting agency.
(5) In cases of field-level response:
(a) The lead bureau shall provide the completed comments to the appropriate Regional Environmental Officer in both paper-copy and electronic word processor format. In addition, original copies of all review comments received or documentation that none were provided shall be attached to the paper copy.
(b) The Regional Environmental Officer shall review, sign, and transmit the Department's comments to the agency requesting the review. In addition they shall reproduce and send the Department's comments to the regional bureau reviewers. The entire completed package including the bureau review comments shall be sent to the OEPC for recording and filing.
(c) If the Regional Environmental Officer determines that the review involves policy matters of Secretarial significance, they shall not sign and transmit the comments as provided in subparagraph (b) above, but shall forward the review to the OEPC in headquarters for final disposition.
(1) Referral to CEQ is a formal process provided for in the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1504). It is used sparingly and only when all other administrative processes have been exhausted in attempting to resolve issues between the project proponent and one or more other Federal agencies. These issues must meet certain criteria (40 CFR 1504.2), and practice has shown that these issues generally involve resource concerns of national importance to the Department.
(2) A bureau or office intending to recommend referral of a proposal to CEQ must, at the earliest possible time, advise the proponent Federal agency that it considers the proposal to be a possible candidate for referral. If not expressed at an earlier time, this advice must be outlined in the Department's comments on the draft EIS.
(3) CEQ referral is a high level activity that must be conducted in an extremely short time frame. A referring bureau or office has 25 days after the final EIS has been made available to the EPA, commenting agencies, and the public in which to file the referral unless an extension is granted per 40 CFR 1504.3(b). The referral documents must be signed by the Secretary of the Interior.
(4) Additional review guidance may be made available as necessary to efficiently manage this activity. Bureau reviewers should consult with the OEPC for the most current review guidance.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species and/or marine mammals.
Written data, comments or requests must be received by October 6, 2003.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281.
Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104.
The public is invited to comment on the following application(s) for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The applicant requests a permit to export preserved larval white sturgeon (
The public is invited to comment on the following application(s) for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered marine mammals and/or marine mammals. The application(s) was/were submitted to satisfy requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
The applicant request a permit to collect biological samples and conduct behavioral observations,
The applicant request a permit to collect biological samples from manatees, (
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
The applicant requests a permit to import two polar bear (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits for marine mammals and/or endangered species.
The following permits were issued.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281.
Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104.
Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.
Notice of availability.
Waterman's Realty Company/Winchester Creek Limited Partnership was issued an Incidental Take Permit (ITP), permit number TE006310, on May 13, 1999, for incidental take of the Delmarva fox squirrel. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces that it has completed the process required to implement the remand ordered by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and that a final decision document is available. The Service has determined that no changes to the Home Port incidental take permit are required as a result of the updated analysis presented in the decision document.
Persons wishing to review the Service's final decision document may obtain a copy at
John Wolflin at the above Service Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
On May 13, 1999, the Service issued an ITP for incidental “take” of the Delmarva fox squirrel. The ITP was issued pursuant to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), § 10(a)(2)(B), 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.22(b)(1).
On September 7, 1999, a neighbor to the proposed development (Gerber) and Defenders of Wildlife filed suit in Federal district court alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act related to issuance of the ITP for the Home Port on Winchester Creek Habitat Conservation Plan.
The District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment on all counts in favor of the Service on May 15, 2001.
Pursuant to the remand, the Service conducted an independent analysis which was reflected in the draft document entitled “Draft—Assessment of Practicability of the Reduced Take Alternative on Remand.” That document, in addition to the map, were made available for a 60-day public comment period starting May 9, 2003, (see 68 Fed. Reg. 25058). The Service received two comment letters, one from Mr. Gerber and one from Defenders of Wildlife. The Service has reviewed and considered those comments and has prepared a final decision document entitled “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Decision Regarding the Incidental Take Permit (TE006310) to Maureen D. Waterman Following Remand” which includes the Service's responses to the comments received and is now available for public review at the address listed above.
The primary author of this notice is Glenn Smith, Assistant Coordinator, Division of Endangered Species, Northeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The authority for this action is Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), § 10(a)(2)(B), 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.22(b)(1).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed revisions to an existing system of records.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is issuing public notice of its intent to revise a system of records in its current inventory, Permits System—Interior, FWS-21, subject to the Privacy Act of 1974. This action is necessary to meet the requirements of the Privacy Act to publish a notice in the
Comments on this revised system of records must be received on or before October 14, 2003.
Address all comments on this revised system of records to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Privacy Act Officer, Mail Stop 222, Arlington Square Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203, or by email at
Mr. Johnny R. Hunt, Service Privacy Act Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone: (703) 358-1730, or fax: (703) 358-2269.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) permit programs collect information to establish and verify an applicant's eligibility for a permit to conduct certain activities with wildlife and plants under various Federal wildlife laws and treaties. These include the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Lacey Act, and Wild Bird Conservation Act. Information includes name, address, date of birth, Social Security Number, occupation, home and work phone numbers, facsimile number, and email address. The system no longer includes height, weight, or color of hair and eyes of applicants for applications received after 1997. The system also contains information on locations, types, and purposes of the proposed activity, qualifications of the applicant (such as education and experience), and tribal affiliation for eagle permits for Native American religious purposes. Other documents reflect the general administrative processing and review of an application, and the monitoring of activities under the issued permit. We propose to add new information on locations of records, categories of records, authority under the Wild Bird Conservation Act, purposes, procedures, current system managers, and record source categories, and we clarify when records would be released to the Department of Justice. We also propose to modify routine uses to include subject matter experts that provide advice on the issuance of permits; Federal, State, local or foreign wildlife and plant agencies for the exchange of permitting information; registrants involved in the breeding of endangered or threatened species under Captive-bred Wildlife registrations; appropriate authorities and others who need to know who is permitted to receive and rehabilitate sick, orphaned, and injured migratory birds; appropriate agencies when we need to monitor activities conducted under a permit or evaluate regulated trade and use; a congressional office in response to an inquiry an individual has made; the General Accounting Office or Congress when the information is required for the evaluation of the permit programs; and contractors, experts or consultations to accomplish a FWS function related to this system. The expanded routine uses do not require new information to be collected.
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11)) requires that the public be provided a 30-day period in which to comment on the intended use of the information in the system of records. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in Circular A-130, requires an additional
Permits System.
None.
The records are stored at the following offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS):
(1) For the Endangered Species Program:
(a) Regional Endangered Species Offices (
(b) Division of Consultation, HCPs, Recovery and State Grants and the Division of Conservation and Classification, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mail Stop 420 Arlington Square Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
(2) Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mail Stop 700 Arlington Square Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
(3) Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mail Stop MBSP-4107 Arlington Square Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203, and Regional Migratory Bird Offices (
(4) Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mail Stop LE-3000 Arlington Square Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203; Regional Law Enforcement Offices (
Records are maintained on applicants who seek permits to conduct certain activities that affect wildlife and plants protected and/or regulated under the following Federal laws or treaties: Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Lacey Act, and Wild Bird Conservation Act.
The records contain the name, address, date of birth, Social Security Number, occupation, home and work phone numbers, facsimile number, and email address of someone who applies for a permit. For eagle permits for Native American religious purposes, the records contain tribal affiliation and, at the applicant's discretion, religious ceremony. The records also contain the qualifications of the applicant (such as, education and experience), the locations, types, and purposes of the proposed activity, and reports of activities conducted under an issued permit. They include documents that reflect the general administrative processing of the application and permit; public review required by certain laws, including comments received; our consultation with subject matter experts, including but not limited to experts within the FWS and in State, Federal, local, and foreign agencies, for the purpose of obtaining scientific, management, and legal advice; and our evaluation of information to make a decision on an application for a permit, and to monitor activities that occur under a permit. Although the system contains records on corporations and other business entities including Tax Identification Number, only records containing personal information on individuals are subject to the Privacy Act.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d); Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712); Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407); Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544); Wild Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4901-4916); and Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42), and Title 50, parts 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The purposes are to establish and verify an applicant's eligibility for a permit to conduct activities which affect wildlife and plants protected under a number of Federal wildlife laws and treaties; produce reports to monitor the use and trade in protected wildlife and plants; and assess the impact of permitted activities on the conservation and management of species and their habitats.
The FWS is the primary user of the system, and the primary uses of the records will be:
(1) To establish and verify an applicant's eligibility for a permit to conduct activities with protected wildlife and plants under a number of conservation laws and treaties.
(2) To provide the public and permittees with permit-related information.
(3) To monitor activities conducted under a permit.
(4) To analyze data and produce reports to monitor the use and trade in protected wildlife and plants.
(5) To assess the impact of permitted activities on the conservation and management of protected species and their habitats.
(6) To evaluate the effectiveness of the permit programs.
(7) To meet reporting requirements of the Department of the Interior (DOI) and FWS.
(8) To generate budget estimates and track performance.
Disclosures outside the DOI may be made under the routine uses listed below without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the record was collected.
(1) To subject matter experts, including but not limited to experts in State, Federal, local, and foreign agencies, for the purpose of obtaining scientific, management, and legal advice relevant to making a decision on an application for a permit.
(2) To the public as a result of publishing
(3) To Federal, State, local, or foreign wildlife and plant agencies for the exchange of information on permits granted or denied to assure compliance with all applicable permitting requirements.
(4) To Captive-bred Wildlife registrants under the Endangered Species Act for the exchange of captive-born, non-native endangered and
(5) To Federal, State, and local authorities who need to know who is permitted to receive and rehabilitate sick, orphaned, and injured birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; federally permitted rehabilitators; individuals seeking a permitted rehabilitator with whom to place a sick, injured, or orphaned bird in need of care; and licensed veterinarians who receive, treat, or diagnose sick, orphaned, and injured birds;
(6) To the Department of Justice (DOJ), or a court, adjudicative, or other administrative body or to a party in litigation before a court or adjudicative or administrative body, when:
(a) One of the following is a party to the proceeding or has an interest in the proceeding:
(i) The DOI or any component of the DOI;
(ii) Any DOI employee acting in his or her official capacity;
(iii) Any DOI employee acting in his or her individual capacity where the DOI or DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or
(iv) The United States, when DOI determines that DOI is likely to be affected by the proceeding; and
(b) The DOI deems the disclosure to be:
(i) Relevant and necessary to the proceedings; and
(ii) Compatible with the purpose for which we compiled the information.
(7) To the appropriate Federal, State, tribal, local, or foreign governmental agency that is responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, when we become aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of the statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, or when we need to monitor activities conducted under a permit or evaluate regulated wildlife and plant trade and use.
(8) To a congressional office in response to an inquiry to the office by the individual to whom the record pertains.
(9) To the General Accounting Office or Congress when the information is required for the evaluation of the permit programs.
(10) To a contractor, expert, or consultant employed by the FWS when necessary to accomplish a FWS function related to this system of records.
(11) To provide addresses obtained from the Internal Revenue Service to debt collection agencies for purposes of locating a debtor to collect or compromise a Federal claim against the debtor, or to consumer reporting agencies to prepare a commercial credit report for use by the DOI.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)12, disclosures may be made from this system to consumer reporting agencies as they are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).
Records are stored in file folders, on microfiche, in electronic form in computer systems, and in reports and computer printouts. Paper records are stored in file cabinets, rooms, and offices. Electronic records are stored on a computer server and disks or tapes.
Paper and microfiche records are retrieved by name of applicant or by permit file number. Electronic records may be searched on or reported by any data field. Retrieval is dependent upon the report or purpose of usage and whether a need to know exists. Records are retrieved for several purposes, such as processing a permit application, verifying an individual has a permit to conduct an activity with a protected species, and tracking whether permit reports have been submitted.
Access to records in the system is limited to authorized personnel whose official duties require such access, under requirements found in the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 2.51). Paper and microfiche records are maintained in locked metal file cabinets and/or in secured rooms. Electronic records are password-protected, backed up daily, and maintained with safeguards meeting the security requirements of 43 CFR 2.51.
Records are maintained in accordance with the FWS record schedule.
(1) Chief, Division of Consultation, HCPs, Recovery and State Grants, and Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mail Stop 420 Arlington Square Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
(2) Chief, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mail Stop 700 Arlington Square Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
(3) Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mail Stop 4107 Arlington Square Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
(4) Chief, Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mail Stop LE-3000 Arlington Square Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
Any individual may request information regarding this system of records, or information as to whether the system contains records pertaining to them, from the appropriate System Manager identified above. We require the request be in writing, be signed by the requester, and include the requester's full name and address, Social Security Number, and permit file number, if applicable. (
For copies of your records, write to the pertinent System Manager at the location above. The request envelope and letter should be clearly marked “PRIVACY ACT REQUEST FOR ACCESS.” A request for access must meet the content requirements of 43 CFR 2.63(b)(4)).
Use the same procedures as “Records Access Procedures” section above. (
Records come from individuals who apply for permits to conduct certain activities with protected wildlife and plants.
The Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) provides general exemption authority for some systems or records. Under that authority, the FWS adopted a regulation [43 CFR 2.79(b)]. Under that regulation, the system is exempt from the following subsections of the Privacy Act (as found in 5 U.S.C. 552a): subsections (d)(1) and (g)(1)(B). For more information, see
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public land order.
This order extends the withdrawal created by Public Land Order No. 6458 for an additional 20-year period. This extension is necessary to continue the protection of the Sitka Magnetic Observatory Site.
September 6, 2003.
Robbie J. Havens, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 W. 7th Avenue, No. 13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599, 907-271-5477.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows:
1. The withdrawal created by Paragraph 4 of Public Land Order No. 6458 (48 FR 40232, September 6, 1983), which withdrew 117.13 acres of public land from surface entry and mining to protect the Sitka Magnetic Observatory Site, is hereby extended for an additional 20-year period.
2. This withdrawal will expire on September 5, 2023, unless as a result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f)(1994), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of availability, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Wellton-Mohawk title transfer.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed Wellton-Mohawk Title Transfer. The title transfer will transfer ownership and divest Reclamation of the responsibility for the operation, maintenance, management, regulation of, and liability for the project facilities and appurtenant lands to the entity that has demonstrated its ability to manage the project, the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District (District). This title transfer will consolidate management responsibility with the District, thereby allowing the District to have greater authority in the management of growth and land based issues in the Wellton-Mohawk Valley, protect against encroachment on agriculture, and consolidate ownership of lands, facilities, and the Gila River Flood Channel.
The public review period shall close on October 29, 2003. Written comments on the DEIS must be received at the address listed under the
Public hearings will also be held to accept oral and written comments on the DEIS at:
The public hearing facilities are accessible to those who are physically-challenged. Please contact Ms. Nancy Blake by telephone at (602) 258-0234 or by facsimile at (602) 258-2352 for accessibility accommodations, including sign language interpreters or other auxiliary aids. Requests should be made by September 17, 2003, to allow sufficient time to arrange for accommodation.
Written comments on the DEIS should be submitted to Ms. Margot Selig, Lower Colorado Regional Office, Bureau of Reclamation, PO Box 61470, BCOO-4451, Boulder City, NV 89006-1470, or via facsimile to (702) 293-8042.
The public hearings will be held at:
See the
Ms. Margot Selig, Lower Colorado Regional Title Transfer Coordinator, Bureau of Reclamation, (702) 293-8192. Those wishing to obtain a copy of the DEIS in the form of a printed document or on compact disk (CD-ROM with Adobe Acrobat Reader included), or a summary of the DEIS may contact Ms. Selig.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There may be other circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. 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 disclosure in their entirety.
Requests to make oral comments at the public hearings may be made at each hearing. Comments will be recorded by a court reporter. Speakers will be called in the order of their requests. In the interest of available time, each speaker will be asked to limit oral comments to 5 minutes. Longer comments should be summarized at the public hearing and submitted in writing either at the public hearing or identified as hearing comments and mailed to be received by Ms. Selig no later than September 29, 2003.
The DEIS will be used in the decision-making process pursuant to the Wellton-Mohawk Transfer Act of June 2000 (Pub. L. 106-221), whereby the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to transfer title to the Wellton-Mohawk Division of the Gila Project works, facilities and certain federally-owned lands from the United States to the District. The District is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona constituted to own lands and facilities and to contract with Reclamation for diversion of Colorado River water for delivery to its landowners. Reclamation and the District signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in July 1998,
Two alternatives are evaluated in the DEIS: (1) the No Action Alternative, under which facilities of the Wellton-Mohawk Division of the Gila Project and lands within or adjacent to the Gila Project would remain in Federal ownership, and (2) the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative under which Reclamation would transfer title to the facilities of the Wellton-Mohawk Division of the Gila Project and lands within or adjacent to the Gila Project to the District.
Copies of the DEIS are available for public review at the following locations:
The DEIS is also available on the Internet at
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on September 3, 2002 (67 FR 56311) and determined on December 9, 2002 that it would conduct full reviews (67 FR 77803, December 19, 2002). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission will transmit its determinations in these reviews to the Secretary of Commerce on August 29, 2003. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3626 (September 2003), entitled Cut-to-length Carbon Steel Plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine: Investigations Nos. 731-TA-753-756 (Review).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Scheduling of the final phase of countervailing duty and antidumping investigations.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-432 (Final) under section 705(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)) (the Act) and the final phase of antidumping investigations Nos. 731-TA-1024-1028 (Final) under section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of subsidized imports from India of prestressed concrete steel wire strand (PC strand) and less-than-fair-value imports from Brazil, India, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand of PC strand, provided for in subheading 7312.10.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
July 16, 2003.
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Under 28 CFR 50.7 notice is hereby given that on August 11, 2003, a proposed consent decree in
In this action the United States sought civil penalties for alleged violations of Section 311(b)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act (the Act), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3), as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”), resulting from discharges of gasoline and asphalt into waters of the United States. The first spill occurred on December 5, 1998,
Pursuant to the consent decree, Groendyke Transport Inc., (“Groendyke”) will pay the sum of $48,475 to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and spend $90,025 in the performance of a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP). The SEP involves Groendyke's purchase of equipment and the funding of training for the South Adams County Fire District so that it will be able to respond more effectively to future spills of petroleum and other hazardous substances. The area served by the South Adams County Fire District includes portions of the South Platte River watershed, the area impacted by the gasoline spill.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, PO Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The consent decree may be examined at U.S. EPA Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado, 80202. During the public comment period, the consent decree, may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Notice is hereby given that on August 9, 2003, a proposed Consent Decree in
In this action the United States sought to recover costs incurred in responding to the release or threatened release of hazardous substances into the environment from the HH Burn Pit Superfund Site, located in Hanover County, Virginia, near the community of Farrington. The Consent Decree will recover past response costs from Haskell Chemical Company, Inc. and HH, Inc., a dissolved Virginia corporation. On behalf of HH, Inc., the trustees of the Liquidating for Assets and Liabilities of HH, Inc. will cause to be paid to the United States the sum of two hundred thirty-five thousand dollars ($235,000). Upon entry of this Consent Decree, Haskell Chemical Company, Inc. will pay to the United States the sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). Haskell Chemical Company, Inc. will also pay the additional sum of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), plus interest, to be paid to the United States in two annual installments, the first to occur one year after entry of the Consent Decree. In exchange for these payments, Haskell Chemical Company, Inc. and HH. Inc. will each receive a release from liability for past and future response costs incurred by the United States in connection with the Site, subject to certain limitations and conditions. In addition, Haskell Chemical Company, Inc. and HH. Inc. will each receive complete protection from contribution actions brought to recover costs incurred by any other party in connection with the Site.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, PO Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, 600 East Main Street, Suite 1800, Richmond, Virginia, and at U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web site,
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Faith S. Kirk, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Suite S-1303, Washington, DC 20210.
This project is a research activity of the Training and Technical Assistance for Providers (T-TAP) project. Funded by the Office of Disability and Employment Policy (ODEP) at the U.S. Department of Labor, T-TAP is a joint project of the Institute for Community Inclusion at the University of Massachusetts at Boston and Virginia Commonwealth University. The project provides a program of technical assistance and training that will be delivered and disseminated nationally to community-based providers including community rehabilitation providers and other public agencies who use the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) section 14 (c) special minimum wage certificates. The overall goal of the T-TAP project is to assist community providers to increase access to regular wage employment in the competitive labor market. Collection of needs assessment data is necessary to identify barriers for organizations serving individuals with disabilities in finding integrated employment at a competitive rate.
The Cooperative Agreement's data collection component is authorized pursuant to Public Law 106-554, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, which established ODEP within the Department of Labor to bring a heightened and permanent focus for increasing the employment of persons with disabilities and to develop initiatives to “further the objective of eliminating employment barriers to the training and employment of people with disabilities.” The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2002, pursuant to Public Law 107-116, has reauthorized this authority.
The data collected from this survey will provide descriptive information on the current use of 14 (c) Special Wage Certificates by Community Rehabilitation Programs in the United States. Specifically, the survey will look at perceived organizational barriers to achieving competitive employment outcomes for individuals with significant disabilities. This will include organizations' perceived training and resource needs related to moving their programs from 14 (c) to integrated employment outcomes. The information generated by the survey will be used by ODEP for policy analysis and subsequent policy development and recommendations. In addition, T-TAP [VCU and ICI] will use the information to design and disseminate resources and training materials as well as provide technical assistance to Community Rehabilitation Programs (CRP). Part of disseminating this information will include writing journal articles, fact sheets, online seminars and web postings, conference presentations, or other literature that can be used by ODEP, T-TAP, CRPs, organizations, and others interested in facilitating competitive employment for individuals with disabilities.
The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the execution of the project's mission, 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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This is a notice to seek OMB approval of new survey instrument for the Office of Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor.
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; comments will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (the Department), 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 continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
Currently, the Employee Benefits Security Administration is soliciting comments concerning the information collection entitled Annual Report for Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements (Form M-1) contained in the Department's regulation at 29 CFR 2520.101-2, Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements and Certain Other Entities that Offer or Provide Medical Care to the Employees of Two or More Employers. A copy of the ICR may be obtained by contacting the office listed in the addresses section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office shown in the
Gerald B. Lindrew, Office of Policy and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5647, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-8410; Fax: (202) 219-5333. These are not toll-free numbers.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), codified as part 7 of Title I of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), was enacted to improve the portability and continuity of health care coverage for participants and beneficiaries of group health plans. In the interest of assuring compliance with part 7, HIPAA also added section 101(g) to ERISA permitting the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary) to require multiple employer welfare arrangements (MEWA) as defined in section 3(40) of ERISA to report to the Secretary in such form and manner as the Secretary might determine. To assist MEWAs and other entities with reporting, the Department published a final rule providing guidance for determining compliance and a form to be used for the annual report. Form M-1, the information collection provision of the regulation, is required to be filed by MEWAs and by other entities described in the regulation. The purpose of the information collection is to provide the Secretary with information to determine the extent to which the requirements of part 7 of ERISA are being carried out in connection with the provision of benefits consisting of medical care.
The Department is particularly interested in comments that:
• 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,
This notice requests comments on the extension of the information collection request (ICR) included in the regulation, Form M-1. The Department is not proposing or implementing changes to the existing ICR at this time.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the ICR; they will also become a matter of public record.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that the agenda for the teleconference of the National Council on the Arts, to be on September 12, 2003 from 2 p.m.-3 p.m. may include general discussion in addition to discussion of the American Jazz Masters award.
Any interested persons may participate, as observers, in Council discussions and reviews that are open to the public. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5532, TTY-TDD 202/682-5429, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
Further information with reference to this teleconference meeting can be obtained from the Council Operations office, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, at 202/682-5433.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Fellowships Advisory Panel, Literature section (Prose) to the National Council on the Arts will be held on September 22-24, 2003 in Room 415 at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.
A portion of this meeting, from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on September 24th, will be open to the public for policy discussion. The remaining portions of this meeting, from 9 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on September 22nd, from 9 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on September 23rd, and from 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. on September 24th, will be closed.
The closed portions of these meetings are for the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation, and
Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory panels that are open to the public, and, if time allows, may be permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel chairman and with the approval of the full-time Federal employee in attendance.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5691.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a teleconference of the Leadership Initiatives Advisory Panel, AccessAbility section, previously scheduled for August 29, 2003, will be held by teleconference from 2 p.m.-3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 from Room 724 at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20506.
This meeting is for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of April 30, 2003, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506, or call 202/682-5691.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit applications received under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by October 6, 2003. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Nadene G. Kennedy at the above address or (703) 292-7405.
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas as requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
The applications received are as follows:
1. Permit Application No. 2004-013.
In addition, the applicant will continue analysis of the phylogenetic relationships and population genetics of two major genera of penguins. Blood and tissue samples will be collected from Magellanic, Adelie, Chinstrap, Gentoo, Macaroni, and Emperor penguins throughout their distribution. The applicant will serve as a lecturer onboard a tourist vessel that will give him access to various areas in the Antarctic. All samples will be returned to Dr. Shellum's lab in Perth, Australia or the laboratory at the University of New Mexico for processing. All other remains will be archived.
2. Permit Application No. 2004-014.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC World Wide Web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by October 6, 2003. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. OMB Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0021), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3087.
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, (301) 415-7233.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Summary of Proposal(s):
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from Chuck Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer (312-751-3363).
Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 and to the OMB Desk Officer for the RRB, at the Office of Management and Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Vestaur Securities, a State of Delaware corporation (“Issuer”), has filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Issuer's Board of Directors (“Board”) approved resolutions on May 14, 2003 to withdraw the Issuer's Security from listing on the NYSE and approved the listing on the American Stock Exchange (“AMEX”). In making its decision to withdraw the Security from the Exchange, the Board determined that it was in the best interest of the Issuer to delist from the NYSE and list on the AMEX due to considerations of expense and the resulting benefits to the Issuer's shareholders.
The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with the NYSE's rules governing an issuer's voluntary withdrawal of a security from listing and registration. The Issuer's application relates solely to the Security's withdrawal from listing on the NYSE and from registration under section 12(b) of the Act
Any interested person may, on or before September 18, 2003, submit by letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609, facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of the NYSE and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before October 6, 2003. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
Address all comments concerning this notice to:
Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044.
Small Business Administration.
Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before October 6, 2003. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and
Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044.
Citrus, Manatee, and Pasco counties and the contiguous counties of De Soto, Hardee, Hernando, Hillsborough, Levy, Marion, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota, and Sumter in the State of Florida constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by heavy rains and flooding beginning June 19 and continuing through August 21, 2003. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on October 27, 2003, and for economic injury until the close of business on May 28, 2004, at the address listed below or other locally announced locations:
The interest rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 353806 and the number for economic injury is 9W7800.
Office of the United States Trade Representative; Department of Labor.
Request for comments.
The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) gives notice that the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the Department of Labor (Labor) are initiating a review of the impact of the proposed U.S.-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement (FTA) on United States employment, including labor markets. This notice seeks written public comment on potentially significant sectoral or regional employment impacts (both positive and negative) in the United States as well as other likely labor market impacts of the FTA.
USTR and Labor will accept any comments received during the course of the negotiations of the FTA. However, comments should be received by noon, October 1, 2003, to be assured of timely consideration in the preparation of the report.
Submissions by electronic mail:
For procedural questions concerning public comments, contact Gloria Blue, Executive Secretary, TPSC, Office of the USTR, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, telephone (202) 395-3475. Substantive questions concerning the employment impact review should be addressed to Jorge Perez-Lopez, Director, Office of International Economic Affairs, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone (202) 693-4883; or William Clatanoff, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Labor, telephone (202) 395-6120.
On August 4, 2003, in accordance with section 2104(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 2002, the United States Trade Representative notified the Congress of the President's intent to initiate a free trade agreement with Bahrain. The notification letters to the Congress can be found on the USTR Web site at
The FTA will build on the Middle East Free Trade Area, which includes the Jordan and Morocco FTAs. By moving from unilateral trade preferences to a reciprocal trade agreement, the FTA will seek to eliminate duties and unjustified barriers to trade in both U.S.- and Bahrain-origin goods and also address trade in services, trade in agricultural products, investment, trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, government procurement, trade-related environmental and labor matters, and other issues. The FTA is expected to contribute to stronger economies, the rule of law, sustainable development, and more accountable institutions of governance, complementing ongoing domestic, bilateral, and multilateral efforts in the region. Finally, the FTA will lend momentum to building a Middle East Free Trade Area.
Section 2102(c)(5) of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002, 19 U.S.C. 3802(c)(5), directs the President to “review the impact of future trade agreements on United States employment, including labor markets, modeled after Executive Order 13141 to the extent appropriate in establishing procedures and criteria, report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate on such review, and make that report available to the public.” USTR and the Department of Labor will conduct the employment reviews through the TPSC.
The employment impact review will be based on the following elements, which are modeled to the extent appropriate after those in EO 13141. The review will be: (1) Written; (2) initiated through a
Comments may be submitted on potentially significant sectoral or regional employment impacts (both positive and negative) in the United States as well as other likely labor market impacts of the FTA. Persons submitting comments should provide as much detail as possible in support of their submissions.
To ensure prompt and full consideration of responses, the TPSC strongly recommends that interested persons submit comments by electronic mail to the following e-mail address:
Written comments will be placed in a file open to public inspection pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.5, except confidential business information exempt from public inspection in accordance with 15 CFR 2003.6. Confidential business information submitted in accordance with 15 CFR 2003.6 must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top of each page, including any cover letter or cover page, and must be accompanied by a non-confidential summary of the confidential information. All public documents and non-confidential summaries shall be available for public inspection in the USTR Reading Room in Room 3 of the Annex of the Office of the USTR, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. An appointment to review the file may be made by calling (202) 395-6186. The USTR Reading Room is generally open to the public from 10 a.m-12 noon and 1-4 p.m. Monday through Friday. Appointments must be scheduled at least 48 hours in advance.
Office of the United States Trade Representative; Department of Labor.
Request for comments.
The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) gives notice that the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the Department of Labor (Labor) are initiating a review of the impact of the proposed U.S.-Dominican Republic free trade negotiations on United States employment, including labor markets. This notice seeks written public comment on potentially significant sectoral or regional employment impacts (both positive and negative) in the United States as well as other likely labor market impacts of the FTA.
USTR and Labor will accept any comments received during the course of the negotiations of the FTA. However, comments should be received by noon, October 1, 2003, to be assured of timely consideration in the preparation of the report.
Submissions by electronic mail:
For procedural questions concerning public comments, contact Gloria Blue, Executive Secretary, TPSC, Office of the USTR, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, telephone (202) 395-3475. Substantive questions concerning the employment impact review should be addressed to Jorge Perez-Lopez, Director, Office of International Economic Affairs, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone (202) 693-4883; or William Clatanoff, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Labor, telephone (202) 395-6120.
On August 4, 2003, in accordance with section 2104(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 2002, the United States Trade Representative notified the Congress of the President's intent to enter into free trade negotiations with the Dominican Republic. The notification letters to the Congress can be found on the USTR Web site at
Through these negotiations we expect to provide for essentially the same disciplines as those in the Free Trade Agreement we are currently negotiating with the five members of the Central American Economic Integration System (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua) (CAFTA), and to negotiate specific market access commitments with the Dominican Republic. On August 6, 2003 the USTR requested the ITC provide advice on probable economic effects. The ITC intends to provide this advice within four months of its receipt of the request.
Section 2102(c)(5) of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002, 19 U.S.C. 3802(c)(5), directs the President to “review the impact of future trade agreements on United States employment, including labor markets, modeled after Executive Order 13141 to the extent appropriate in establishing procedures and criteria, report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate on such review, and make that report available to the public.” USTR and the Department of Labor will conduct the employment reviews through the TPSC.
The employment impact review will be based on the following elements, which are modeled to the extent appropriate after those in EO 13141. The review will be: (1) Written; (2) initiated through a
Comments may be submitted on potentially significant sectoral or regional employment impacts (both positive and negative) in the United States as well as other likely labor market impacts of the FTA. Persons submitting comments should provide as much detail as possible in support of their submissions.
To ensure prompt and full consideration of responses, the TPSC strongly recommends that interested persons submit comments by electronic
Written comments will be placed in a file open to public inspection pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.5, except confidential business information exempt from public inspection in accordance with 15 CFR 2003.6. Confidential business information submitted in accordance with 15 CFR 2003.6 must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top of each page, including any cover letter or cover page, and must be accompanied by a non-confidential summary of the confidential information. All public documents and non-confidential summaries shall be available for public inspection in the USTR Reading Room in Room 3 of the Annex of the Office of the USTR, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. An appointment to review the file may be made by calling (202) 395-6186. The USTR Reading Room is generally open to the public from 10 a.m-12 noon and 1-4 p.m. Monday through Friday. Appointments must be scheduled at least 48 hours in advance.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before October 6, 2003. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Judy Street on (202) 267-9895.
Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention FAA Desk Officer.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petitions for exemption received and of dispositions of prior petitions.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR, dispositions of certain petitions previously received, and corrections. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before September 15, 2003.
You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FAA-200X-XXXXX] by any of the following methods:
• Web Site:
• Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to
Tim Adams (202) 267-8033, Sandy Buchanan-Sumter (202) 267-7271, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Brunswick Golden Isles Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
Comments must be received on or before October 6, 2003.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports District Office, Federal Aviation Administration, DOT, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-260, College Park, Georgia 30337-2747.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Steve V. Brian, Executive Director of the Glynn County Airport Commission at the following address: 500 Connole Street, Brunswick, Georgia 31525.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the Glynn County Airport Commission under section 158.23 of Part 158.
Philip Cannon, Program Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-260, College Park, Georgia 30337-2747, (404) 305-7152.
The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to use the revenue from a PFC at Brunswick Golden Isles Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
On August 19, 2003, the FAA determined that the application to the revenue from a PFC submitted by Glynn County Airport Commission was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than November 28, 2003.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Glynn County Airport Commission.
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
The Chehalis-Centralia Railroad Association has petitioned for a temporary waiver of compliance from the requirements of the
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (
FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
In accordance with part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
The Sumpter Valley Railroad seeks a waiver of compliance from the Inspection and Maintenance Standards for Steam Locomotives, 49 CFR part 230, published November 17, 1999. Section 230.3(c)(1) of the standards requires steam locomotives having flue tubes replaced after September 25, 1995 to request Special Consideration to come under the new requirements by January 18, 2001 or undergo a one thousand four hundred seventy-two service day inspection (49 CFR 230.17) prior to being allowed to operate under the requirements. The Sumpter Valley Railroad Restoration, Inc. (SVRY) seeks an extension of time beyond January 18, 2001 to file for Special Consideration for SVRY steam locomotive number 19 which had the flue tubes replaced and was returned to service in May of 1996.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (FRA-2003-15641) and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site 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 comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT.
Notice of FRA Safety Advisory 2003-02.
FRA is issuing Safety Advisory 2003-02 advising all persons involved in loading and unloading products from railroad tank cars that they cannot rely on internal excess flow valves to stop the flow of product except under the limited conditions for which these valves were designed and installed.
Thomas A. Phemister, Hazardous Materials Specialist, Office of Safety, RRS-12, Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6050).
On July 14, 2001, at the Atofina Chemicals, Inc., plant in Riverview, Michigan, a pipe attached to an unloading fitting on a railroad tank car fractured and separated, causing the release of methyl mercaptan, a poisonous, flammable gas. The ensuing fire led to the rupture of hoses on an adjacent tank car containing chlorine, a poisonous, corrosive gas. Before the fire
In the course of its investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB or the Board) determined that a contributing cause of the accident and its severity was the plant's reliance on the tank car excess flow valves
Also as part of the NTSB investigation, it was determined that both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had required Atofina to develop safety plans for the Riverview facility. As a mandatory part of the plans, the company had to consider safeguards to reduce both the risk and the consequences of a catastrophic release of the hazardous materials present at the plant. Both the risk management plan required by EPA and the process safety management plan required by OSHA dealt specifically with the potential for the failure of a flexible hose used in the tank car unloading process that delivered methyl mercaptan into the plant's industrial process. Under both plans, Atofina stated that the release of methyl mercaptan would be stopped by the automatic closure of the tank car's excess flow valves, specifically noting that this would occur even if a pipeline or unloading hose ruptured.
Following its investigation into the accident at the Atofina facility in Riverview, Michigan, the Board issued several recommendations. One of them recommended that FRA:
Issue a hazardous materials bulletin to warn companies involved in tank car loading and unloading operations that tank car excess flow valves cannot be relied upon to stop leaks that occur during those operations.
FRA completely agrees with the safety concerns of the Board in this matter.
The NTSB has previously investigated accidents involving the release of dangerous chemicals during industrial accidents and, in response to an accident in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 30, 1983, the Board issued a report stating that excess flow valves were not designed to act as emergency shutoff devices during cargo transfer.
As a general rule, the specifications for tank cars, at 49 CFR Part 179, include excess flow valves as a permissive feature on what the regulations refer to as “pressure” tank cars and do not mention the devices in the specification for “non-pressure” tank cars. The regulations state:
The interior pipes of the loading and unloading valves shall be anchored and, except as prescribed in § 179.102 or § 179.103,
The packaging requirements in § 173.314 require excess flow valves for the interior pipes of loading/unloading valves, sampling devices, and gauging devices on tank cars transporting materials with a primary or secondary hazard of 2.1 (flammable gas); excess flow valves are also required on the interior pipes of liquid discharge valves on tank cars transporting chlorine.
An excess flow valve is, typically, a metallic device inserted into the interior piping of a tank car, just below the valve(s) used to load and unload the car. In the event that the valves are sheared off in a railroad accident, there will be a sudden rush of product out the opening thus created. With nothing to impede the flow of fluid product, the excess flow valve will move toward the opening and seat, thus sealing off the opening.
In response to concerns that the then-current regulatory provision for excess flow valves might be ambiguous, in 1985 the DOT published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the tank car specifications by adopting what is now the contemporary standard. Proponents of the clarification stated that tank-mounted excess flow valves are not intended to substitute for adequate excess flow equipment in plant loading systems. “The only use of such valves is for protection against loss of lading due to shearing of external closure during transit.”
The hazardous materials regulations (HMR) are quite clear that excess flow valves are limited in purpose and scope:
An excess flow valve as referred to in this specification, is a device which closes automatically against the outward flow of the contents of the tank in case the external closure valve is broken off or removed during transit * * *
Excess flow valves, by their nature, must encounter a high-volume, surging flow of product to be activated. If that were not the case, they might function in unintended situations, such as when a tank car is being unloaded with the aid of a strong pump. As designed, essentially any apparatus attached to the outside of the external closure valve will create sufficient internal friction (whether hose or pipe) that the flow of product will not be sufficient to activate the excess flow valve.
Excess flow valves, by both design and regulation, are intended to function only when the external closure valve is sheared, broken off, or otherwise removed during transit. These devices may also function as a back-up flow control device during tank car loading or unloading activities. While FRA neither regulates nor enforces the risk management plans required by EPA or the process safety management plan required by OSHA, it does have considerable expertise in the design, construction, and use of railroad tank cars and the safety features designed into them. FRA cannot urge strongly enough that the excess flow valve feature commonly included in pressure-type tank cars is not to be relied upon to stop leaks that may occur during loading or unloading operations.
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as detailed below.
Kansas City Southern Railway seeks approval of the proposed modification of the traffic control system, on the main track and controlled siding near milepost 604.5, on the Transcontinental Division, Beaumont Subdivision, in Benson, Louisiana. The proposed changes consist of the following:
1. Removal of the North and South Benson control points and the associated power-operated switch machines and controlled signals;
2. Installation of an electrically locked, hand-operated switch and repeater cut section at North Benson; and
3. Installation of an electrically locked, hand-operated switch and back to back, intermediate signals at South Benson.
The reason given for the proposed changes is that Benson Business Track is approximately 4,600 feet and is used primarily to store cars and seldom used to meet trains, and the removed equipment could be better utilized at another location.
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and contain a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing.
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as detailed below.
The Reading Blue Mountain and Northern Railroad seeks approval to extend the temporary discontinuance of the signal system until October 30, 2004, on their Track No. 1 on the Lehigh Line between milepost 119.3 and milepost 130.6, in order to complete repairs to the signal system which was damaged by a winter storm on December 26, 2002.
The reason given for the proposed changes is that Track No. 1 is a seldom-used track running parallel to the Norfolk Southern Corporation's Track No. 2, and there is a substantive dispute between the parties concerning the responsibility for repair of Track No. 1.
Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and include a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above.
All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by the docket number and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by the FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the internet at the docket facility's Web site at
FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing.
Under the authority granted to me as Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service by the General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury by General Counsel Order No. 21 (Rev. 4), pursuant to the Civil Service Reform Act, I have appointed the following persons to the Legal Division Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue Service Panel:
1. Chairperson, Gary B. Wilcox, Deputy Chief Counsel (Technical).
2. Deborah A. Butler, Associate Chief Counsel (Procurement and Administration).
3. Mark Kaizen, Associate Chief Counsel (General Legal Services).
4. Nancy J. Marks, Deputy Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt Government Entities).
5. Cynthia J. Mattson, Division Counsel (Large and Mid-Size Business).
6. Gary A. Benford, Area Counsel (Small Business/Self-Employed), Area 6—Dallas.
This publication is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Notice of Matching Program.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines on the Conduct of Matching Programs, notice is hereby given of an internal computer matching program to be conducted by the Internal Revenue Service pertaining to the matching of systems of records Treasury/IRS36.003 General Personnel and Payroll and Treasury .010 Telephone Call Detail Records.
This notice will be effective October 6, 2003.
Inquiries may be mailed to Director, End User and Equipment Services; Modernization, Information Technology and Support Services, M:I:EU, Internal Revenue Service, 5000 Ellin Rd., Lanham, MD.
Ed D. Rieser, Project Manager, Telecommunications Asset Tool (TAT), M:I:EU:AD:SE, Internal Revenue Service, (972) 308-1687.
The Matching Process is needed for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Telecommunications Division Waste, Fraud, and Abuse initiative to automatically match long distance telephone and calling card call detail records/data to employee making the call(s) and match to the manager of that respective employee by using the Telecommunications Asset Tool (TAT), Corporate Authoritative Directory Services (CADS), and the Calling Card Ordering System (CCOS). Members of the public desiring specific information concerning an ongoing matching activity may request a copy of the applicable computer matching agreement at the address provided above.
In the past several years the Service has been increasingly challenged to ensure that all resources are used as efficiently as possible. Telecommunications expenditures, one of the largest items in the Service's budget, continue to be an area warranting increased scrutiny due to the steady and dramatic rise in telecommunications usage and cost. On September 25, 2001, in partnership with the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the Service entered into an agreement to implement a new system for reviewing telecommunications usage.
The Telecommunications Asset Tool (TAT), will be used to review employee use of office telephones and calling card records. TAT replaces the Billing Analysis Reporting Tool (BART) that has been used to review personal use of office telephones and calling cards to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of government telephone services since the early 1990s.
A major purpose of the TAT is to provide a system of checks and balances that directly address the integrity of the data. The call detail data has been derived from Sprint Billing Data received monthly and used to build the call detail database. The new agency-wide TAT review process will concentrate on two areas: (1) potential waste, fraud, and abuse of telecommunications resources; and (2) lost personnel productivity based on excessive time devoted to personal telephone calls. TAT provides data on 100% of call detail records, including long distance telephone calls and phone card calls. TAT is the tool for managing telecommunications expenditures and for identifying waste, fraud, and abuse. Additionally, managers can request ad hoc reports detailing calls from office telephones or calling cards if the manager suspects potential problems related to these services.
5 CFR 2635-Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch; 5 CFR 3101-Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Treasury Department, Treasury Supplemental Standards (3101.101-3191, 107, the Treasury Employee Rules of Conduct).
The telephone number or calling card data from the TAT process will be matched with CADS or CCOS database to identify the employee assigned to the respective telephone number/calling card and identify the manager to whom the employee is assigned.
Once the manager is identified, the respective/applicable call detail report(s) are generated.
Ninety days prior to expiration of the agreement, the parties to the agreement may request a 12-month extension in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(o).
Health Resources and Services Administration.
General notice.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces the availability of funds in the HRSA Preview for Summer 2003. This edition of the HRSA Preview is a comprehensive review of HRSA's Fiscal Year 2004 competitive grant programs.
The purpose of the HRSA Preview is to provide the general public with a single source of program and application information related to the Agency's competitive grant offerings. The HRSA Preview is designed to replace the multiple
This notice contains nearly all of the content of the HRSA Preview. The HRSA Preview contains a description of competitive and other grant programs scheduled for awards in Fiscal Year 2004, and includes instructions on how to contact the Agency for information and receive application kits for all programs. Specifically, the following information is included in the HRSA Preview: (1) Program announcement number (2) program announcement title; (3) program announcement code; (4) legislative authority; (5) Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) identification number; (6) purpose; (7) eligibility; (8) funding priorities and/or preferences; (9) estimated dollar amount of competition; (10) estimated number of awards; (11) estimated project period; (12) application availability date; (13) letter of intent deadline (if any); (14) application deadline; (15) projected award date; and (16) programmatic contact, with telephone and e-mail addresses. Certain other information, including how to obtain and use the HRSA Preview and grant terminology, can also be found in the HRSA Preview.
This notice describes funding for the following HRSA discretionary authorities and programs (receipt deadlines are also provided):
It is recommended that you read the introductory materials, terminology section, and individual program category descriptions before contacting the toll-free number: 1-877-HRSA-123 (1-877-477-2123), M-F 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST. Likewise, we urge applicants to fully assess their eligibility for grants before beginning to apply for a grant on-line or requesting a grant application kit. As a general rule, no more than one kit per category will be mailed to applicants.
This HRSA Preview will be available in booklet form in the near future. To have your name and address added to or deleted from the HRSA Preview mailing list, call the toll free number above or send a message by e-mail to
You may apply for HRSA grants on-line or on paper. HRSA encourages you to apply on-line. HRSA's on-line application system is designed to maximize data accuracy and speed processing. Multiple individuals may register and collaborate on applications, and institutional data is stored for you to re-use on future applications.
To apply on-line, go to
Please submit your application early. Applications submitted after program's deadline will not be accepted.
To obtain paper application materials, determine which kit(s) you wish to receive and call 1-877-477-2123 to be placed on the mailing list. Be sure to provide the information specialist with the Program Announcement Number, Program Announcement Code and the title of the grant program. You may also request application kits using the e-mail address above. Application kits are generally available 60 days prior to application deadline. If kits are available earlier, they will be mailed immediately. The guidance contained in the various kits contains detailed instructions, background on the grant program, and other essential information, such as the applicability of Executive Order 12372 and 45 CFR Part 100, and additional information pertinent to the intergovernmental review process, as appropriate.
Applications will be considered on time if they are received on or before the established deadline. Applicants should check the application guidance material or the HRSA-GRANTS homepage for deadline changes. Applications sent to any address other than that specified in the application guidance are subject to being returned.
The citation of the law authorizing the various grant programs is provided immediately following the title of the programs.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) is a Government-wide compendium of Federal programs, projects, services, and activities that provide assistance. Programs listed therein are given a CFDA Number.
A financial assistance mechanism (grant) used when substantial Federal programmatic involvement with the recipient is anticipated by the funding agency during performance of the project. The nature of that involvement will always be specified in the offering or application guidance materials.
Beginning October 1, 2003, applicants will be required to have a Dun and Bradstreet (DUNS) number to apply for a grant or cooperative agreement from the Federal Government. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge.
Although obtaining a DUNS number is not required for applications submitted in response to announcements with deadlines on or before September 30, 2003, regardless of when the award is made, or for other types of applications submitted before September 30 (
To obtain a DUNS number, access
The status an entity must possess to be considered for a grant. Authorizing legislation and programmatic regulations specify eligibility for individual grant programs, and eligibility may be further restricted for programmatic reasons. In general, assistance is provided to nonprofit organizations and institutions, including faith-based and community-based entities, State and local governments, their agencies, including an Indian Tribe or tribal organization, and occasionally to individuals. For-profit organizations are eligible to receive awards under financial assistance programs unless specifically excluded by legislation.
The funding level listed is provided only as an estimate, and is subject to the availability of funds, Congressional action, and changing program priorities.
Funding preferences, priorities, and special considerations may come from legislation, regulations, or HRSA program leadership decisions. They are not the same as review criteria. Funding preferences are any objective factors that would be used to place a grant application ahead of others without the preference on a list of applicants recommended for funding by a review committee. Some programs give preference to organizations that have specific capabilities such as telemedicine networking, or have established relationships with managed care organizations. Funding priorities are factors that cause a grant application to receive a fixed amount of extra rating points—which may similarly affect the order of applicants on a funding list. Special considerations are other factors considered in making funding decisions that are neither review criteria, preferences, nor priorities,
To help in planning the application review process, many HRSA programs request a letter of intent from the applicant in advance of the application deadline. Letters of intent are neither binding nor mandatory. Details on where to send letters can be found in the guidance materials contained in the application kit.
Several HRSA programs require a matching amount, or percentage of the total project support, to come from sources other than Federal funds. Matching requirements are generally mandated in the authorizing legislation for specific categories. Also, matching or other cost-sharing requirements may be administratively required by the awarding office. Such requirements are set forth in the application kit.
The program announcement code is a unique identifier for each program funded by HRSA. The three-five character acronyms are located in parentheses immediately at the end of each program title and must be used to request application materials either from the HRSA Grants Application Center or online at
Be sure to use the program announcement number, program announcement code and the title of the grant program when requesting an application kit.
A unique program announcement (HRSA) number is located at the beginning of each program announcement in the HRSA Preview and
The project period is the total time for which support of a discretionary project has been programmatically approved. The project period usually consists of a series of budget periods of one-year duration. Once approved through initial review, continuation of each successive budget period is subject to satisfactory performance, availability of funds, and program priorities.
The following are generic review criteria applicable to HRSA programs:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
A contact person is listed for each program and his/her e-mail address and telephone number provided. Some programs have scheduled workshops and conference calls. If you have questions concerning individual programs or the availability of technical assistance, please contact the person listed. Also check your application materials and the HRSA Web site at
1. Where do I submit grant applications?
The address for submitting your grant application will be shown in the guidance document included in the application kit.
2. How do I learn more about a particular grant program?
If you want to know more about a program before you request an application kit, an e-mail/telephone contact is listed. This contact person can provide information concerning the specific program's purpose, scope and goals, and eligibility criteria. Usually, you will be encouraged to request the application kit so that you will have clear, comprehensive, and accurate information available to you. When requesting application materials, you must state the program announcement number, the program code and title of the program. The application kit lists telephone numbers for a program expert and a grants management specialist who will provide information about your program of interest if you are unable to find the information within the written materials provided.
In general, the program contact person provides information about the specific grant offering and its purpose, and the grants management specialist provides information about the grant mechanism and business matters, though their responsibilities often overlap.
Information specialists at the toll-free number provide only basic information and administer mailings.
3. The dates listed in the HRSA Preview and the dates in the application kit do not agree. How do I know which is correct?
HRSA Preview dates for application kit availability and application receipt deadlines are based upon the best known information at the time of publication, often nine months in advance of the competitive cycle. Occasionally, the grant cycle does not begin as projected and dates must be adjusted. The deadline date stated in your application kit is generally correct. If the application kit has been made available and subsequently the date changes, notification of the change will be mailed to known recipients of the application kit, and also posted on the HRSA home page.
4. Are programs announced in the HRSA Preview ever cancelled?
Infrequently, announced programs may be withdrawn from competition. If this occurs, a cancellation notice will be provided through the HRSA Preview at the HRSA homepage at
Programs listed with an asterisk (*) are not included in the President's budget for FY 2004. They are included for planning purposes only. Potential applicants should consider these announcements provisional until final Congressional action on appropriations is taken.
* This program is not included in the President's budget for 2004. Potential applicants for funds should consider this announcement provisional until final Congressional action is taken. Updated information will be available on the HRSA Web site.
* This program is not included in the President's budget for FY 2004. Potential applicants for funds should consider this announcement provisional until final Congressional action on appropriations is taken. Updated information on Congressional action on appropriations will be available on the HRSA Web site.
* This program is not included in the President's budget for FY 2004. Potential applicants for funds should consider this announcement provisional until final Congressional action on appropriations is taken. Updated information on Congressional action on appropriations will be available on the HRSA Web site.
For program purposes (3) and (4) public or nonprofit private accredited schools of allopathic or osteopathic medicine are eligible to apply.
For program purpose (6) entities that have programs in accredited dental schools, approved residency programs in the pediatric or general practice of dentistry, approved advanced education programs in the pediatric or general practice of dentistry, or approved residency programs in pediatric dentistry are eligible to apply.
For all grant program purposes (1) through (6), nonprofit entities, including faith-based organizations and community-based organizations, that meet other eligibility requirements are eligible to apply.
In accordance with Section 747(c)(2) of the Public Health Service Act, for program purposes (1) through (6), a funding priority will be given to approved applicants that have a record of training individuals who are from disadvantaged backgrounds (including racial and ethnic minorities underrepresented among primary care practice or general or pediatric dentistry).
In accordance with Section 747(b)(3) of the Public Health Service Act, for program purpose (4), a funding priority will be given to approved applicants that propose a collaborative project between departments of primary care medicines.
Program Contact Person:
E-mail:
* This program is not included in the President's budget for FY 2004. Potential applicants for funds should consider this announcement provisional until final Congressional action on appropriations is taken. Updated information on Congressional action on appropriations will be available on the HRSA Web site.
Grants will be awarded to assist eligible entities in meeting the costs to plan, develop, operate, or maintain graduate psychology doctoral, doctoral internship, and doctoral residency programs, accredited by the American Psychological Association (APA). These programs must foster an integrated approach to health care services and address access for underserved populations by training psychologists to work:
• With underserved populations including children, the elderly, victims of abuse, the chronically ill or disabled; and
• In areas of emerging needs.
* This program is not included in the President's budget for FY 2004. Potential applicants for funds should consider this announcement provisional until final Congressional action on appropriations is taken. Updated information on Congressional action on appropriations will be available on the HRSA Web site.
• This program is not included in the President's budget for FY 2004. Potential applicants for funds should consider this announcement provisional until final Congressional action on appropriations is taken. Updated information on Congressional action on appropriations will be available on the HRSA Web site.
In accordance with Section 751(a)(1)(A)(vii) of the Public Health Service Act, special consideration will also be given to approved applicants who (a) develop new and innovative approaches to education and training using distance learning methodologies/telehealth, or (b) enhance or expand existing distance learning educational programs to prepare health professionals and health professional students to deliver quality health care in medically underserved communities.
* This program is not included in the President's budget for FY 2004. Potential applicants for funds should consider this announcement provisional until final Congressional action on appropriations is taken. Updated information on Congressional action on appropriations will be available on the HRSA Web site.
• Has previously received funding under Title VII of the Public Health Service Act for a Basic AHEC program;
• Is currently operating an AHEC program; and
• Is no longer receiving funds under the Title VII Basic AHEC authority.
In accordance with Section 751(a)(1)(A)(vii) of the Public Health Service Act, special consideration will also be given to approved applicants who (a) develop new and innovative approaches to education and training using distance learning methodologies/telehealth, or (b) enhance or expand existing distance learning educational programs to prepare health professionals and health professional students to deliver quality health care in medically underserved communities.
States seeking support must provide assurances that, with respect to costs of making loan repayments under contracts with health professionals, the State will make available (directly or through donations from public or private entities) non-Federal contributions in cash in an amount equal to not less than $1 for every $1 of Federal funds provided in grants. In determining the amount of non-Federal contributions in cash that a State has to provide, no Federal funds may be used in the State's match. Further information about this Program is available in the application guidance and can be obtained from the contact person.
To apply for funding for curricular enhancement, an entity that is not a health professions school must provide a written agreement with a health professions school to participate in carrying out the project.
In funding approved applications, consideration will be given to balance the distribution of awards across the following types of health professions schools: Medicine, Nursing, Mental Health, Allied Health, and others.
* This program is not included in the President's budget for FY 2004. Potential applicants for funds should consider this announcement provisional until final Congressional action on appropriations is taken. Updated information on Congressional action on appropriations will be available on the HRSA Web site.
Applicants must propose to carry out all of the following statutory purposes: (1) Improve the training of health professionals in geriatrics, including geriatric residencies, traineeships or fellowships; (2) develop and disseminate curricula relating to the treatment of the health problems of elderly individuals; (3) support the training and retraining of faculty to provide instruction in geriatrics; (4) support continuing education of health professionals who provide geriatric care; and (5) provide students with clinical training in geriatrics in nursing homes, chronic and acute disease hospitals, ambulatory care centers, and senior centers.
This training must involve four or more health profession disciplines, one of which must be allopathic or osteopathic medicine. Other health professions may include allopathic physicians, osteopathic physicians, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, pharmacists, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, chiropractors, clinical psychologists, health administrators, and allied health professionals including professional counselors and social workers.
* This program is not included in the President's budget for FY 2004. Potential applicants for funds should consider this announcement provisional until final Congressional action on appropriations is taken. Updated information on Congressional action on appropriations will be available on the HRSA Web site.
* This program is not included in the President's budget for FY 2004. Potential applicants for funds should consider this announcement provisional until final Congressional action on appropriations is taken. Updated information on Congressional action on appropriations will be available on the HRSA Web site.
Funded projects will provide training in the physical and mental disabilities of elderly individuals through rotations such as geriatric consultation services, acute care services, dental services, geriatric behavioral and/or mental health units, day and home care programs, rehabilitation services, extended care facilities, geriatric ambulatory care and comprehensive evaluation units, and community care programs for elderly mentally retarded individuals. Programs emphasize the principles of primary care as demonstrated through continuity, ambulatory, preventive, and psychosocial aspects of the practice of geriatric medicine, geriatric dentistry, and geriatric behavioral and mental health.
* This program is not included in the President's budget for FY 2004. Potential applicants for funds should consider this announcement provisional until final Congressional action on appropriations is taken. Updated information on Congressional action on appropriations will be available on the HRSA Web site.
So that new applicants may compete equitably, a preference will be given to those new programs that meet at least four of the criteria described in section 791(c)(3) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, concerning medically underserved communities and populations.
* This program is not included in the President's budget for FY 2004. Potential applicants for funds should consider this announcement provisional until final Congressional action on appropriations is taken. Updated information on Congressional action on appropriations will be available on the HRSA Web site.
So that new applicants may compete equitably, a preference will be given to those new programs that meet at least four of the criteria described in Section 791(c)(3) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, concerning medically underserved communities and populations.
* This program is not included in the President's budget for FY 2004. Potential applicants for funds should consider this announcement provisional until final Congressional action on appropriations is taken. Updated information on Congressional action on appropriations will be available on the HRSA Web site.
Based on House Report 107-229 and Senate Report 107-084, a funding priority will be given to approved applicants who educate and train allied health professionals experiencing shortage in the areas of medical technology, cytotechnology, genetic counseling and/or emergency preparedness.
Second funding preference will be given to the remaining qualified applicants who have a zero EFC. Third, qualified applicants who have an EFC that exceeds zero will be grouped according to their EFC in increments of $500 from highest to lowest need (
Among qualified applicants, contracts will be awarded according to the following preferences:
First preference for funding will be given to NELRP applicants with greatest financial need working in a Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) for Medicare and Medicaid, nursing home, or State or local public health department including a public health clinic within these departments.
Second preference for funding will be given to applicants with greatest financial need working in a community health center; migrant health center; health care for the homeless health center, rural health clinic, Indian Health Service health center, Native Hawaiian health center, or non-Federal non-DSH for Medicare and Medicaid. Second preference will also be given to qualified applicants with greatest financial need working in the following types of CSFs located in geographic areas identified as Nursing Shortage Counties: ambulatory surgical center, home health agency, hospice program, skilled nursing facility or Federal hospital.
Third preference for funding will be given to applicants with greatest financial need working in the following types of CSFs regardless of geographic location: ambulatory surgical center, home health agency, hospice program, skilled nursing facility, federally qualified health center look-alike, or Federal hospital.
Fourth preference for funding will be given to applicants without greatest financial need working in a DSH for Medicare and Medicaid, nursing home, or State or local public health department including a public health clinic within the department.
Fifth preference for funding will be given to applicants without greatest financial need working a community health center, migrant health center, health care for the homeless health center, rural health clinic, Indian Health Service health center, Native Hawaiian health center, or non-Federal non-DSH for Medicare and Medicaid. Fifth preference will also be given to qualified applicants without greatest financial need working in the following types of CSFs located in geographic areas identified as Nursing Shortage Counties: ambulatory surgical center, home health agency, hospice program, skilled nursing facility, or Federal hospital.
Sixth preference for funding will be given to applicants without greatest financial need working in the following types of CSFs regardless of geographic location: ambulatory surgical center, home health agency, hospice program, skilled nursing facility, federally qualified health center look-alike; or Federal hospital.
This program is designed to increase the number of faculty from disadvantaged backgrounds who act as role models and mentors for students from similar backgrounds. Hence, faculty, as used in this section, means a position that is primarily teach, rather than administrative or research. The employing school must also make payments of principal and interest to the faculty member in an amount equal to the amount of such quarterly payments made by the HHS Secretary for each year in which the recipient serves as a faculty member under contract with HHS. In addition, the school must pay the usual salary to the faculty member. The Secretary may
* This program is not included in the President's budget for FY 2004. Potential applicants for funds should consider this announcement provisional until final Congressional action on appropriations is taken. Updated information on Congressional action on appropriations will be available on the HRSA Web site.
• Has a degree in allopathic or osteopathic medicine, dentistry, nursing, or in another health profession;
• Is enrolled in an approved health professions graduate program; or
• Is enrolled as a full-time student in the final year of health professions training that leads to a degree in one of the following health professions: allopathic medicine, osteopathic medicine, podiatric medicine, veterinary medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, optometry, nursing, public health, dental hygiene, medical laboratory technology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, radiologic technology, speech pathology, audiology, medical nutrition therapy and graduate programs in behavioral health and mental health practice, clinical psychology, clinical social work, and marriage and family therapy.
1. Planning activities that will result in the establishment of a network to enhance the operations of collaborating health centers;
2. Development of health center controlled networks to ensure access to health care for the underserved, including the uninsured and underinsured through enhancing the operations of the enhancement of the collaborating health centers through the integration of functions within a core area,
3. Development of shared integrated management systems (SIMIS) which will provide health centers across a State an opportunity to collaborate, share, and/or integrate functions or components of the systems to facilitate centralized data integration,
4. Development of information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure that supports the health disparities collaborative care model and leads to a seamless health care delivery system that is more effective, efficient, patient-family centered and reduce errors; and
5. Implement comprehensive pharmacy service in networks of health centers by adding pharmacy services that will improve clinical outcomes, increase medication safety and reduce health disparities.
1. Strengthening and expanding existing health center grantees;
2. Creating new access points; and
3. Improving health status outcomes of persons served in BPHC-supported programs.
The availability of MH/SA, oral health and care management services will enhance the ability of health centers to provide basic primary care result in an increase in users at existing grantee sites, and continue to improve the health status of persons served. Applicants for this funding opportunity are expected to: (1) Describe the target population and its need for MH/SA, oral health, or care management services; (2) present a service delivery plan that demonstrates responsiveness to the identified needs of the target population; and (3) present a sound business plan that links the goals and objectives from the service delivery plan to the budget. The programs included under this activity include: (1) Community Health Centers, section 330(e); (2) Migrant Health Centers, section 330 (g); (3) Health Care for the Homeless, section 330(h); (4) Public Housing Primary Care, section 330(i); and (5) School Based Health Centers, section 330. The populations served by these programs are: (1) Medically underserved populations in urban and rural areas; (2) migratory and seasonal agricultural workers and their families; (3) homeless people, including children and families; (4) residents of publicly subsidized housing; and (5) medically underserved students in grades K through 12, their families, and medically underserved populations surrounding the school.
* This program is not included in the President's budget for FY 2004. Potential applicants should consider this announcement provisional until final Congressional action on appropriations is taken. Updated information on Congressional action on appropriations will be available on the HRSA Web site.
1. The applicant entity must represent a consortium whose principal purpose is to provide a broad range of coordinated health care services to their defined community's uninsured and underinsured populations.
2. The community-wide consortium represented by the applicant entity must include at least one of each of the following providers that serve the state community, unless such provider does not exist, declines or refuses to participate, or places unreasonable conditions on its participation:
• A Federally qualified health center (as defined in section 186(aa) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa));
• A hospital with a low-income utilization rate (as defined in section 1923(b)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4(b)(3)), that is greater than 25 percent;
• A public health department; and
• An interested public or private sector health care provider or an organization that has traditionally served the medically uninsured or underserved.
• 3. The applicant is neither a current nor former Community Access Program (CAP) grantee and is proposing to serve a community of uninsured or underinsured individuals that have never been served by a CAP grant.
(1) A health center, as defined and funded under section 330 of the Public Health Service Act, acting on behalf of the member health centers and the network;
(a) A health center applying on behalf of a managed care network or plan must have received Federal grants under subsection (e)(1)(A) of section 330 for at least two consecutive preceding years;
(b) A health center (Community Health Center, Migrant Health Center, Health Care for the Homeless, Public Housing Primary Care and School Based Health Centers) applying on behalf of a practice management network must have received Federal grants under section 330 for at least two consecutive years;
(c) Eligibility is limited to public and non-profit organizations; or
(2) Operational networks, controlled by and acting on behalf of the health center(s) as defined and funded under section 330 of the Public Health Service Act. At the request of all the member health centers, a network may apply for direct funds if it is at least majority controlled and, as applicable, at least majority owned, by such health centers.
This funding initiative will support 4-5 projects targeting young (ages 13-24), HIV seropositive MSM of color. The funding start date and duration of this initiative will be the same for both the Evaluation Center and the demonstration projects.
The purpose of this initiative is to support the development and evaluation of innovative service models designed to reach young, HIV seropositive MSM of color not engaged in clinical care and link them to appropriate clinical, supportive, and preventive services. The specific objectives of this initiative are to: (1) Conduct outreach, (2) conduct HIV counseling and testing, (3) link HIV-infected persons with primary care services, and (4) prevent transmission of HIV infection from HIV positive men to others, among young MSM of color. The Evaluation Center will evaluate model effectiveness in reaching and engaging HIV seropositive young MSM in clinical, supportive, and preventive services. The Center will also support the replication of effective models.
A. Provision of services—The eligible entity has a record of success in the provision of telehealth services to medically underserved areas or medically underserved populations; B. Collaboration and sharing of expertise—The eligible entity has a demonstrated record of collaborating and sharing expertise with providers of telehealth services at the national, regional, State, and local levels; C. Broad range of telehealth services—The eligible entity has a record of providing a broad range of telehealth services, which may include—(i) A variety of clinical specialty services; (ii) patient or family education; (iii) health care professional education; (iv) rural residency support programs; and (v) informatics. In addition to providing technical assistance in their region, each grant will serve as a national resource that brings together the lessons learned from throughout the nation in at least two of the following areas: (i) Telehealth program evaluation; (ii) technology assessment; (iii) training, marketing, and information dissemination; (iv) telehealth program operations.
Applications are limited to the areas where Project Periods expire in FY 2004. These areas are:
Applications are limited to the areas where project periods expire in FY 2004. These areas are:
For the EIS Grants, a major focus is on increasing access to HIV primary care and support services for communities of color. Funding available through the Minority AIDS Initiative has improved our ability to fund indigenous organizations and those serving communities of color to deliver and implement culturally/linguistically proficient primary care HIV services. Funding preferences have been established for organizations serving communities of color that are highly affected by HIV/AIDS in an effort to improve care, and reduce disparities in health outcomes. These preferences are consistent with Congressional direction to maximize the participation of minority community-based organizations in delivering Early Intervention Services.
Faith-based and community-based organizations are eligible to apply.
State and Service Area of Project Periods ending 6/30/04:
State and Service Area of Project Periods ending 3/31/05:
(1) Extramural MCH Research Program: Continuously.
(2) Pediatric Research Network Program: December 15, 2003.
The purpose of the Maternal and Child Health Interdisciplinary Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities (LEND) program is to improve the health status of infants, children, and adolescents with, or at risk for, neurodevelopmental and related disabilities, including mental retardation, neurodegenerative and acquired neurological disorders, and multiple handicaps. The educational curricula emphasize the integration of services supported by State, local agencies, organizations, private providers and communities. The LEND programs will prepare health professionals to assist children and their families to achieve their developmental potentials by forging a community-based partnership of health resources and community leadership.
The purpose of this program is to strengthen the Nation's Maternal and Child Health Public Health system by broadening the leadership base of the current and future MCH workforce. Emphasis will be placed on developing the public health workforce through innovative strategies that address the special education needs of health professionals who: live in isolated geographic communities; need to enhance or advance their skills while continuing to meet their daily on site work and family responsibilities; and/or are from underserved or underrepresented populations. These training programs could lead to a graduate degree (
(1) In the interest of equitable geographic distribution, special consideration for funding may be given to projects from States or jurisdictions without a currently funded project in this category.
(1) LEND $8,219,000.
(2) Leadership Educ. Certificate in Public Health, $720,000.
(1) LEND, 17.
(2) Leadership Educ. Certificate in Public Health, 4.
(1) LEND, July 1, 2004.
(2) Leadership Education in Public Health, June 1, 2004.
(1) LEND, Denise Sofka.
(2) Leadership Education in Public Health, Nanette H. Pepper.
(1) LEND, (301) 443-0344.
(2) Leadership Education in Public Health, (301) 443-6445.
(1) LEND,
(2) Leadership Education in Public Health,
Continuing Education and Development (CED) focuses on increasing the leadership skills of MCH professionals by facilitating the timely transfer of new information, research findings, and technology related to MCH; and updating and improving the knowledge and skills of health and related professionals in programs serving mothers and children. CED programs support the conduct of short-term, non-degree related courses, workshops, conferences, symposia, institutes and distance learning strategies and/or development of curricula, guidelines, standards of practice, and educational tools/strategies intended to assure quality health care for the MCH population.
Programs must address a critical MCH training need, such as, but not limited to, oral health, behavioral health, cultural competency, core public health functions, asthma, early identification/detection of children with special health care needs, suicide prevention, health education, nutrition, nursing, or inter-professional education.
Alternative education methodologies provide effective and efficient means by which maternal and child health (MCH) professionals can enhance and advance their analytical, managerial, administrative and clinical skills while continuing to meet their daily on-site responsibilities. These functions include assessing need; utilizing data; developing policies and programs; addressing and resolving problems; monitoring progress and evaluating performance. This grant program supports the development, implementation, creative utilization, application and evaluation of distance education opportunities for maternal and child health (MCH) professionals. Projects will work collaboratively with each other and the MCH Bureau to provide technical assistance in distance education and technology to the MCH community.
(1) Special consideration will be given to applicants serving underrepresented minority students.
(1) Continuing Education and Development, $300,000;
(2) CED/Distance Learning, $525,000
(1) Continuing Education and Development, 10
(2) CED/Distance Learning, 4
(1) Continuing Education and Development, 1-3 years
(2) CED/Distance Learning, 3 years
(1) Continuing Education and Development, Diana L. Rule
(2) CED/Distance Learning, Aaron Favors
(1) Continuing Education and Development, (301) 443-0233
(2) CED/Distance Learning, (301) 443-0392
(1) Continuing Education and Development,
(2) CED/Distance Learning,
The purpose of this grant activity is to establish demonstration projects that enhance and support the newborn screening and genetics service capacity of State Title V programs. The projects will reflect partnerships among State programs, medical homes, families, and tertiary care centers. The projects will focus on ensuring optimal follow-up and management for children identified with heritable conditions by helping to translate genetic technological advances into practice. They will also undertake a regional approach toward addressing the maldistribution of genetic resources. The initiative will establish Collaboratives to: Serve as regional focus of genetics expertise for the sub-specialty care and treatment and management of children identified with heritable disorders by newborn screening; Demonstrate partnerships with multiple state newborn screening and Title V programs within a region, modeling a regional approach toward facilitating access to the genetics expertise that providers and families need to diagnose and manage children identified with heritable disorders; Provide information, educational resources, technical assistance, and support to the medical homes within the region in the treatment and management of children identified with heritable disorders by newborn screening, as well as to the families of the children identified with heritable disorders in the region. This will be done by: Utilizing innovations in communication and telehealth medicine; Demonstrating partnerships with existing comprehensive care programs to provide genetics expertise; Demonstrating the ability to offer technical assistance to State newborn screening and Title V programs served by the region; Assessing the long term health outcomes of children identified by newborn screening in this region and the clinical validity and utility of this regional approach; and Addressing issues related to the incidence of heritable conditions identified by newborn screening in the region. Funds available: $2,000,000 for 4 cooperative agreements. The cooperative agreements will be funded for five years, subject to the availability of funding for years 2 through 5 and satisfactory grantee performance.
The purpose of this grant activity is to establish 5 separate demonstration projects to examine genetic service issues such as service delivery and capacity, developing communities of practice for systems integration, quality of services, genetic literacy, education and awareness and the multiple social and ethical issues that have emerged from the use of new and evolving genetic technologies within these programs. All projects must consider the complexity of the public health and health care delivery systems. Applications may address Projects 1-5. Funds available: $1,000,000 for 5 cooperative agreements. The cooperative agreements will be funded for two years, subject to the availability of funding for the second year and satisfactory grantee performance.
• One project will identify strategies and develop materials and a model that identifies and measures quantifiable performance criteria for newborn genetic screening programs. Issues such as expanded newborn screening, missed infants, false positive results, and delayed diagnosis will be addressed—Project 1.
• One project will identify strategies and develop materials and a model that utilizes a consumer-based family history tool to increase awareness about genetics—Project 2.
• One project will identify strategies and develop materials and a model to evaluate existing data and recommend and weight priorities on health and economic value of genetic services, including genetic testing, education and counseling to provide important cost, health outcomes, and quality of care data—Project 3.
• One project will identify strategies and develop materials for addressing the ethical social issues surrounding the use of new and emerging technologies, the current models for delivering genetic tests and other genetic services—Project 4.
• One project will establish a resource center for developing a community of practice model for Genetic Service Branch's Best Practices in the Integration of Newborn Metabolic Screening Programs with Other Public Health Programs. The purpose of this resource center is to develop and implement policy initiatives related to achieving policy that supports integrating newborn metabolic screening programs with other public health programs and the health care delivery system. Components of the policy include definitions of integration, core function specification, standards of practice, and indicators to monitor and measure progress and outcomes. Direct involvement from a variety of public health programs and support functions, health care providers, community members, and families will be necessary for success because of the multiple, critical roles they play in the health of a newborn—Project 5.
National Resource Center on Medical Home Implementation. One cooperative agreement to: (1) Develop and implement policy initiatives related to achieving medical homes for children and youth with special health care needs; (2) establish and implement strategies for enhancing timely interactive communication, including telecommunication, among pediatricians, health care providers, community leaders, and policy-makers concerned with access, appropriateness, and coordination of primary care with specialty care and the array of other services required for this population of children and families; (3) promote activities that establish medical home as the standard of care for all community-based primary care physicians caring for children with special needs; (4) expand and enhance the capacity to collect, analyze, and use quantitative and qualitative data to promote medical homes for children with special health care needs; (5) facilitate the development of resources that increase access and awareness of the medical home for families and children with special health care needs; (6) assist states in implementation, assessment, and evaluation of strategies to promote Healthy People 2010 Goals and the President's New Freedom Initiative around community based systems of care for children with special health care needs; and (7) build upon the operational definition of a medical home, utilizing tools that have been developed, such as the medical home index and continuous quality improvement measures. Funds available: $700,000 for one cooperative agreement. The scope of Federal involvement with respect to all cooperative agreements is included in the Application Kit. The cooperative agreement has a 5 year project period. Funding for the 2-5 years is contingent upon the availability of funds and satisfactory performance of the grantee.
Integrating and Sustaining Medical Home through Statewide Implementation. Grants to States to improve and ensure the sustainability of statewide implementation of the medical home for CSHCN. Applicants must: (1) Conduct a medical home needs assessment based on the State-specific findings of the National Survey of CSHCN and incorporate those findings into the Block Grant Application; (2) incorporate medical home into the ongoing budget for the State Title V program; (3) implement/expand a plan for achieving statewide implementation of medical home; (4) participate in a continuous quality improvement strategy with primary care practices in the state; (5) develop and implement a structured plan for fiscal and programmatic sustainability; and (6) implement formative and summative evaluation activities. Funds available: $1,200,000 for 6-8 grants. Grants are for four years.
Medical Home Implementation through Community-Based, Primary Care Practices. Grants to primary care practices/networks to improve the ability of community primary care practices to become medical homes and to promote and support community inclusion for children and youth with special health care needs by better linking medical homes with early intervention, child care, Head Start, schools, and other community programs. Eligible applicants are: (a) networks of medical home providers including but not limited to State primary care professional organizations and other existing networks of primary care practices: and (b) individual primary care practices. Funds available: $800,000 for grants up to $50,000 for individual practices, or up to $250,000 for Network applications supporting at least five pediatric primary care practices. Grants are for four years.
Subspecialty Capacity-Building. Grants to develop strategies for partnership between State Title V agencies, subspecialty networks, and the medical home to improve access and availability of health/medical services to support children and youth in their community. Funds will support: (a) Comprehensive Statewide, contiguous State, or national needs assessments of workforce capacity for specialists and sub-specialists serving CSHCN; (b) development and implementation of a plan to improve workforce capacity; and (c) strengthen subspecialty relationships with the medical home. The plan must define and articulate the role of subspecialty networks, the medical home, and Title V in improving access to and availability of appropriate health and related services to support inclusion of children and youth in their community. Funds available: $400,000 for 2 grants up to $200,000. Grants are for four years.
Early Identification and Intervention for Children with Autism. A cooperative agreement to improve the capacity of the medical home and the early intervention community to identify, appropriately serve, and integrate children with autism into their communities. The cooperative agreement will: (a) Work with MCHB, family leaders, and pediatric primary care providers to improve medical home capacity for early identification of
I. (SAMCH)—The specific purpose of this national technical assistance and resource center is to assist State Title V Maternal and Child Health Programs to promote core capacity in adolescent health and to improve measurable adolescent health status in such arenas as unintentional injury, interpersonal violence, mental health, substance use, reproductive health, nutrition and physical activity, and oral health. II. (NAHIC)—The specific purpose of the National Adolescent Health Information Center is to collect, synthesize, coordinate and disseminate information regarding the health, safety and well-being of school-aged children, adolescents, young adults, and their families. As part of this effort, this Center provides technical assistance, consultation and continuing education to States, communities, and groups of health professionals and decision-makers. III. (PAE/CAYAH)—The specific purpose of this Center is to analyze the effects of public policies, regulations and practices at the community, State and Federal levels on the health, safety and well-being of school-aged children, adolescents, young adults, and their families. The intent is to enhance the knowledge of, and to inform, policy and decision-makers as well as health professionals regarding the short- and long-term consequences of public policies on these population groups.
The HTPC-Targeted grants will focus on the following targeted areas: increased access to pediatric oral health services; enhancement of behavioral and/or psychosocial aspects of pediatric care; and developing and delivering clinical pediatric telemedicine services that enhance access to community-based health care services for medically underserved areas, or for medically underserved populations. It is anticipated that approximately 10 grants will be awarded to organizations who address a community need in these critical targeted areas.
For FY 2004, three categories of EMSC Demonstration Grant funding opportunities are offered: I. Funding is available for up to 9 EMSC State Partnership (EMSCP) demonstration grants to support activities that represent the steps to take in order to institutionalize EMSC within Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and to continue to improve and refine EMSC. Proposed activities should be consistent with documented needs in the State and should reflect a logical progression in enhancing pediatric capabilities. For example, funding might
III. Funding is available for approximately 7 EMSC Targeted Issue Demonstration Grants (EMSCT) that are intended to address specific, focused issues related to the development of EMSC knowledge and capacity, with the intent of advancing the state-of-the-art tools, and creating tools or knowledge that will be helpful to the field. Proposals must have well-conceived methodology for analysis and evaluation.
For FY 2004, two categories of PCC stabilization and enhancement grant opportunities are offered:
I. Funds are available to be awarded to existing, certified PCCs or poison control systems, and
II. Funds are available to be awarded to non-certified or newly established PCCs to obtain certification from the American Association of Poison Control Centers or a State with equivalent standards, as determined by the Secretary.
(1) The applicant organization must be a public or nonprofit private entity located in a rural area or in a rural ZIP Code of an urban county (list included in application materials) and all services must be provided in a rural county or ZIP Code; or (2) The applicant organization exists exclusively to provide services to migrant and seasonal farm workers in rural areas and is supported under Section 330g of the Public Health Service Act or (3) The applicant is a federally recognized Native American Tribal or quasi-Tribal entity that will deliver services on Reservation or Federally recognized Tribal lands (documentation of status must be included). The entity must represent a consortium composed of members that include three or more health care providers and that may be nonprofit or for-profit entities.
(1) At least one of the consortium members is located in officially designated health professional shortage areas (HPSAs) OR medically underserved communities (MUCs) OR serve medically underserved populations (MUPs). To ascertain HPSA and MUP designation status, please refer to the following Web site:
Community Health Centers, Migrant Health Centers, Health Care for the Homeless Grantees, Public Housing Primary Care Grantees, Rural Health Clinics, National Health Service Corps sites, Indian Health Services Sites, Federally Qualified Health Centers, Primary Medical Care Health Professional Shortage Areas, Dental Health Professional Shortage Areas, Nurse Shortage Areas, State or Local Health Departments, and Ambulatory practice sites designated by State Governors as serving medically underserved communities.
(2) Ambulatory practice sites designated by State Governors as serving medically underserved communities; OR
(3) Propose to develop project with a focus on primary care and prevention and wellness.
The applicant must request and identify the particular preference they are eligible for to receive a funding preference.
(1) The applicant organization must be located in a rural area or in a rural ZIP code of an urban county (list included in application materials and on program Web site) and all grant-funded activities must support rural areas; or (2) The applicant organization exists exclusively to provide services to migrant and seasonal farm workers in rural areas and is supported under Section 330(g) of the Public Health Service Act or (3) The applicant is a federally recognized Native American Tribal or quasi-Tribal entity that will deliver services on Reservation or Federally recognized Tribal lands (documentation status must be included.)
A. Those applicants for which at least 50% of the proposed rural health network's service area is located in officially designated health professional shortage areas (HPSAs) OR medically underserved communities (MUCs) OR serve medically underserved populations (MUPs).
To ascertain HPSA and MUP designation status, please refer to the following Web site:
To qualify as a Medically Underserved Community (MUC), at least 50% of the network's participation must include facilities that are federally designated as any of the following:
(a) Community Health Centers
(b) Migrant Health Centers
(c) Health Care for the Homeless Grantees
(d) Public Housing Primary Care Grantees
(e) Rural Health Clinics
(f) National Health Service Corps sites
(g) Indian Health Service sites
(h) Federally Qualified Health Centers
(i) Primary Medical Care Health Professional Shortage Areas
(j) Dental Health Professional Shortage Areas
(k) Nurse Shortage Areas
(l) State or Local Health Departments
(m) Ambulatory practice sites designated by State Governors as serving medically underserved communities; or
B. Those applicants whose projects focus on primary care, and wellness and prevention strategies.
The program is designed to support organizations that wish to develop formal collaborative relationships among health care providers to integrate systems of care administratively, clinically, financially, and/or technologically. The goal of the Rural Health Network Development Program is to achieve efficiencies; expand access to, coordinate, and improve the quality of essential health care services; and strengthen the rural health care system as a whole. The Planning Grant Program supports this overall program goal by providing support to entities in the formative stages of planning and organizing a rural health network.
The applicant organization must be located in a rural area or in a rural ZIP code of an urban county (list included in application materials and on program Web site) and all grant-funded activities must support rural areas; OR the applicant organization exists exclusively to provide services to migrant and seasonal farm workers in rural areas and is supported under Section 330(g) of the Public Health Service Act; OR the applicant is a federally recognized Native American Tribal or quasi-Tribal entity that will deliver services on Reservation or Federally recognized Tribal lands (documentation status must be included.)
Existing networks that seek to expand services or expand their service area are not eligible to apply to this program.
A. Those applicants for which at least 50% of the proposed rural health network's service area is located in officially designated health professional shortage areas (HPSAs) OR medically underserved communities (MUCs) OR serve medically underserved populations (MUPs).
To ascertain HPSA and MUP designation status, please refer to the following Web site:
To qualify as a Medically Underserved Community (MUC), at least 50% of the network's participation must include facilities that are federally designated as any of the following:
(a) Community Health Centers
(b) Migrant Health Centers
(c) Health Care for the Homeless Grantees
(d) Public Housing Primary Care Grantees
(e) Rural Health Clinics
(f) National Health Service Corps sites
(g) Indian Health Service sites
(h) Federally Qualified Health Centers
(i) Primary Medical Care Health Professional Shortage Areas
(j) Dental Health Professional Shortage Areas
(k) Nurse Shortage Areas
(l) State or Local Health Departments
(m) Ambulatory practice sites designated by State Governors as serving medically underserved communities; OR
B. Those applicants whose projects focus on primary care, and wellness and prevention strategies.
Hospitals need to apply for these grants through their State's Office of Rural Health.
In addition to the above criteria, applicants must be capable of receiving the grant funds directly and must have the capability to manage the project. Applicants must be able to exercise administrative and program direction over the grant project; must have the administrative and accounting capabilities to manage the grant funds; and must have some permanent research staff at the time the application is submitted.
HRSA wants to achieve a geographic balance among awardees in making new awards under this announcement. Therefore, HRSA will consider geographic distribution when selecting which applications recommended for approval to fund.
The Federal government does not discriminate against non-governmental organizations on the basis that such organizations have a religious character. Faith-based organizations are eligible to compete for grant funds on the same basis as all other non-governmental organizations. Decisions about grant applications and awards will be made based solely on the competence, capacity, and actions of the provider, not whether it is a secular or faith-based provider.
To the extent permitted by law, faith-based organizations that receive federal financial assistance may—just as secular non-governmental organizations—use their facilities to provide federally funded services without removing or altering art, icons, literature, or other distinctive symbols from these facilities. In addition, faith-based organizations that apply for or participate in programs supported with federal financial assistance may retain their organizational identity including, but not limited to name, internal governance, and mission statements.
No grantee may discriminate in its delivery of a federally-funded program against a client or potential client on the basis of religion or religious belief, a refusal to hold a religious belief, or a refusal to actively participate in a religious practice. Any specifically religious activity or service made available to clients by the grantee must be voluntary as well as separate in time and location from government funded activities and services.
Grants.gov will simplify the grants management process, and create a centralized, online process to find and apply for over 600 grant programs from the 26 Federal grant-making agencies. Grants.gov will streamline the process of awarding $360+ billion annually to state and local governments, academia, not-for-profits and other organizations. This program is one of the 24 Federal cross-agency E-Government initiatives focused on improving access to services via the Internet. The vision for Grants.gov is to produce a simple, unified source to electronically find, apply, and manage grant opportunities. Additionally, the Grants.gov initiative will facilitate efficient operations for Federal grant agencies and the grant community.
Agencies will allow applicants for Federal grants to apply for and ultimately manage grant funds online through a common Web site, simplifying grants management and eliminating redundancies * * *”
(The President's FY 2002 Management Agenda)
Standardizing Federal grant management activities is a priority for the Administration and Congress, as evidenced by Public Law 106-107, legislation that mandates streamlining and improved accountability for Federal grants, and related references in the President's Management Agenda.
Grants.gov will serve as the common face for Federal grant program information and applications. Key benefits include:
• A single source for finding grant opportunities, helping applicants locate and learn more about funding opportunities in a standardized manner
• A single, secure and reliable source for applying for Federal Grants online, simplifying the grant application process and reducing paperwork Grants.gov will provide a unified interface for all agencies to announce their grant opportunities, and for all potential grantees to find and apply for grants. Grants.gov simplifies the entire application process, while also creating avenues for consolidation and best practices within each grant-making agency.
The first stage of Grants.gov was a successful pilot that enabled participating grantors to post and grant seekers to search for grant opportunities. Each Federal grant-making agency will be posting all of their competitive grant opportunities to Grants.gov by October 1, 2003. Also in October, the Grants.gov team will deploy a simple, unified application to enable applicants to apply for these grants online. Here's how it works: a grant seeker from an organization, for instance, visits the Grants.gov Web site to search for grant opportunities. Once a match is found, the organization downloads an electronic application to apply for the grant. The organization would complete the application and then submit it through the Grants.gov site. The application is time stamped and the appropriate Federal agency has immediate access to it. The agency will receive the application, sending confirmation back to the applicant through Grants.gov. Processing will be accelerated by avoiding the handling of paper applications.
In 2004, the focus will shift to rolling out the management and reporting functions of the Grants.gov system. Additional tools will be available to assist the grant community in moving through the grants life cycle, and will streamline and improve the grants application process.
All grant-making agencies will participate in Grants.gov over time. The Department of Health and Human Services, managing partner for the Grants.gov program, is supported by 10 additional “partner” agencies. A list of these agencies can be found on the Grants.gov Web site, at
The Grants.gov team is also working closely with the grant community and organizations that represent them, to facilitate delivery of a system that will meet their needs. We are in close contact with the Council of State Governments, the National Council for Nonprofit Associations, and the Federal Demonstration Partnership, to name just a few.
Visit
In order to improve the statistical reporting of federal grants and cooperative agreements, the Office of Management and Budget has directed federal agencies to require all applicants to provide a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number when applying for Federal grants or cooperative agreements on or after October 1, 2003. The DUNS number will be required whether an applicant is submitting a paper or an electronic application, and whether an applicant is applying for a new award or renewal of a current award. While the current directive does not cover non-competing continuations, Phase II of the project, which begins in FY 2004, will cover these continuations. Therefore, we encourage all grantees to obtain a DUNS number.
Use of the DUNS number government-wide will provide a cost-effective means to identify entities receiving those awards and their business relationships. The identifier will be used for tracking purposes, and to validate address and point of contact information. The DUNS number already is in use by the federal government to identify entities receiving federal contracts, and by some agencies in their grant and cooperative agreement processes.
Organizations should verify that they have a DUNS number or take the steps needed to obtain one as soon as possible if there is a possibility that they will be applying for Federal grants or cooperative agreements on or after October 1, 2003. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711. Individuals who would personally receive a grant or cooperative agreement award from the federal government apart from any business or non-profit organization they may operate, and foreign entities are exempt from this requirement.
If your organization does not have a DUNS number, and you anticipate that your organization will apply for a grant or cooperative agreement on or after October 1, 2003, you should take steps to obtain a DUNS number in advance of the application deadline. If your organization does not have a DUNS number, you may not be able to apply for Federal grants or cooperative agreements after that time. Future potential applicants should also consider requesting a DUNS number now if there is any intention of applying for a federal grant in the future.
Further information can be found in the
In order to help centralize information about grant recipients and provide a central location for grant recipients to change organizational information, the government will be using the Central Contractor Registry (CCR) for grant applicants and recipients. Use of the CCR is to provide one location for applicants and recipients to change information about their organization and enter information on where government payments should be made. The registry will enable recipients to make a change in one place and one time for all Federal agencies to use.
Organizations should register on how they want to do business.
A separate registration in the CCR may be required if an organization wants to have a single unit conduct business and it has a direct payment flow to that organization, it would require a separate DUNS number specified for that unit (if a different address from the parent organization). If the same address, the organization could use the DUNS + 4 found in the CCR. For example, a university that wants to have its payment information
Information for registering in the CCR and online documents can be found at
Prior to registering in the CCR, an applicant organization must receive a DUNS number. This can be done by telephone and the numbers are on the bottom of the worksheet. Many of the items are self-explanatory. Identified below are some items that may not be familiar to grant applicants and recipients.
This section is very important and needs to have names and telephone numbers put in for specific purposes. For grant applicants and recipients the M fields are required.