Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Economic Development Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Science and Technology Policy Office
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Customs and Border Protection Bureau
Fish and Wildlife Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
National Institute of Corrections
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Employment Standards Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Internal Revenue Service
Thrift Supervision Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that amended the Japanese beetle quarantine and regulations by adding Colorado and Montana to the list of protected States. The interim rule was necessary to prevent the spread of Japanese beetle into noninfested areas of the United States.
The interim rule became effective on July 18, 2003.
Dr. S. Anwar Rizvi, Program Manager, Invasive Species and Pest Management, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-4313.
The Japanese beetle
In an interim rule effective July 18, 2003, and published in the
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before September 22, 2003. We received one comment by that date. The comment was from a State agricultural agency and supported the interim rule. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule.
This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12372, and 12988 and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.
This rule affirms an interim rule that amended the Japanese beetle quarantine and regulations by adding Colorado and Montana to the list of protected States. The interim rule was necessary to prevent the spread of Japanese beetle into noninfested areas of the United States.
The following analysis addresses the economic effect of this rule on small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Japanese beetle is a highly destructive plant pest of foreign origin. It was first found in the United States in a nursery in southern New Jersey in 1916. In its native Japan, where the beetle's natural enemies keep its population in check, it is not a serious pest. In the United States however, the beetle entered without its natural enemies and found a favorable climate and an abundant food supply. By 1972, beetle infestations had been reported in 22 States east of the Mississippi River and also in Iowa and Missouri. The Japanese beetle has continued to disperse south and west without any natural enemies to slow its spread.
Both the adult and grub Japanese beetles are destructive plant pests. The adult beetles are known to feed on more than 400 species of broad-leaf plants, although only about 50 species are preferred. The grubs will also feed on a wide variety of plant roots, especially turf grass. The Japanese beetle is responsible for several millions of dollars in damages to U.S. agriculture each year.
As a result of the interim rule's addition of Colorado and Montana to the list of protected States, aircraft from regulated airports in any State quarantined because of the Japanese beetle must meet certain requirements before departing for Colorado or Montana to ensure the aircraft is free of Japanese beetle. The interim rule was necessary to reduce the risk of Japanese beetle becoming established in Colorado and Montana.
In 2001, all crop receipts for Colorado were approximately $1.4 billion. Feed crops comprised approximately 45 percent of all crops followed by vegetables (18 percent), food grains (16 percent), and greenhouse/nursery (15 percent).
In 2001, all crop receipts for Montana were approximately $657 million. Food grains comprised approximately 56 percent of all crops followed by feed crops (26 percent) and all other (8 percent).
The majority of the producers in Colorado and Montana can be classified as small entities according to the Small Business Administration (SBA) criterion of $750,000 or less in annual receipts. Agricultural producers play an important role in the States' economies. Thus, the benefits of protecting these States from infestation of Japanese beetle are worth the minor costs of inspection and treatment of air cargo.
The groups affected by this action will be air carriers flying from regulated airports in quarantined States to the protected States of Colorado and Montana. The additional costs incurred by the affected air carriers are expected to be minimal because the protocols and procedures are already established and followed for air cargo destined for any of the seven other protected States.
The majority of air cargo is transported within the United States by nine large businesses (Airborne, Burlington Express, DHL, Dynair, Emery Worldwide, Evergreen, FedEx, and United Parcel Service). According to SBA, an air carrier with more than 1,500 employees is considered large. The exact number or percentage of small air carriers who will be affected is currently unknown; however the economic effects will be limited because many entities already comply with the regulations in order to transport cargo to other protected States.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Section 301.75-15 also issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 also issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note).
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule will amend the procedures for soybean producers to request a referendum on the Soybean Promotion and Research Order (Order), as authorized under the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act (Act). The changes are intended to improve the operation of these procedures.
March 24, 2004.
Kenneth R. Payne, Chief, Marketing Programs Branch Livestock and Seed Program, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), USDA, Room 2638-S, STOP 0251, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0251; telephone 202/720-1115, fax 202/720-1125, or by e-mail at
Producers can determine the location of county FSA offices by contacting (1) the nearest county FSA office, (2) the State FSA office, or (3) through an online search of FSA's Web site at
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866 for this action.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule is not intended to have a retroactive effect. This final rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under § 1971 of the Act, a person subject to the Order may file a petition with USDA stating that the Order, any provision of the Order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the Order, is not in accordance with the law and requesting a modification of the Order or an exemption from the Order. The petitioner is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After a hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district courts of the United States in any district in which such person is an inhabitant, or has their principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, if a complaint for this purpose is filed within 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Further, § 1974 of the Act provides, with certain exceptions, that nothing in the Act may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to soybean promotion, research, consumer information, or industry information organized and operated under the laws of the United States or any State. One exception in the Act concerns assessments collected by Qualified State Soybean Boards (QSSBs). The exception provides that to ensure adequate funding of the operations of QSSBs under the Act, no State law or regulation may limit or have the effect of limiting the full amount of assessments that a QSSB in that State may collect, and which is authorized to be credited under the Act. Another exception concerns certain referenda conducted during specified periods by a State relating to the continuation or termination of a QSSB or State soybean assessment.
AMS has determined that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 601
For the purposes of the Request for Referendum, the Secretary will use the most recent number of soybean producers identified by USDA's FSA. At the time the proposed rule was published in the
This final rule amends the current procedures for soybean producers to request a referendum on the Order. The changes were discussed in the proposed rule. Those changes affected a number of sections in subpart F of part 1220, and include requiring documentation with form LS-51-1 to demonstrate that the producer or producer entity paid soybean assessments. These changes are intended to improve the operation of the procedures. The procedures to request a referendum on the Soybean Checkoff Program will permit participation by each person who was a producer and provides evidence that they or the producer entity they represent paid an assessment on soybeans during the representative period. USDA has determined that the representative period will be January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2003.
The information collection requirements, as discussed below, are minimal. Requesting a form by mail, in-person, facsimile, or via the Internet would not impose a significant economic burden on participants. Accordingly, the Administrator of AMS has determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. No comments were received regarding the RFA.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1990 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in 7 CFR part 1220 were previously approved by OMB and were assigned OMB control number 0581-0093. The purpose of this final rule is to provide soybean producers the opportunity to request a referendum on the Order. These changes will affect the information collection requirements by requiring documentation that shows an assessment was paid during the representative period be provided with form LS-51-1. However, providing the documentation will have no significant impact on the approved per response burden for form LS-51-1. No comments were received regarding the information collection section.
The Act (7 U.S.C. 6301-6311) provides for the establishment of a coordinated program of promotion and research designed to strengthen the soybean industry's position in the marketplace, and to maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets and uses for soybeans and soybean products. The program is financed by an assessment of 0.5 of 1 percent of the net market price of soybeans sold by producers. The final Order establishing a Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Program was published in the July 9, 1991, issue of the
The Act required that an initial referendum be conducted no earlier than 18 months and not later than 36
The initial referendum was conducted on February 9, 1994. On April 1, 1994, the Secretary announced that of the 85,606 valid ballots cast, 46,060 (53.8 percent) were in favor of continuing the Order and the remaining 39,546 votes (46.2 percent) were against continuing the Order. The Act required approval by a simple majority for the Order to continue.
The Act also required that within 18 months after the Secretary announced the results of the initial referendum, the Secretary would conduct a poll among producers to determine if producers favored a referendum on the continuance of the payment of refunds under the Order.
A July 25, 1995, nationwide poll of soybean producers did not generate sufficient support for a refund referendum to be held. A refund referendum would have been held if at least 20 percent (not in excess of one-fifth of which may be producers in any one State) of the 381,000 producers (76,200) nationwide requested it. Only 48,782 soybean producers participated in the poll. Consequently, refunds were discontinued on October 1, 1995.
The Act also specifies that the Secretary shall, 5 years after the conduct of the initial referendum and every 5 years thereafter, provide soybean producers an opportunity to request a referendum on the Order. On October 1, 1999, through November 16, 1999, a nationwide request for a referendum on the Order was conducted to determine if there was sufficient interest among soybean producers to vote on whether to continue the Soybean Checkoff Program. If at least 10 percent of the 600,813 soybean producers nationwide (not in excess of one-fifth of which may be producers in any one State) had participated in the request for referendum, a referendum would have been held. Only 17,970 eligible soybean producers completed valid requests—far short of the 60,082 required to trigger a referendum.
For all such referendums, if the Secretary determines that at least 10 percent of U.S. producers engaged in growing soybeans (not in excess of one-fifth of which may be producers in any one State) support the conduct of a referendum, the Secretary must conduct a referendum within 1 year of that determination. If these requirements are not met, no referendum will be conducted.
For the purposes of the Request for Referendum, USDA determined that they would use the most recent data of soybean producers identified by USDA's FSA. At the time the proposed rule was published in the
The Act provides that producers shall have an opportunity to request a referendum during a period established by the Secretary. Eligible persons must certify on an official form that they were a producer, paid an assessment during the representative period (January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2003), and indicate that they favor the conduct of a referendum. Further, producers will be required to provide documentation, such as sales receipts, showing that an assessment was paid during the representative period at the time a request for a referendum is made. The Request for Referendum period will be held during a 4-week period announced by the Secretary. The Act also provides that a Request for Referendum may be made in person or by mail-in request at county Cooperative Extension Service offices or county FSA offices. USDA has determined that the Request for Referendum will be held at the county FSA offices because it will give soybean producers the greatest opportunity to request a referendum.
This final rule sets forth the amended procedures as discussed in the proposed rule for producers to request a referendum as authorized under the Act, including definitions, eligibility, certification and request procedures, reporting results, and disposition of the forms and records. FSA will coordinate State and county FSA roles in conducting the Request for Referendum by (1) determining producer eligibility, (2) canvassing and counting requests, and (3) reporting the results.
On January 27, 2004, USDA published in the
USDA received two comments, one from the Chief Executive Officer of the United Soybean Board (Board) and another from an interested person, in a timely manner. In addition, one late comment was received. This comment generally reflected the views of the Board's comment. The two comments have been posted on AMS' Web site at
One commenter who did not support the Soybean Checkoff Program did not think the taxpayers of the United States should have to pay the costs of a referendum more frequently than once every 10 years. Furthermore, the commenter felt that if soybean farmers wanted more frequent referendums, then they should pay for all costs associated with the conduct and administration of such a referendum. The Act and Order provide that USDA, 5 years after the conduct of the initial
One commenter submitted a comment regarding the methodology used by USDA in establishing the baseline or universe of producers that would be used to determine if 10 percent of the producers desire a referendum. The commenter contended that the method used to determine the number of soybean producers is an anomalous result. For example, 597,151 producers who grew soybeans during 2001 crop year can request a referendum. By averaging the two crop years (597,151 producers in 2001 and the 573,825 producers in 2002), only 58,548 or 9.8 percent of the 597,151 producers eligible to vote as a result of the 2001 crop year determination would be required for a referendum to be held. The commenters contend this methodology inappropriately lowers the statutory threshold below 10 percent.
Upon further review, it was determined that the initial baseline proposed by USDA might not include all producers who were engaged in the growing of soybeans and would not accurately reflect the universe of soybeans producers for the 2-year period. For example, if Producer A grew soybeans on farm 1 in 2002 and producer B grew soybeans on farm 1 in 2003, under the proposed rule, the average number of producers for the 2 years equals one. Thus, the baseline would be “one.” However, under the Request for Referendum, both producers could participate and should be included in the universe or baseline. As previously discussed, FSA maintains a list of soybean producers that report farm crop acreages and producer crop shares. FSA has the ability to identify all producers that were engaged in growing soybeans for years 2002-2003. Further, FSA has the ability to count the number of producers that produced soybeans in any one of the 2 years and exclude duplicate counting. This comment has merit. After further review, USDA has determined that the number of producers eligible to participate in the Request for Referendum is 663,880. Thus, if 10 percent or 66,388 producers request a referendum, the referendum will be conducted within 1 year after the results are announced. Section 1220.616(d) will be revised to include 663,880 as the total number of producers eligible to participate in the Request for Referendum.
Also, the commenter questioned a statement in the proposed rule's supplementary information section that indicated that averaging the number of soybean producers for crop years 2001 and 2002 was done in an effort to follow procedures similar to the 1999 Request for Referendum. The commenter noted that there are differences between the two. This statement was intended to merely reflect the use of more than 1 year to capture the most accurate number of producers possible. As such no change is necessary.
One commenter suggested that each person who requests a referendum must be required to show that the producer paid an assessment during the representative period. This comment has merit and is consistent with USDA's proposal. No change is needed. This rule requires any person who wants to request a referendum to provide documentation at the time a request is made that shows an assessment was been paid between January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2003, to be eligible to request a referendum.
One commenter supported USDA's proposal that eligible producers must participate in the county FSA office that maintains the producers' administrative farm records are appropriate. This comment has merit and is consistent with USDA's proposal for the Request for Referendum. No change is needed.
However, under § 1220.619(c), USDA removed the word “vote” and replaced it with the words “request for referendum.” The Request for Referendum does not require a “yes'' or “no” vote.
Under § 1220.622(c), the phrase “* * * as provided in paragraph (a) of this section” has been removed and replaced with “* * * to the appropriate county FSA office” to provide more clarity. Also, for clarity, under (c), the term “the ballots'' and been removed and replaced with “Form 51-1.”
Under § 1220.623(b)(1), the phrase “* * * are a producer” has been deleted and replaced with “* * * paid an assessment'.” This correction clarifies that an assessment must have been paid during the representative period to request a referendum.
Under § 1220.623(e), the words “and supporting documentation” has been added after “Form LS-51-1 under subsections (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4), and (e)(6).” The words “* * * or supporting documentation” has been added after the words “Form LS-51-1 under subsection (e)(5).” These additions clarify that supporting documentation must be submitted with form LS-51-1.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural research, Marketing agreements, Soybeans and soybean products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 6301-6311.
An opportunity to request a referendum shall be provided to U.S. soybean producers to determine whether eligible producers favor the conduct of a referendum and the Request for Referendum shall be carried out in accordance with this subpart.
(a) The opportunity to request a referendum shall be provided at the county FSA offices.
(b) If the Secretary determines, based on results of the Request for Referendum that no less than 10 percent (not in excess of one-fifth of which may be producers in any one State) of all producers have requested a referendum on the Order, a referendum will be held within 1 year of that determination.
(c) If the Secretary determines, based on the results of the Request for Referendum, that the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section are not met, a referendum will not be conducted.
(d) For purposes of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the number of soybean producers in the United States is determined to be 663,880.
The Administrator, AMS, shall be responsible for supervising the process of permitting producers to request a referendum in accordance with this subpart.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a) The opportunity to request a referendum shall be provided during a 4-week period beginning and ending on a date determined by the Secretary. Eligible persons shall have the opportunity to request a referendum by following the procedures in § 1220.622 during the normal business hours of each county FSA office.
(b) Producers can determine the location of county FSA offices by contacting the nearest county FSA office, the State FSA office or through an online search of FSA's web site at
(c) Each eligible person shall request a referendum in the county FSA office where FSA maintains and processes the producer's, corporation's, or other entities administrative farm records. For the producer, corporation, or other entity not participating in FSA programs, the opportunity to request a referendum would be provided at the county FSA office serving the county where the producer, corporation, or other legal entity owns or rents land. An individual or authorized representative of a corporation who grows soybeans in more than one county would request a referendum in the county FSA office where the individual or corporation or other entity does most of its business.
Each county FSA office will provide:
(a) A polling place that is well known and readily accessible to producers in the county and that is equipped and arranged so that each person can complete and submit their request in secret without coercion, duress, or interference of any sort whatsoever, and
(b) A holding container of sufficient size so arranged that no request can be read or removed without breaking seals on the container.
Form LS-51-1 shall be used to request a referendum and certify producer eligibility. The form does not require a “yes” or “no” vote. Individual producers and representatives of other producer entities should read the form carefully. By completing and signing the form, the individual simultaneously certifies eligibility and requests that a referendum be conducted.
(a) To request that a referendum be conducted, each eligible producer shall, during the Request for Referendum period, be provided the opportunity to request a referendum during a specified period announced by the Secretary.
(1) Each eligible producer shall be required to complete form LS-51-1 in its entirety and sign it. The producer must legibly print his/her name and, if applicable, the producer entity represented, address, county, and telephone number. The producer must read the certification statement on form LS-51-1 and sign it certifying that:
(i) The person or the producer entity they represent was a producer of soybeans during the representative period;
(ii) The individual requesting a referendum on behalf of a corporation or other entity is authorized to do so; and
(iii) The individual has submitted only one request for a referendum unless they are also an authorized representative for another eligible corporation or other entity.
(2) The producer, corporation, or other entity must also provide documentation, such as a sales receipt, showing that the producer, corporation, or other entity has paid an assessment on soybeans during the representative period.
(3) Only a completed and signed form LS-51-1 accompanied by documentation showing that soybean assessments were paid during the representative period shall be considered a valid request for a referendum.
(b) To request a referendum, eligible producers may obtain form LS-51-1 in-person, by mail, or by facsimile during the request for referendum period from the county FSA office where FSA maintains and processes the producer's, corporation's, or other entity's administrative farm records. For the producer, corporation, or other entity not participating in FSA programs, the opportunity to request a referendum would be provided at the county FSA office serving the county where the producer, corporation, or other entity owns or rents land. Eligible producers may also obtain form LS-51-1 via the Internet at
(c) Producers or producer entities may return form LS-51-1 and the accompanying documentation in-person, by mail, or facsimile to the appropriate county FSA office. Form LS-51-1 returned in-person or by facsimile, must be received in the appropriate county FSA office prior to the close of the work day on the final day of the Request for Referendum period to be considered a valid request. Form LS-51-1 and the accompanying documentation returned by mail must be postmarked no later than midnight of the final day of the Request for Referendum period and must be received in the county FSA office prior to the start of canvassing Form LS 51-1.
(d) Producers who obtain form LS-51-1 in-person at the appropriate FSA county office may complete and return the form the same day, accompanied by documentation, such as a sales receipt, showing that soybean assessments were paid during the representative period.
(a) Canvassing of Form LS-51-1 shall take place at the opening of county FSA offices on the 5th business day following the Request for Referendum
(b) The request for referendum should be canvassed as follows:
(1)
(2)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Form LS-51-1 is not signed or all required information has not been provided;
(2) Form LS-51-1 and supporting documentation returned in-person or by facsimile was not received by the last business day of the Request for Referendum period;
(3) Form LS-51-1 and supporting documentation returned by mail was not postmarked by midnight of the final day of the Request for Referendum period;
(4) Form LS-51-1 and supporting documentation returned by mail was not received in the county FSA office prior to canvassing of the ballots;
(5) Form LS-51-1 or supporting documentation is mutilated or marked in such a way that any required information on the form is illegible; or
(6) Form LS-51-1 and supporting documentation not returned to the appropriate county FSA office.
The names of persons requesting a referendum shall be confidential and may not be divulged except as the Secretary may direct.
(a) The requests for a referendum shall be counted by county FSA offices on the same day as the requests are canvassed if there are no ineligibility determinations to resolve. For those county FSA offices that do have ineligibility determinations, the requests shall be counted no later than the 14th business day following the final day of the Request for Referendum period.
(b) Requests for a referendum shall be counted as follows:
(1) Total number of producers who returned a Request for Referendum form LS-51-1;
(2) Number of ineligible producers requesting a referendum;
(3) Number of eligible producers requesting a referendum;
(4) Number of valid requests for a referendum; and
(5) Number of invalid requests for a referendum.
The county FSA office report shall be certified as accurate and complete by the CED or designee, acting on behalf of the Administrator, AMS, as soon as may be reasonably possible, but in no event later than 18th business day following the final day of the specified period, have prepared and certified the county summary of requests on a form provided by the Administrator, FSA. Each county FSA office shall transmit the results in its county to the FSA State office. The results in each county may be made available to the public upon notification by the Administrator, FSA, that the final results have been released by the Secretary. A copy of the report shall be posted for 30 days following the date of notification by the Administrator, FSA, in the county FSA office in a conspicuous place accessible to the public. One copy shall be kept on file in the county FSA office for a period of at least 12 months after notification by FSA that the final results have been released by the Secretary.
Each FSA State office shall transmit to the Administrator, FSA, as soon as possible, but in no event later than the 20th business day following the final day of the Request for Referendum period, a report summarizing the data contained in each of the reports from the county FSA offices. One copy of the State summary shall be filed for a period of not less than 12 months after the results have been released and available for public inspection after the results have been released.
(a) The Administrator, FSA, shall submit to the Administrator, AMS, the reports from all State FSA offices. The Administrator, AMS, shall tabulate the results of the Request for Referendum. USDA will issue an official press release announcing the results of the Request for Referendum and publish the same results in the
(b) If the Secretary deems necessary, a State report or county report shall be reexamined and checked by such persons who may be designated by the Secretary.
Each FSA CED will place in sealed containers marked with the identification of the “Request for Soybean Referendum,” all of the form LS-51-1's along with the accompanying documentation and county summaries. Such records will be placed in a secure location under the custody of the FSA CED for a period of not less than 12 months after the date of notification by
The Administrator, AMS, is authorized to prescribe additional instructions and forms not inconsistent with the provisions of this subpart.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued to CenTex Aerospace, Inc., 7805 Karl May Drive, Waco, Texas 76708 for the Diamond DA20-C1 Katana airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the installation of an engine that uses an electronic engine control system in place of the engine's mechanical system. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is: March 16, 2004. Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2004.
Comments on this proposal may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket, Docket No. CE204, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, or delivered in duplicate to the Regional Counsel at the above address. Comments must be marked: Docket No. CE204. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Wes Ryan, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: 816-329-4127, fax: 816-329-4090.
The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.
Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or special condition number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE204.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
On December 19, 2002, CenTex Aerospace applied for a Supplemental Type Certificate for the Diamond DA20-C1 Katana. The DA20-C1 is powered by a reciprocating engine that is equipped with an electronic engine control system with full authority capability in place of the hydromechanical control system.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, CenTex Aerospace must show that the DA20-C1 meets the applicable provisions of the original certification basis of the DA20-C1, as listed on Type Certificate No. TA4CH, issued April 6, 1998; exemptions, if any; and the special conditions adopted by this rulemaking action. The DA20-C1 was originally certified under 14 CFR 21.29 and 14 CFR part 23 effective February 1, 1965, as amended by Amendments 23-1 through 23-42; JAR-VLA effective April 26, 1990, through Amendment VLA/92/1, effective January 1, 1992, used as a safety equivalence to part 23, as provided by AC 23-11; 14 CFR part 36, dated December 1, 1969, as amended by current amendment as of the date of type certification; Equivalent Level of Safety for part 23, § 23.903(a)(1) (reference Finding ACE-95-1, dated December 2, 1994); and the terms of this Special Condition.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38, and become part of the certification basis for the supplemental type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101. Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other models that are listed on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design features, the special conditions would also apply under the provisions of § 21.101.
The Diamond DA20-C1 will incorporate a novel or unusual design feature, an engine that includes an electronic control system with full authority digital engine control (FADEC) capability.
Many advanced electronic systems are prone to either upsets or damage, or both, at energy levels lower than analog systems. The increasing use of high power radio frequency emitters mandates requirements for improved high intensity radiated fields (HIRF) protection for electrical and electronic
Even though the control system will be certificated as part of the engine, the installation of an engine with an electronic control system requires evaluation due to the possible effects on or by other airplane systems (
Therefore, special conditions are proposed for the Diamond DA20-C1 airplane to provide HIRF protection and to evaluate the installation of the electronic engine control system for compliance with the requirements of § 23.1309(a) through (e) at Amendment 23-49.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Diamond DA20-C1. Should CenTex Aerospace apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate as the DA20-C1 to incorporate the same novel or unusual design features, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model, the Diamond DA20-C1. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.
At this time, the FAA and other airworthiness authorities are unable to precisely define or control the HIRF energy level to which the airplane will be exposed in service; therefore, the FAA hereby defines two acceptable interim methods for complying with the requirement for protection of systems that perform critical functions.
(1) The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the external HIRF threat environment defined in the following table:
(2) The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter peak electrical strength, without the benefit of airplane structural shielding, in the frequency range of 10 KHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation. Data used for engine certification may be used, when appropriate, for airplane certification.
2.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class D, E2, and E4 airspace at Columbus Lawson Army Air Field (AAF), GA, and Class E airspace at Columbus, GA. As a result of the relocation of the Lawson AAF Instrument Landing System (ILS) and the extension of Runway (RWY) 15-33, it has been determined a modification should be made to the Columbus Lawson AAF, GA, Class D, E2 and E4 airspace and to the Columbus, GA, Class E5 airspace areas to contain the ILS RWY 33 Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) to the Lawson AAF Airport. Additional surface area airspace and controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain the SIAP.
0901 UTC, June 10, 2004.
Water R. Cochran, Manager, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5627.
On January 15, 2004, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by amending Class D, E2, and E4 airspace at Columbus Lawson AAF, GA, and Class E5 airspace at Columbus, GA, (69 FR 2311). This action provides adequate Class D, E2, E4 and E5 airspace for IFR operations at Columbus Lawson AAF, GA. Designations for Class D airspace areas extending upward from the surface of the earth and Class E airspace designations for airspace designated as surface areas and airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004 and 6005 respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9L, dated September 2, 2003, and effective September 16, 2003, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received.
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) amends Class D, E2, and E4 airspace at Columbus Lawson AAF, GA, and Class E5 airspace at Columbus, GA.
The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace at Juneau, AK to provide adequate controlled airspace to contain aircraft executing a new Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP). This Rule results in additional Class E surface area airspace at Juneau, AK.
0901 UTC, June 10, 2004.
Jesse Patterson, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number (907) 271-5898; fax: (907) 271-2850; e-mail:
On Wednesday, January 14, 2004, the FAA proposed to revise part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to create additional Class E surface area airspace at Juneau, AK (69 FR 2086). The action was proposed in order to add Class E surface area airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft while executing a new SIAP for the Juneau Airport. The new approach is Area Navigation-Global Positioning System (RNAV GPS) Runway 8 original. Amended Class E controlled airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.8 miles south and 2.2 miles north of the Juneau Localizer west course, extending from the 3-mile radius of the Juneau International Airport to 8.9-miles west of the Juneau International Airport is established by this action. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No public comments have been received, thus, the rule is adopted as proposed.
The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E4 airspace areas designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area are published in paragraph 6004 of FAA Order 7400.9L,
This revision to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Juneau, Alaska. This additional Class E airspace was created to accomodate aircraft executing a new SIAP and will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended effect of this rule is to provide adequate controlled airspace for IFR operations at Juneau Airport, Juneau, Alaska.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.8 miles south and 2.2 miles north of the Juneau Localizer west course, extending from the 3-mile radius of the Juneau International Airport to 8.9 miles west of the Juneau International Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Ruby, AK to provide adequate controlled airspace to contain aircraft executing two new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) and two new Departure Procedures. This Rule results in new Class E airspace upward from 700 feet (ft.) above the surface at Ruby, AK.
0901 UTC, June 10, 2004.
Jesse Patterson, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number (907) 271-5898; fax: (907) 271-2850; email:
On Wednesday, January 14, 2004, the FAA proposed to revise part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to create new Class E airspace upward from 700ft. above the surface at Ruby, AK (69 FR 2085). The action was proposed in order to add Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft while executing two new SIAPs for the Ruby Airport. The new approaches are (1) Area Navigation-Global Positioning System (RNAV GPS) Runway 21 original, and (2) RNAV (GPS) Runway 3 original. New Class E controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the Ruby Airport area is established by this action. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No public comments have been received, thus, the rule is adopted as proposed.
The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9L,
This revision to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Ruby, Alaska. This additional Class E airspace was created to accommodate aircraft executing new SIAPs and will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended effect of this rule is to provide adequate controlled airspace for IFR operations at Ruby Airport, Ruby, Alaska.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of the Ruby Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Kwigillingok, AK to provide adequate controlled airspace to contain aircraft executing two new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP). This Rule results in new Class E airspace upward from 700 feet (ft.) above the surface at Kwigillingok, AK.
0901 UTC, June 10, 2004.
Jesse Patterson, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number (907) 271-5898; fax: (907) 271-2850; email:
On Wednesday, January 14, 2004, the FAA proposed to revise part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to create new Class E airspace upward from 700ft. above the surface at Kwigillingok, AK (69 FR 2084). The
The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9L,
This revision to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace at Kwigillingok, Alaska. This additional Class E airspace was created to accomodate aircraft executing new SIAPs and will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended effect of this rule is to provide adequate controlled airspace for IFR operations at Kwigillingok Airport, Kwigillingok, Alaska.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.2-mile radius of the Kwigillingok Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Jamestown, KY. Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) Runway (RWY) 17 and RWY 35 have been developed for Russell County Airport. As a result, controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain the SIAP and for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at Russell County Airport. The operating status of the airport will change from Visual Flight Rules (VFR) to include IFR operations concurrent with the publication of the SIAP.
0901 UTC, June 10, 2004.
Walter R. Cochran, Manager, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5627.
On February 3, 2004, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by establishing Class E airspace at Jamestown, KY, (69 FR 5095). This action provides adequate Class E airspace for IFR operations at Russell County Airport. Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in FAA Order 7400.9L, dated September 2, 2003, and effective September 16, 2003, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received.
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) establishes Class E airspace at Jamestown, KY.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-radius of Russell County Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E5 airpace at Lexington, TN. As a result of an evaluation, it has been determined a modification should be made to the Lexington, TN Class E5 airspace area to contain the VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) or Global Positioning Systems (GPS) Runway 33, Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) to Franklin Wilkins Airport. Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain the SIAP.
0901 UTC, June 10, 2004.
Walter R. Cochran, Manager, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5586.
On January 15, 2004, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by amending Class E5 airspace at Lexington, TN, (69 FR 2312). This action provides adequate Class E5 for IFR operations at Lexington, TN, Franklin Wilkins Airport, Designations for Class E are published in FAA Order 7400.9L, dated September 2, 2003, and effective September 16, 2003, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received.
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) amends Class E5 airspace at Lexington, TN.
The FAA has determined that this rule only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Franklin Wilkins Airport, and within 8 miles east and 4 miles west of the Jacks Creek VORTAC 166° radial extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 16 miles southeast of the VORTAC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Policy statement.
Until July 29, 2004, the FAA will continue to recognize the antidrug plan number for certain repair stations. This policy applies to any repair station that is conducting testing under the FAA's drug and alcohol regulations but does not hold an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification. Because of administrative issues, the FAA has not been able to issue this Operations Specification to some repair stations before the February 11, 2004, implementation date set by the FAA.
This policy is effective from February 11, 2004, to July 29, 2004.
Diane J. Wood, Manager, AAM-800, Drug Abatement Division, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-8442.
You can get an electronic copy of this document using the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page (
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at
You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the Notice number or docket number of this proceeding.
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, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the
On January 12, 2004, the FAA issued a final rule entitled, “Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs for Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation Activities” (69 FR 1840). This final rule amended 14 CFR part 121, appendices I and J, the “Drug Testing Program” and the “Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program” regulations. In the final rule, the FAA required an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program Operations Specification (OpSpec) for all part 121 and 135 certificate holders and any part 145 repair station opting to conduct drug and alcohol testing under the FAA's regulations. The final rule was effective February 11, 2004.
For administrative reasons, the FAA has not been able to issue the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program OpSpec to some part 145 repair stations by the effective date of the final rule. However, we will complete issuance of this OpSpec to the remaining part 145 repair stations no later than July 29, 2004.
Some existing part 145 repair stations that already have an FAA antidrug plan number have been told by their Principal Maintenance Inspectors (PMIs) that the FAA could not issue an Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program OpSpec by February 11, 2004. The FAA was not able to issue some Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program OpSpecs in a timely manner. Therefore, the FAA will continue to recognize the antidrug plan numbers of part 145 repair stations that are conducting testing under 14 CFR part 121, appendices I and J, until their PMIs can issue them the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program OpSpec. This policy does not extend the effective date of the final rule. Instead, it merely recognizes that some part 145 repair stations have tried to obtain the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program OpSpec but were unable to do so because of administrative issues within the FAA.
Until July 29, 2004, the FAA will continue to recognize the antidrug plan number for certain part 145 repair stations. This policy applies to any repair station that is conducting testing under 14 CFR part 121, appendices I and J, but that has not yet been able to obtain the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program OpSpec from its PMI. Employers regulated by 14 CFR part 121, appendices I and J should similarly continue to recognize the antidrug plan number for any such part 145 repair station.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; technical amendment.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its regulations to reflect a change in the address for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research's (CDER) Central Document Room. This action is editorial in nature and is intended to provide accuracy and clarity to the agency's regulations.
March 23, 2004
Cathie L. Schumaker, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-143), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7755.
FDA is amending its regulations in parts 312 and 314 (21 CFR parts 312 and 314) to reflect a change in the address for CDER's Central Document Room. Under FDA regulations, applicants must submit to this location information related to marketing applications.
Publication of this document constitutes final action on these changes
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correction to final regulations.
This document contains a correction to TD 9088, which was published in the
This correction is effective August 26, 2003.
Douglas Giblen (202) 435-5265 (not a toll-free number).
The final regulations that are the subject of this correction are under section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the final regulations (TD 9088) contain an error which may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Interim final rule; extension of comment period.
On January 26, 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued implementing rules under the No Fear Act regarding the posting of EEO complaint processing data. 69 FR 3483. The interim rule contained a 60-day comment period. Upon further consideration, the Commission has decided to extend the initial comment period an additional 30 days.
This interim final rule is effective January 26, 2004. Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2004.
Written comments should be submitted to Frances M. Hart, Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507. As a convenience to commenters, the Executive Secretariat will accept comments of six pages or less transmitted by facsimile (“FAX”) machine. The telephone number of the FAX receiver is (202) 663-4114. This is not a toll free number. The six-page limitation is necessary to assure access to the equipment. Receipt of FAX transmissions will not be acknowledged although a sender may request confirmation by calling the Executive Secretariat at (202) 663-4070 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTY). These are not toll free numbers. Copies of comments submitted by the public will be available for review at the Commission's library, room 6502, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal Counsel, Gary John Hozempa, Senior General Attorney or Mona Papillon, Senior General Attorney at (202) 663-4669 (voice) or (202) 663-7026 (TTY). Copies of this interim final rule are also available in the following alternate formats: large print, braille, audiotape and electronic file on computer disk. Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to EEOC's Publication Center at 1-800-669-3362.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations for the Granite Avenue
This deviation is effective from March 15, 2004 through April 14, 2004.
John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at (617) 223-8364.
The Granite Avenue Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 6 feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.611(a).
The bridge owner, Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD), requested a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations to facilitate necessary maintenance, the replacement of the brake and emergency systems, at the bridge. The bridge must remain in the closed position to perform these repairs.
The Coast Guard coordinated this closure with the mariners who normally use this waterway to help facilitate this necessary bridge repair and to minimize any disruption to the marine transportation system.
The bridge has not received any requests to open in March or April during the past seven (7) years.
Under this temporary deviation the Granite Avenue Bridge need not open for the passage of vessel traffic from March 15, 2004 through April 14, 2004.
This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35, and will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The EPA is approving Illinois' October 31, 2003 request to revise the definition of volatile organic material (VOM) and volatile organic compound (VOC) to incorporate exemptions for several nonreactive compounds from the definition of VOM and VOC and thereby, from regulation as ozone precursors. These requested state implementation plan (SIP) revisions were made in response to, and consistent with, EPA's action to add these chemical compounds to the list of chemicals that are exempted from the definition of VOC. In the proposed rules section of this
This rule is effective on May 24, 2004, unless EPA receives adverse written comments by April 22, 2004. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
You may inspect copies of the documents relevant to this action during normal business hours at the following location: Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Please contact Kathleen D'Agostino at (312) 886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 office.
Send written comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Acting Chief, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier, please follow the detailed instructions described in part (I)(B)(1)(i) through (iii) of the Supplementary Information section.
Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767.
This Supplementary Information section is organized as follows:
1.
2.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office, as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in the official public rulemaking file. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available at the Regional Office for public inspection.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate rulemaking identification number by including the text “Public comment on proposed rulemaking Region 5 Air Docket IL218” in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
1.
i.
ii.
2.
3.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically to EPA. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the official public regional rulemaking file. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public file and available for public inspection without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the
The EPA's definition of VOC found at 40 CFR 51.100(s) lists compounds excluded from the definition of VOC on the basis that they have negligible photochemical reactivity. On February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4588), EPA amended the definition of VOC to add perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene) to the list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC and thereby from control as ozone precursors. On October 8, 1996 (61 FR 52848), EPA amended the definition of VOC to add 3,3-dichloro-1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ca); 1,3-dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225cb); and decafluoropentane (HFC 43-10mee) to the list of compounds excluded from the definition of VOC and thereby from control as ozone precursors. Similarly, on August 25, 1997 (62 FR 44900), EPA amended the definition of VOC to add difluoromethane (HFC-32); ethylfluoride (HFC-161); 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236fa); 1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ca); 1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ea); 1,1,1,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245eb); 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245fa); 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236ea); 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluorobutane (HFC-365mfc); chlorofluoromethane (HCFC-31); 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane (HCFC-123a); 1-chloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-151a); 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxybutane (C
On October 31, 2003, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) submitted revisions to the Illinois SIP for ozone. The submittal revises the definition for VOM and VOC contained in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.7250 to incorporate an exemption for perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene); 3,3-dichloro-1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ca); 1,3-dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225cb); decafluoropentane (HFC 43-10mee); difluoromethane (HFC-32); ethylfluoride (HFC-161); 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236fa); 1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ca); 1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ea); 1,1,1,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245eb); 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245fa); 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236ea); 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluorobutane (HFC-365mfc); chlorofluoromethane (HCFC-31); 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane (HCFC-123a); 1-chloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-151a); 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxybutane (C
Illinois held public hearings on these revisions on November 20, 1996, April 2, 1997, and June 3, 1998.
For the reasons stated above, EPA is approving Illinois' October 31, 2003 request to revise the definition for VOM and VOC contained in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.7250. EPA's approval of the new definition of VOM and VOC will revise the Illinois SIP for ozone.
EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal, because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this
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
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
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
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 24, 2004. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(168) On October 31, 2003, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency submitted revisions to the Illinois State Implementation Plan for ozone. The submittal revises the definition for volatile organic material (VOM) and volatile organic compound (VOC) contained in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.7250 to incorporate an exemption for perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene); 3,3-dichloro-1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ca); 1,3-dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225cb); decafluoropentane (HFC 43-10mee); difluoromethane (HFC-32); ethylfluoride (HFC-161); 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236fa); 1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ca); 1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ea); 1,1,1,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245eb); 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245fa); 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-236ea); 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluorobutane (HFC-365mfc); chlorofluoromethane (HCFC-31); 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane (HCFC-123a); 1-chloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-151a); 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxybutane (C
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Illinois Administrative Code Title 35: Environmental Protection, Subtitle B: Air Pollution, Chapter 1: Pollution Control Board, Subchapter c: Emission Standards and Limitations for Stationary Sources, Part 211: Definitions and General Provisions, Subpart B: Definitions, Section 211.7150 Volatile Organic Material (VOM) or Volatile Organic Compound (VOC), amended at Illinois Register 11405, effective June 22, 1998.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD has adopted as final, without change, an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. Section 801 authorizes DoD to acquire a higher quantity of an end item than the quantity specified in law, under certain conditions.
March 23, 2004.
Ms. Teresa Brooks, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0326; facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2002-D036.
DoD published an interim rule at 68 FR 43331 on July 22, 2003. The rule added a new subpart at DFARS 207.70 to implement section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Pub. L. 107-314). Section 801 added 10 U.S.C. 2308, which provides that DoD may acquire a higher quantity of an end item than the quantity specified in a law providing for the funding of the acquisition, if the agency head makes certain findings with regard to the acquisition.
DoD received no comments on the interim rule. Therefore, DoD is adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change.
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Interim rule with request for comments.
DoD has issued an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement Section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. Section 843 provides that the contract period of a task or delivery order contract awarded pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304a may cover a total period of not more than 5 years.
Respondents may submit comments via the Internet at
Respondents that cannot submit comments using either of the above methods may submit comments to: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Teresa Brooks, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062; facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2003-D097.
At the end of the comment period, interested parties may view public comments on the Internet at
Ms. Teresa Brooks, (703) 602-0326.
This interim rule amends DFARS Subparts 216.5 and 217.2 to implement section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136). Section 843 amends the general authority for task and delivery order contracts at 10 U.S.C. 2304a to specify that task or delivery order contacts entered into under that section may cover a total period of not more than 5 years. The rule clarifies that the total period includes all options or modifications.
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
DoD has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis consistent with 5 U.S.C. 604. The analysis is summarized as follows: This interim rule applies to all new DoD solicitations for supplies or services that will result in a task or delivery order contract awarded pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304a. It may affect businesses interested in submitting offers for such contracts. The impact on small entities is uncertain. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2003-D097.
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. This action is necessary to implement section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136), which provides that the contract period of a task or delivery order contract awarded pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304a may cover a total period of not more than 5 years. Comments received in response to this interim rule will be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Government procurement.
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
(a)
(e) Notwithstanding FAR 17.204(e), the period of a task order or delivery order contract, including all options or modifications, awarded by DoD pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304a shall not exceed 5 years.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD has adopted as final, without change, an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement section 820 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. Section 820 restricts the use of multiyear contracts for supplies to only those for complete and usable end items, and restricts the use of advance procurement to only those long-lead items necessary in order
March 23, 2004.
Ms. Teresa Brooks, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0326; facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2002-D041.
DoD published an interim rule at 68 FR 50474 on August 21, 2003. The rule amended DFARS Subpart 217.1 to implement Section 820 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Pub. L. 107-314). Section 820 amended the multiyear contracting authority at 10 U.S.C. 2306b(i) to specify that DoD may obligate funds for procurement of an end item under a multiyear contract only if the item is a complete and usable end item; and that DoD may obligate funds for advance procurement of property only for those long-lead items necessary to meet a planned delivery schedule for complete major end items that are programmed under the contract to be acquired with funds appropriated for a subsequent fiscal year (including an economic order quantity of such long-lead items when authorized by law).
DoD received no comments on the interim rule. Therefore, DoD is adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change.
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA), NOAA, announces temporary restrictions consistent with the requirements of the ALWTRP's implementing regulations. These regulations apply to lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishermen in an area totaling approximately 1,894 square nautical miles (nm
Effective beginning at 0001 hours March 25, 2004, through 2400 hours April 8, 2004.
Copies of the proposed and final Dynamic Area Management (DAM) rules, Environmental Assessments (EAs), Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) meeting summaries, and progress reports on implementation of the ALWTRP may also be obtained by writing Diane Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast Region, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Diane Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast Region, 978-281-9328 x6503; or Kristy Long, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 301-713-1401.
Several of the background documents for the ALWTRP and the take reduction planning process can be downloaded from the ALWTRP web site at
The ALWTRP was developed pursuant to section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury of three endangered species of whales (right, fin, and humpback) as well as to provide conservation benefits to a fourth non-endangered species (minke) due to incidental interaction with commercial fishing activities. The ALWTRP, implemented through regulations codified at 50 CFR 229.32, relies on a combination of fishing gear modifications and time/area closures to reduce the risk of whales becoming entangled in commercial fishing gear (and potentially suffering serious injury or mortality as a result).
On January 9, 2002, NMFS published the final rule to implement the ALWTRP's DAM program (67 FR 1133). On August 26, 2003, NMFS amended the regulations by publishing a final rule, which specifically identified gear modifications that may be allowed in a DAM zone (68 FR 51195). The DAM program provides specific authority for NMFS to restrict temporarily on an expedited basis the use of lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear in areas north of 40° N. lat. to protect right whales. Under the DAM program, NMFS may: (1) require the removal of all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear for a 15-day period; (2) allow lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet fishing within a DAM zone with gear modifications determined by NMFS to sufficiently reduce the risk of entanglement; and/or (3) issue an alert to fishermen requesting the voluntary removal of all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear for a 15-day period and asking fishermen not to set any additional gear in the DAM zone during the 15-day period.
A DAM zone is triggered when NMFS receives a reliable report from a qualified individual of three or more right whales sighted within an area (75 nm
On March 14, 2004, NMFS Aerial Survey Team reported a sighting of 15 right whales in the proximity of 41° 30.7′ N lat. and 69° 39.4′ W long. This position lies east of Chatham, MA. Thus, NMFS has received a reliable report from a qualified individual of the requisite right whale density to trigger the DAM provisions of the ALWTRP.
Once a DAM zone is triggered, NMFS determines whether to impose restrictions on fishing and/or fishing gear in the zone. This determination is based on the following factors, including but not limited to: the location of the DAM zone with respect to other fishery closure areas, weather conditions as they relate to the safety of human life at sea, the type and amount of gear already present in the area, and a review of recent right whale entanglement and mortality data.
NMFS has reviewed the factors and management options noted above relative to the DAM under consideration. As a result of this review, NMFS prohibits lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear in this area during the 15-day restricted period unless it is modified in the manner described in this temporary rule. In March, the DAM zone is bounded by the following coordinates:
41°45′N, 69°56′W (NW Corner)
41°45′N, 69°33′W
41°48.9′N, 69°24′W
42°00′N, 69°24′W
42°00′N, 69°07′W
41°07′N, 69°07′W
41°07′N, 70°10′W
41°15′N, 70°10′W and east along the coast to
41°18′N, 70°10′W
41°39′N, 70°10′W and east along the coast to
41°45′N, 69°56′W
In April, when the restrictions on anchored gillnet and lobster trap/pot fishing gear become effective in the Great South Channel and overlap a portion of the DAM zone, the DAM zone is divided into a northern and southern sector. Special note for gillnet and lobster trap/pot fishermen: This DAM action does not supersede the Great South Channel Critical Habitat Area restrictions in April found under the ALWTRP at 50 CFR 229.32. The April DAM zone is bounded by the following coordinates:
42°00′N, 69°24′W (NW Corner)
42°00′N, 69°07′W
41°55′N, 69°07′W
41°48.9′N, 69°24′W
41°45′N, 69°56′W (NW Corner)
41°45′N, 69°33′W
41°40′N, 69°45′W
41°07′N, 69°12′W
41°07′N, 70°10′W
41°15′N, 70°10′W and east along the coast to
41°18′N, 70°10′W
41°39′N, 70°10′W and east along the coast to
41°45′N, 69°56′W
In addition to those gear modifications currently implemented under the ALWTRP at 50 CFR 229.32, the following gear modifications are required in the DAM zone. If the requirements and exceptions for gear modification in the DAM zone, as described below, differ from other ALWTRP requirements for any overlapping areas and times, then the more restrictive requirements will apply in the DAM zone. Special note for gillnet fisherman: This DAM zone overlaps the year round Northeast multispecies' Closed Area I. This DAM action does not supersede Northeast multispecies closures found at 50 CFR 648.81.
Fishermen utilizing lobster trap/pot gear within the portion of the Northern Nearshore Lobster Waters and Northern Inshore State Lobster Waters that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all of the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:
1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;
2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;
3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per trawl; and
4. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 600 lb (272.4 kg) must be placed at all buoys.
Fishermen utilizing lobster trap/pot gear within the portion of the Offshore Lobster Waters Area and Great South Channel Restricted Lobster Area that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all of the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:
1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;
2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;
3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per trawl; and
4. A weak link with a maximum breaking strength of 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) must be placed at all buoys.
Fishermen utilizing anchored gillnet gear within the portion of the Other Northeast Gillnet Waters, Great South Channel Restricted Gillnet Area, and Great South Channel Sliver Restricted Area that overlap with the DAM zone are required to utilize all the following gear modifications while the DAM zone is in effect:
1. Groundlines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line. Floating groundlines are prohibited;
2. All buoy lines must be made of either sinking or neutrally buoyant line, except the bottom portion of the line, which may be a section of floating line not to exceed one-third the overall length of the buoy line;
3. Fishermen are allowed to use two buoy lines per string;
4. Each net panel must have a total of five weak links with a maximum breaking strength of 1,100 lb (498.8 kg). Net panels are typically 50 fathoms (91.4 m) in length, but the weak link requirements would apply to all variations in panel size. These weak links must include three floatline weak links. The placement of the weak links on the floatline must be: one at the center of the net panel and one each as close as possible to each of the bridle ends of the net panel. The remaining two weak links must be placed in the center of each of the up and down lines at the panel ends; and
5. All anchored gillnets, regardless of the number of net panels, must be securely anchored with the holding power of at least a 22 lb (10.0 kg) Danforth-style anchor at each end of the net string.
The restrictions will be in effect beginning at 0001 hours March 25, 2004, through 2400 hours April 8, 2004, unless terminated sooner or extended by NMFS through another notification in the
The restrictions will be announced to state officials, fishermen, ALWTRT members, and other interested parties through e-mail, phone contact, NOAA website, and other appropriate media immediately upon filing with the
In accordance with section 118(f)(9) of the MMPA, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) has determined that this action is necessary to implement a take reduction plan to protect North Atlantic right whales.
This action falls within the scope of alternatives and impacts analyzed in the Final EAs prepared for the ALWTRP's DAM program. Further analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act is not required.
NMFS provided prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on the regulations establishing the criteria and procedures for implementing a DAM zone. Providing prior notice and opportunity for comment on this action, pursuant to those regulations, would be impracticable because it would prevent NMFS from executing its functions to protect and reduce serious injury and mortality of endangered right whales. The regulations establishing the DAM program are designed to enable the agency to help protect unexpected concentrations of right whales. In order to meet the goals of the DAM program, the agency needs to be able to create a DAM zone and implement restrictions on fishing gear as soon as possible once the criteria are triggered and NMFS determines that a DAM restricted zone is appropriate. If NMFS were to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment upon the creation of a DAM restricted zone, the aggregated right whales would be vulnerable to entanglement which could result in serious injury and mortality. Additionally, the right whales would most likely move on to another location before NMFS could implement the restrictions designed to protect them, thereby rendering the action obsolete. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the AA finds that good cause exists to waive prior notice and an opportunity to comment on this action to implement a DAM restricted zone to reduce the risk of entanglement of endangered right whales in commercial lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet gear as such procedures would be impracticable.
For the same reasons, the AA finds that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay in effective date. If NMFS were to delay for 30 days the effective date of this action, the aggregated right whales would be vulnerable to entanglement, which could cause serious injury and mortality. Additionally, right whales would likely move to another location between the time NMFS approved the action creating the DAM restricted zone and the time it went into effect, thereby rendering the action obsolete and ineffective. Nevertheless, NMFS recognizes the need for fishermen to have time to either modify or remove (if not in compliance with the required restrictions) their gear from a DAM zone once one is approved. Thus, NMFS makes this action effective 2 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
NMFS determined that the regulations establishing the DAM program and actions such as this one taken pursuant to those regulations are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program of the U.S. Atlantic coastal states. This determination was submitted for review by the responsible state agencies under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Following state review of the regulations creating the DAM program, no state disagreed with NMFS' conclusion that the DAM program is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program for that state.
The DAM program under which NMFS is taking this action contains policies with federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132. Accordingly, in October 2001 and March 2003, the Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, DOC, provided notice of the DAM program and its amendments to the appropriate elected officials in states to be affected by actions taken pursuant to the DAM program. Federalism issues raised by state officials were addressed in the final rules implementing the DAM program. A copy of the federalism Summary Impact Statement for the final rules is available upon request (
The rule implementing the DAM program has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1361
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Inseason action; trip limit reduction.
NMFS reduces the trip limit in the commercial hook-and-line fishery for king mackerel in the southern Florida west coast subzone to 500 lb (227 kg) of king mackerel per day in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This trip limit reduction is necessary to protect the Gulf king mackerel resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 20, 2004, through June 30, 2004, unless changed by further notification in the
Mark Godcharles, telephone: (727) 570-5727, fax: (727) 570-5583, e-mail:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cero, cobia, little tunny, dolphin, and, in the Gulf of Mexico only, bluefish) is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
Based on the Councils' recommended total allowable catch and the allocation
In accordance with 50 CFR 622.44(a)(2)(ii)(B)(2), from the date that 75 percent of the southern Florida west coast subzone's quota has been harvested until a closure of the subzone's fishery has been effected or the fishing year ends, king mackerel in or from the EEZ may be possessed on board or landed from a permitted vessel in amounts not exceeding 500 lb (227 kg) per day.
NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the quota for Gulf group king mackerel for vessels using hook-and-line gear in the southern Florida west coast subzone will be reached on March 19, 2004. Accordingly, a 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit applies to vessels in the commercial hook-and-line fishery for king mackerel in or from the EEZ in the southern Florida west coast subzone effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 20, 2004. The 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit will remain in effect until the fishery closes or until the end of the current fishing year (June 30, 2004), whichever occurs first.
The Florida west coast subzone is that part of the eastern zone south and west of 25°20.4' N. lat. (a line directly east from the Miami-Dade County, FL boundary). The Florida west coast subzone is further divided into northern and southern subzones. The southern subzone is that part of the Florida west coast subzone which from November 1 through March 31 extends south and west from 25°20.4' N. lat. to 26°19.8' N. lat.(a line directly west from the Lee/Collier County, FL boundary),
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such prior notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule itself already has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit reduction. Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action in order to protect the fishery since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment will require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established quota.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30 day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.43(a) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to implement approved management measures contained in a regulatory amendment to modify the reporting and recordkeeping regulations for federally permitted seafood dealers participating in the summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, Atlantic sea scallop, Northeast (NE) multispecies, monkfish, Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, Atlantic herring, Atlantic deep-sea red crab, tilefish, Atlantic bluefish, skates, and/or spiny dogfish fisheries in the NE Region. The purpose of this action is to improve monitoring of commercial landings by collecting more timely and accurate data, enhance enforceability of the existing regulations, promote compliance with existing regulations, and ensure consistency in reporting requirements among fisheries.
This final rule is effective May 1, 2004.
Copies of the regulatory amendment, its Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and other supporting materials are available from Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The regulatory amendment/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to Patricia A. Kurkul at the above address and by e-mail to
Michael Pentony, Senior Fishery Policy Analyst, (978)281-9283, fax (978)281-9135, email
This final rule implements measures contained in a regulatory amendment to modify the reporting and recordkeeping regulations for federally permitted seafood dealers. This action will require daily electronic reporting of all fish purchased (including fish received) by federally permitted dealers who are determined to be large dealers while delaying the daily reporting requirement for all small dealers who initially will be required to report electronically on a weekly basis. Also, it will eliminate dealer reporting via the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system; implement a trip identifier requirement for dealers; require dealers to report the disposition of purchased
Regulations implementing the fishery management plans (FMPs) for the summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, Atlantic sea scallop, NE multispecies, monkfish, Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, Atlantic herring, Atlantic deep-sea red crab, tilefish, Atlantic bluefish, skates, and spiny dogfish fisheries are found at 50 CFR part 648. These FMPs were prepared under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). All dealers and vessels issued a Federal permit in the aforementioned fisheries must comply with the reporting requirements outlined at § 648.7. Lobster dealers issued a Federal lobster permit, but not issued any of the permits with mandatory reporting requirements, are not required to comply with these reporting regulations, although other reporting requirements may apply. NMFS is modifying several components of these reporting regulations to simplify reporting requirements, improve data quality and data access, maximize compliance, and improve the information available for the management of important marine resources.
This rule requires all seafood dealers permitted under § 648.6 to submit an electronic report containing the required trip-level information for each purchase of fish from fishing vessels. Electronic data submission replaces the comprehensive trip-level written reports dealers are required to submit weekly, as well as the weekly landings summary reports submitted through the dealer IVR system for quota-monitored species. Dealers are required to submit an electronic negative report for each week in which no fish were purchased. Written negative reports will be accepted through December 31, 2004. Dealers are allowed to submit negative reports for up to 3 months in advance, if they know that no fish will be purchased during that time.
There are four mechanisms from which dealers may choose how they submit trip-level reports electronically. Because dealers use computer applications to varying degrees, NMFS has developed an Internet web site (
To ensure compatibility with the reporting system and database, seafood dealers are required to obtain and utilize a personal computer, in working condition, with an Intel Pentium 3-equivalent 300 megahertz or greater processing chip, at least 128 megabytes of random access memory (RAM), a 56,000 baud data/fax modem or cable or digital subscriber line (DSL) modem, Microsoft Internet Explorer version 6.0 (or equivalent) or better, and a monitor with 800 pixel by 600 pixel or better resolution.
Due to the Magnuson-Stevens Act provision that renders trip-level reports from dealers confidential, information sent from dealers to NMFS in compliance with the electronic reporting requirements is subject to strict encryption standards and will be available only to persons authorized under section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the submitter. Dealers will also be allowed to access, review, and edit the information they have submitted, using a secure procedure similar to those in common usage throughout the banking industry. Dealers will be allowed to make corrections to their trip-level reports via the electronic editing features for up to 3 business days following the initial report. If a correction is needed more than 3 business days following the initial report, an extension will only be possible through a direct request to NMFS staff, and may be subject to enforcement action. These submissions will constitute the official reports as required by the various FMPs in the NE. No other reporting methods (e.g., written reports) will be considered to be in compliance with the electronic reporting requirements, except as provided for below for negative reports made through the end of the 2004 calendar year.
This final rule modifies the schedule for the submission of comprehensive trip-level reports by all federally permitted seafood dealers. Currently, detailed reports for all transactions in a reporting week must be postmarked or received by NMFS within 16 days after the end of each reporting week. Upon implementation, this action requires all federally permitted seafood dealers to submit trip-level reports electronically, and establishes two categories of seafood dealers for the purposes of determining the frequency with which these reports must be submitted.
Federally permitted seafood dealers with less than $300,000 in reported annual fish purchases (ex-vessel value) in each year from 2000-2002 have the option to submit trip-level reports electronically on a weekly basis until May 1, 2005, at which time they will be required to submit these reports electronically on a daily basis. All other federally permitted seafood dealers, those with $300,000 or more in reported annual fish purchases (ex-vessel value) in at least 1 year from 2000-2002 and all newly permitted dealers (those that obtained their initial dealer permit in either 2003 or 2004), are required to submit trip-level reports electronically on a daily basis beginning upon implementation of this final rule. All dealers are required to submit trip-level reports electronically, according to the provisions described above, beginning upon implementation of this final rule. The delay in effectiveness of the requirement to report purchases daily for some dealers is in recognition that for some dealers, particularly smaller dealers, compliance with these requirements may impose a fairly substantial initial administrative burden. By delaying for 1 year implementation of the requirement to report daily, NMFS intends to provide these smaller dealers with sufficient time to become acquainted with electronic reporting procedures before increasing their reporting frequency.
Analysis of the NMFS' dealer report database from 2000-2002 indicates that dealers with $300,000 or more in reported annual fish purchases in at least 1 year made, on average, 320.6 reports per year, while dealers below this threshold made, on average, only 27.6 reports per year. Because dealers that exceed the threshold had over 11 times more reports than dealers that fall below the threshold, it is more important for NMFS to monitor on a daily basis landings purchased by these larger dealers than landings purchased by the smaller dealers. Large dealers
By providing dealers below the threshold an additional year to come into compliance with the daily reporting requirement, NMFS is providing an opportunity for dealers that report, on average, much less than dealers that meet or exceed the threshold to have extra time to become familiar with the new electronic reporting requirements before they are required to increase their reporting frequency. By requiring the larger dealers to report daily initially, NMFS can ensure that quota monitoring will be effective and reasonably accurate until all dealers begin reporting daily.
Dealers authorized to provide trip-level reports weekly must submit a report for all fish purchased in a reporting week (Sunday-Saturday) within 3 days of the end of the reporting week,
Dealers required to provide trip-level reports on a daily basis must submit a report for all completed purchases by midnight of the next business day. Reports are not required to be submitted on weekends or Federal holidays, although the data system will be operational should dealers choose to report on those days. Therefore, for transactions completed on a Sunday-Thursday, reports are due by midnight of the following day (Monday-Friday); for transactions completed on a Friday or Saturday, reports are due by midnight of the following Monday; for transactions completed the day before a Federal holiday, reports are due by midnight of the first business day following the holiday; and, for transactions completed on a Federal holiday, reports are due by midnight of the following day, unless the following day is a Saturday or Sunday, in which case the reports are due by midnight of the following Monday. For example, if a transaction is completed on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, a Federal holiday, the report will be due by midnight on the Friday immediately following Thanksgiving. If a transaction is completed on Thanksgiving day, the report will also be due by midnight on the Friday immediately following, as it is the first business day after the Federal holiday.
NMFS is aware that not all required data elements, such as price and disposition of fish, may be available within this timeframe; therefore, to accommodate this lag in availability, price and disposition information must be submitted within 16 days of the end of the reporting week (by midnight Monday of the third week after the fish were purchased), or by the end of the calendar month, whichever is later. This will be accomplished through an update procedure in which the dealer will access and update the previously submitted data. Dealers using an FTP submission process will be allowed to submit an updated report and transmit the updated information using a modified FTP process.
Under this rule, dealers are required to submit a negative report for each week in which no fish were purchased. Negative reports will be due within 3 days of the end of the reporting week (by midnight on Tuesday of the following week). Negative reports are not required to be submitted on a daily basis. Dealers may submit negative reports in large blocks ahead of time (up to 3 months) if they know that no fish will be purchased during these times. This will decrease the number of reports required of dealers who can predict periods of inactivity.
For the remainder of the 2004 calendar year, negative reports will be accepted via hardcopy (i.e., in writing), as well as via electronic means. Beginning January 1, 2005, all negative reports, as well as trip-level reports, will only be accepted via one of the available electronic reporting mechanisms. This means that some federally permitted dealers that will not be purchasing any fish immediately following the implementation of this action will not have to come into full compliance to be able to submit dealer trip-level reports via electronic means until they either: (1) Anticipate purchasing fish from a fishing vessel during the 2004 calendar year; or (2) apply for their 2005 dealer permit renewal. As of the beginning of the 2005 calendar year, any dealer that has not come into compliance with this action, and is unable to submit negative and trip-level reports via one of the available electronic reporting methods described above, will not have his/her permit renewed. Said dealer may reapply and obtain a reinstated Federal dealer permit once he/she acquires and can demonstrate the capability to submit all required reports electronically.
Dealers are no longer required to submit weekly landing summary reports or weekly negative reports through the dealer IVR system for quota-monitored species. Vessel owners/operators currently required to report through the IVR system are unaffected by this action.
In order for each fishing trip to be uniquely identifiable and to aid in matching dealer trip-level report data with the corresponding fishing vessel trip report (VTR) data, this final rule explicitly defines and implements reporting of a trip identifier for each trip from which fish are purchased from a federally permitted vessel. The trip identifier requirement applies to all fish purchased by a federally permitted dealer from a federally permitted vessel that is required to maintain a VTR. The trip identifier is defined as follows: “Trip identifier” is the complete serial number of the vessel logbook page completed for that trip. If more than one vessel logbook is completed for a trip, then the serial number from any page may be used.
To facilitate the transfer of this information from the vessel to the dealer, the vessel logbook packet includes two pages labeled “dealer copy.” These pages include the unique serial number for the logbook packet and space for the vessel name, the USCG document or state registration number, the vessel permit number, and the date/time sailed. The dealer is responsible to obtain and include the unique serial number located on the dealer copy of the VTR with the appropriate trip-level dealer report when submitting this information via one of the available electronic reporting mechanisms. If more than one vessel logbook page is completed for a single fishing trip, only one serial number need be recorded.
Of more than 126,000 VTRs submitted for 2002, over 98 percent reported delivery to only one or two dealers per trip. In these situations, the current VTR form can accommodate transfer of the trip identifier to the dealer(s). To accommodate the less than 2 percent of remaining trips with three or more dealers, NMFS is developing alternatives for how fishing vessels may more easily transmit the trip identifier to multiple dealers. Details on these alternatives will be provided to vessels and dealers in permit holder letters announcing implementation of this action.
Effective upon implementation of this rule, all dealers must report the trip identifier for all purchases from federally permitted vessels. Through April 30, 2005, the trip identifier may be reported along with the price and disposition code information reported for the trip, i.e., up to 16 days from the end of the reporting week in which the transaction was completed, or by the end of the month, whichever is later. Effective May 1, 2005, the trip identifier must be reported along with the initial trip-level report, i.e., by midnight of the next business day. This change in reporting frequency for the trip identifier will be implemented automatically on May 1, 2005, unless this provision is waived by the Regional Administrator. Once this final rule has been effective for at least 6 months, NMFS will conduct a review of the trip identifier information and evaluate the effectiveness of allowing the trip identifier to be reported separately from the initial landings information.
The disposition of seafood products is needed to determine the ultimate fate and use of harvested fish. This information is used by NMFS and its partners to better understand the impacts regulations may have on seafood markets and marketing and how these changes may affect fishermen and various sectors of the fishing industry. To ensure the disposition is accurately reflected in the database, this final rule requires that all federally permitted dealers report the disposition of any fish that they purchase. Disposition information includes such categories as “sold as food,” “sold for bait,” and “not sold.” In those cases where the final disposition may not be known, dealers are expected to provide a good faith estimate of the most likely disposition of the product.
To eliminate duplication of information reported, dealers are no longer required to record their mailing address on each trip-level report. Dealers will continue to be required to provide their current mailing address on the permit application and to notify NMFS of any change in their mailing address.
To eliminate confusion regarding the information required to be submitted by surfclam and ocean quahog dealers and processors, these dealers and processors are no longer required to report the allocation permit number of the vessel(s) from which they purchase surfclams or ocean quahogs, nor are processors required to report the size distribution and meat yield per bushel by species.
All federally permitted seafood dealers subject to this final rule, including surfclam and ocean quahog dealers, are required to complete all sections of the Annual Processed Products Survey.
The deadline for receiving comments on the proposed rule was February 20, 2004. NMFS received 79 comment letters on the proposed rule prior to the close of the comment period. Four of these letters were from state fishery management agencies (Maine, Rhode Island, New York, and North Carolina). Fifty-eight letters were from individuals or organizations representing or affiliated with seafood dealers. Twelve letters originated from commercial fishermen or individuals or organizations representing commercial fishermen. Three letters were submitted by conservation non-governmental organizations, and two letters were submitted by members of the general public. Eighteen comment letters expressed support for the proposed rule, and the rest either expressed general opposition to the final rule or provided specific comments on one or more of the following issues:
NMFS concedes that this action was not subject to the same breadth of analysis as Amendment 13 to the NE Multispecies FMP with respect to the National Environmental Policy Act
The Regulatory Amendment to Modify Seafood Dealer Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements includes an assessment of the biological, ecological, economic, and social impacts of the action. The Amendment complied with all the applicable analytical requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Data Quality Act, and E.O.s 12898, 13132, and 13158.
In § 648.2, new definitions for “Dealer—large” and “Dealer—small” are added to clarify to whom the differing reporting schedules specified at § 648.7(f)(1) apply. The definitions are based on the threshold criterion described in the proposed rule under the alternatives to the proposed action that would have implemented the electronic reporting requirements only for dealers with reported annual purchases above the threshold.
In § 648.2, the definition of “trip identifier” is modified to clarify that the complete serial number of the vessel logbook page completed for a trip composes the trip identifier, and to remove the option that would have allowed dealers to use the vessel's date sailed as the trip identifier. This option has been removed as a result of a change to the trip identifier requirement so that it is required only for trips conducted by federally permitted vessels. The option was included originally to provide a mechanism for dealers to determine a trip identifier when purchasing fish from a state-only permitted vessel that was not required to use a Federal fishing VTR and would not have access to a logbook serial number. Because the trip identifier requirement no longer applies for trips made by state-only permitted vessels, this option is no longer necessary and would only serve to introduce confusion and inconsistencies into the reporting system.
In § 648.7, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to clarify that dealers must submit a detailed trip-level report of all fish purchased or received, subject to the time periods specified in paragraph (f) of this section, without specifying whether those reports must be submitted on a daily basis. The intent of this final rule is to determine, with greater level of precision and accuracy, the amount of fish landed; therefore, this section is clarified to indicate that it is fish both purchased and received that must be reported. This paragraph is also revised to clarify that the Regional Administrator has the authority to direct dealers to report by some other means than those specified in this rule, should the need arise.
In § 648.7, paragraph (a)(1)(i) is revised to limit the requirement for dealers to provide a trip identifier to those trips from which fish are purchased or received from a commercial fishing vessel permitted under this part. This removes the requirement for dealers to provide a trip identifier when reporting fish purchased or received from a non-federally permitted vessel.
In § 648.7, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to specify that dealers are required to have the capability to transmit data over a telephone line or a cable using a computer modem. This clarifies that any form of Internet access (dial-up, DSL, or cable) is sufficient to comply with the requirements of this rule.
In § 648.7, paragraph (d) is revised to clarify that all records upon which the reports required under this section are or will be based must be made available for inspection upon request.
In § 648.7, paragraph (e) is revised to clarify that fishing log reports must be kept on board the vessel and available for review for at least 1 year and must be retained for a total of 3 years after the date of the last entry on the log.
In § 648.7, paragraph (f)(1)(i) is revised to specify the report submission schedule required for Large Dealers, i.e., that detailed daily trip-level reports must be received by midnight of the next business day following the day fish are purchased or received from a fishing vessel.
In § 648.7, a new paragraph (f)(1)(ii) is inserted to specify the report submission schedule required for Small Dealers, i.e., that through April 30, 2005, small dealers are required to provide detailed trip-level reports that must be received within 3 days after the end of the reporting week, or by midnight of the following Tuesday, and that effective May 1, 2005, small dealers are required to provide detailed daily trip-level reports that must be received by midnight of the next business day following the day fish are purchased or received from a fishing vessel.
In § 648.7, paragraph (f)(1)(ii) is redesignated as paragraph (f)(1)(iii) and revised to clarify that corrections to previously submitted trip-level reports may be made for up to 3 business days following submission of the initial report.
In § 648.7, a new paragraph (f)(1)(iv) is inserted to specify that through April 30, 2005, the trip identifier, as well as the price and disposition information, may be submitted after the initial trip-level report, but must be received within 16 days of the end of the reporting week or the end of the calendar month, whichever is later. This paragraph also clarifies that dealers will be able to access and update previously submitted trip identifier, price, and disposition data. This paragraph is further revised to clarify that, effective May 1, 2005, the trip identifier must be submitted with the initial trip-level report.
In § 648.7, paragraph (f)(1)(iii) is redesignated as paragraph (f)(1)(v) and revised to specify that this paragraph applies effective May 1, 2005. This paragraph is also revised to extend the period within which price and disposition information may be reported, from 3 days from the end of the reporting week, to 16 days from the end of the reporting week or the end of the calendar month, whichever is later, and to specify that, effective May 1, 2005, only price and disposition information may be submitted within this timeframe.
In § 648.7, paragraph (f)(1)(iv) is redesignated as paragraph (f)(1)(vi).
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
Included in this final rule is the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a). The FRFA incorporates the IRFA, the comments and responses to the proposed rule, and the analyses completed in support of this action. A copy of the IRFA is available from the Regional Administrator (see
A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, is contained in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.
NMFS received 79 comment letters on the proposed rule prior to the close of the comment period. Of these, several made reference specifically to issues addressed in the IRFA, particularly the costs associated with purchasing or upgrading computer equipment, the need to hire additional staff to comply with the new reporting requirements, the overall administrative burden on small businesses to comply with the requirement to report daily, NMFS estimate of the economic impacts that would result from implementation of the regulations described in the proposed rule, the impact on fishermen-dealers, effects on fishermen due to reductions in prices paid by dealers, and support for the alternative that would make daily electronic reporting mandatory only for those dealers that met a minimum threshold of annual purchases. The remainder of the comment letters raised issues that did not pertain to the IRFA. For a complete description of the comments received on the proposed rule, refer to the section above titled “Comments and Responses.”
To address the significant issues raised by the public on the proposed rule, the economic analyses contained in the IRFA, and the alternatives to the proposed action, NMFS is implementing several changes from what was proposed in the proposed rule. To address concerns raised regarding the administrative burden on small businesses to comply with the new reporting requirements, NMFS is delaying for 1 year the requirement for smaller dealers (those below the threshold used to define a Small Dealer) to report on a daily basis. These dealers will have to report electronically beginning with the implementation of this rule, but they may continue through April 30, 2005, to report on a weekly basis. This delay is intended to provide time for smaller dealers to become familiar with the changes associated with reporting electronically via computer, many of whom may be obtaining a computer for the first time, before they must increase the frequency of their trip-level reports. By providing this delay, these dealers will be able to better assess whether or not they will need to hire additional staff to comply with the eventual change to a more frequent reporting schedule. NMFS intends for this change to also accommodate the concerns of fishermen-dealers, many of whom are small businesses that will meet the definition of a Small Dealer.
In addition to this change, NMFS considered the comments regarding the costs of purchasing or upgrading computer equipment, the potential for reductions in prices paid to fishermen, and the overall estimate of the economic impacts associated with this rule, but is not making any changes to the requirements in response to these concerns. Regarding the costs to purchase or upgrade computer equipment, NMFS has estimated the costs to be no more than $671-$1,479 per dealer for all hardware, software, initial training, and the first year of dial-up Internet service. These costs are based upon published retail prices for readily available off-the-shelf systems that will be more than sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the reporting system. NMFS does not consider these costs to be prohibitive or an unreasonable part of doing business.
Regarding the potential for dealers to reduce prices paid to fishermen in order to recoup their compliance costs and thus impose an adverse economic impact on fishermen, NMFS does not foresee this to be a significant issue. As noted above, the cost basis, on average, per dealer, to implement this action is not substantial ($671-$1,479 per dealer in the first year); therefore, any costs passed on to fishing vessels in the way of lower prices in an attempt to recoup these costs are expected to be minimal when considered at the scale of the total number of vessels and trips handled by
This action impacts seafood dealers and processors who purchase fish from vessels landing specific species in the NE Region. Dealers are firms who purchase fish from vessels for a commercial purpose, other than solely for transport over land, and then sell or otherwise transfer that product directly to restaurants, markets, other dealers, processors, and consumers without substantially altering the product. Processors are firms that purchase raw product and produce another product form, which is then sold or otherwise transferred to markets, restaurants, or consumers. The vast majority of dealers and processors have at least four different permits.
For purposes of the RFA, all dealers affected by this final rule are considered small businesses; therefore, there are no disproportionate impacts between large and small entities, as defined in the RFA. However, given the differences noted in the preamble to this final rule in the number of reports submitted by Large Dealers and Small Dealers, as defined in this rule, NMFS is assigning all affected dealers to one of these classes for the purpose of determining when said dealers must comply with the requirement to report daily. All dealers must comply with the requirement to report electronically immediately upon implementation of this rule, but while Large Dealers must begin reporting daily immediately upon implementation of this rule, Small Dealers may continue to report on a weekly basis until May 1, 2005, at which time they must also begin reporting daily.
Based on 2002 landings information, it is estimated that approximately 500 dealers and processors will be required to comply with this rule. The majority of these dealers and processors are resident in Massachusetts (26 percent), Maine (20 percent), New York (16 percent), and Rhode Island (11 percent). All other coastal states through North Carolina have dealers and processors who need to comply with the action, and there are companies with dealer permits who purchased fish in 2002 from as far away as California and Hawaii. However, the value of fish purchased by dealers outside of the NE Region is so small that they may not continue purchasing fish directly from vessels once they are forced to comply with mandatory electronic reporting if they do not currently have the capability to report electronically.
Based on industry surveys conducted over the past year, NMFS estimates that at least 50 firms have the necessary computer hardware, software, and Internet connections to comply with this final rule with no additional cost. It is therefore assumed that as many as 450 firms will need to purchase the hardware and software and obtain an Internet connection. It is very likely that more than 50 currently active dealers have computers and Internet access, but this information is unavailable at this time. While this additional information (the actual number of permitted dealers with computer capability and Internet access) would have been useful in the analysis of the potential economic impacts of the action and the alternatives, the process to collect this information could not be completed within the timeframe necessary to complete this action.
The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements to which this final rule applies were identified in the preamble to the proposed rule and in the IRFA and remain the same, with the exception of the temporary reductions in required reporting frequencies described in the section above entitled “Changes From the Proposed Rule.” A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements is provided in the IRFA and the IRFA summary contained in the Classification section of the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No professional skills are necessary for preparation of the reports or records specified above.
This final rule modifies the reporting and recordkeeping regulations for federally permitted seafood dealers participating in the summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, Atlantic sea scallop, NE multispecies, monkfish, Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish, Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, Atlantic herring, Atlantic deep-sea red crab, tilefish, Atlantic bluefish, skates, and/or spiny dogfish fisheries in the NE Region. The potential economic impacts of these measures are described in detail in the IRFA and the IRFA summary contained in the Classification section of the proposed rule. Results of these analyses indicate that, although there will be an economic cost incurred by most affected dealers to comply with the new requirements, the overall magnitude of this cost is likely to be relatively small ($769-$1,577 per dealer in the initial year and less in follow-on years).
In addition to the action being taken in this final rule, NMFS considered several alternatives, including: (1) Making no changes to the current seafood dealer reporting requirements; (2) voluntary electronic reporting for federally permitted dealers; (3) mandatory electronic reporting for some federally permitted dealers, based on a threshold criterion of $300,000 in annual purchases in at least 1 year between 2000 and 2002; and (4) tiered implementation of mandatory electronic reporting for federally permitted dealers, based on the same threshold criterion. NMFS selected this action from among the alternatives because it will provide for a substantial improvement in data collection, make dealer trip-level report data more readily available, provide for a substantial improvement in the ability of NMFS to monitor landings of quota-managed species, and minimize costs to the Government that would be required if the Government were to maintain multiple data collection systems, as would be the case under all of the non-preferred alternatives save the no action alternative. Specifically, NMFS avouches that daily electronic reporting will significantly improve quota monitoring by increasing the resolution and timeliness of trip-level reports used in quota monitoring. Improvements in data resolution and timeliness are expected to minimize the potential for closing a quota-based fishery too early in the season (to the detriment of the industry) or too late in the season (to the detriment of the resource). Because either case results in adverse impacts to the fishing industry (closing a fishery too early results in a loss of opportunity to harvest fish in the current year, while closing a fishery too late reduces the available quota in future years), it is to the benefit of the fishing industry, dealers and vessels alike, to utilize the most accurate, highest resolution data possible.
Under the no action alternative, there would be no increases in costs to the dealers and no revisions would be made to the existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements. This alternative would result in the lowest possible cost
Under the alternative to make daily electronic reporting voluntary, federally permitted dealers would be given the option to report all fish purchases electronically rather than via the present reporting requirements. Dealers that opted to report electronically all purchases on a trip-by-trip basis, as under the proposed action, would be exempt from the regulations requiring weekly hardcopy trip-level reports and IVR reports. Dealers that did not opt to utilize electronic reporting would remain required to provide weekly hardcopy trip-level reports and, if applicable, IVR reports. There is no information available on the number of firms that would voluntarily submit electronic reports. For many of the larger dealers that already have the capability to report electronically, it would undoubtedly make sense for them to participate. However, many dealers would likely not participate, resulting in an overall lower cost to the industry than the preferred alternative. Although this alternative would result in lower costs to the industry as a whole, it would not achieve the objectives of this action, as it would require the Government to utilize and maintain duplicate data collection and management systems without providing any benefit regarding data quality, timeliness, or availability.
The alternative that would use a threshold criterion to determine which dealers must comply with electronic reporting would mandate daily electronic reporting for dealers who purchased $300,000 or more of fish (ex-vessel value) from commercial fishing vessels in at least 1 year between 2000 and 2002. Data show that this alternative would impact approximately 50 percent of the dealers, which translates into an overall industry cost of one-half the cost of the proposed action. Although this alternative would also result in lower costs to the industry as a whole, it also would not achieve the objectives of this action, as it would require the Government to utilize and maintain duplicate data collection and management systems without providing any benefit regarding data quality, timeliness, or availability.
The alternative that would use a threshold criterion to determine when dealers must come into compliance with electronic reporting would mandate electronic reporting for all dealers, but delay implementation by a year for dealers who purchased less than $300,000 worth of fish in each year between 2000 and 2002. This would delay implementation for approximately 50 percent of the dealers. Compared to the proposed action, this alternative would be less costly to industry in present value terms due to the delayed implementation, assuming that the price of computers and software does not increase. Although this alternative possibly would result in slightly lower costs to the industry as a whole, it would not fully achieve the objectives of this action, as it would require the Government to utilize and maintain duplicate data collection and management systems during the interim period and would delay and compromise the Government's ability to effectively monitor quota-managed species and obtain the full benefits of the new system regarding data quality, timeliness, and availability.
In addition to the alternatives considered in the proposed rule, this final rule incorporates several changes from the measures proposed initially. These changes are intended to minimize, to the extent practicable, economic impacts on affected dealers while meeting the overall objectives of the action. These changes include: (1) Delaying for 1 year the full implementation of the requirement for federally permitted dealers to report fish purchased on a daily basis, for smaller dealers (those with less than $300,000 in annual purchases in each year from 2000-2002); (2) delaying for 1 year the requirement for the trip identifier to be reported on a daily basis at the time of the initial trip-level report, and allowing, during the interim, the trip identifier to be reported along with the price and disposition information; (3) extending the timeframe within which the price and disposition information may be reported to up to 16 days from the end of the reporting week or the end of the month, whichever is later; and (4) modifying the requirement for dealers to obtain the trip identifier to only apply when fish are purchased from a federally permitted vessel, instead of from state as well as federally permitted vessels.
These changes have the effect of reducing the initial administrative burden on affected dealers, particularly smaller dealers who may have been less able to fully comply with all of the new requirements. Because dealers that meet or exceed the threshold report much more than dealers that fall below the threshold, it is more important for NMFS to monitor on a daily basis landings purchased by these larger dealers than landings purchased by the smaller dealers. Only 49 percent of dealers that reported during 2000-2002 will be required to report daily. The remaining 51 percent will be able to continue to report weekly until May 1, 2005. The change in the requirement to obtain a trip identifier has the effect of substantially reducing the number of vessels and the number of fishing trips for which dealers will have to obtain and report the trip identifier.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of related rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide will be sent to all holders of NE Federal dealer or commercial fishing vessel permits. In addition, copies of this final rule and guide (i.e., permit holder letter) are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and at the following web site:
This final rule contains two collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). These two requirements represent revisions to existing approved collections. The collection of this information is under review by OMB. NMFS will notify the affected public through a follow-up notice in the
The new and revised reporting requirements and the estimated time for a response are as follows:
Dealer purchase reports, OMB control number 0648-0229 (2 minutes per response for a dealer purchase report).
Annual Processed Products Survey, OMB control number 0648-0118 (30 minutes per year to complete the survey).
Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS and to OMB (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a)
(i) All dealers issued a dealer permit under this part must provide: Dealer name; dealer permit number; name and permit number or name and hull number (USCG documentation number or state registration number, whichever is applicable) of vessel(s) from which fish are purchased or received; trip identifier for each trip from which fish are purchased or received from a commercial fishing vessel permitted under this part; date(s) of purchases and receipts; pounds by species (by market category, if applicable, or, if a surfclam or ocean quahog processor or dealer, the number of bushels by species); price per pound by species (by market category, if applicable, or, if a surfclam or ocean quahog processor or dealer, the price per bushel by species) or total value by species (by market category, if applicable); port landed; cage tag numbers (if a surfclam or ocean quahog processor or dealer); disposition of the seafood product; and any other information deemed necessary by the Regional Administrator. If no fish are purchased or received during a day, no report is required to be submitted. If no fish are purchased or received during an entire reporting week, a report so stating must be submitted.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii)
(2)
(3)
(i) All dealers issued a dealer permit under this part must complete all sections of the Annual Processed Products Report for all species of fish that were processed during the previous year. Reports must be submitted to the address supplied by the Regional Administrator.
(ii) Surfclam and ocean quahog processors and dealers whose plant processing capacities change more than 10 percent during any year shall notify the Regional Administrator in writing within 10 days after the change.
(iii) Atlantic herring processors, including processing vessels, must complete and submit all sections of the Annual Processed Products Report.
(d)
(e)
(f) * * *
(1)
(ii) Dealers—small. (A) Through April 30, 2005. Detailed trip reports, required by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, must be received within 3 days after the end of the reporting week, or by midnight on the following Tuesday. If no fish are purchased or received during a reporting week, the report so stating required under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section must be received also within 3 days after the end of the reporting week, or by midnight on the following Tuesday.
(B) Effective May 1, 2005. Detailed trip reports, required by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, must be received by midnight of the next business day following the day fish are purchased or received from a fishing vessel. Reports of purchases or receipts made on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday must be received by midnight of the following Monday. If no fish are purchased or received during a reporting week, the report so stating required under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section must be received within 3 days after the end of the reporting week, or by midnight on the following Tuesday.
(iii) Dealers who want to make corrections to their trip-level reports via the electronic editing features may do so for up to 3 business days following submission of the initial report. If a correction is needed more than 3 business days following the submission of the initial trip-level report, the dealer must contact NMFS directly to request an extension of time to make the correction.
(iv) Through April 30, 2005, to accommodate the potential lag in availability of some required data, the trip identifier, price, and disposition information may be submitted after the initial report, but must be received within 16 days of the end of the reporting week or the end of the calendar month, whichever is later. Dealers will be able to access and update previously submitted trip identifier, price, and disposition data. Effective May 1, 2005, the trip identifier must be submitted with the initial purchase report, as required under paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii)(B) of this section.
(v) Effective May 1, 2005, to accommodate the potential lag in availability of some required data, price and disposition information only may be submitted after the initial report, but must be received within 16 days of the end of the reporting week or the end of the calendar month, whichever is later. Dealers will be able to access and update previously submitted price and disposition data.
(vi) Annual reports for a calendar year must be postmarked or received by February 10 of the following year. Contact the Regional Administrator (see Table 1 to § 600.502) for the address of NMFS Statistics.
(3)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels 60 feet (18.3 m) length overall (LOA) and longer using hook-and-line gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allocation of 2004 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod allocated for catcher vessels 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA and longer using hook-and-line gear in this area.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 18, 2004, until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., August 15, 2004.
Josh Keaton, (907) 586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2004 final harvest specification for groundfish of the BSAI (69 FR 9242, February 27, 2004), allocated a directed fishing allowance for Pacific cod of 182 metric tons to catcher vessels 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA and longer using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI for the period 1200 hrs, A.l.t., January 1, 2004, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., June 10, 2004. See § 679.20(c)(3)(iii), § 679.20(c)(5), and § 679.20(a)(7)(i)(A) and (C).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the A season allocation of the 2004 Pacific cod TAC allocated as a directed fishing allowance to catcher vessels 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA and longer using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI will soon be reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA and longer using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent the Agency from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure the A season allocation of Pacific cod specified for catcher vessels 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA and longer using hook-and-line gear in the BSAI.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.
This document contains corrections to proposed regulations that were published in the
Kate Sleeth, (202) 622-3920 (not toll-free number).
The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that are the subject of these corrections are under section 446 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG-166012-02) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Accordingly, the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG-166012-02), which were the subject of FR Doc. 04-4151, is corrected as follows:
1. On page 8886, column 1, in the heading, the subject line “National Principle Contracts; Contingent Nonperiodic Payments” is corrected to read “Notional Principle Contracts; Contingent Nonperiodic Payments”.
2. On page 8897, column 1, § 1.446-3 (g)(7)(v),
3. On page 8897, column 1, § 1.446-3 (g)(7)(viii),
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing to approve Illinois' October 31, 2003 request to revise the definition for volatile organic material (VOM) and volatile organic compound (VOC) to incorporate exemptions for several nonreactive compounds from the definition of VOM and VOC and thereby, from regulation as ozone precursors. These requested state implementation plan (SIP) revisions were made in response to, and consistent with, EPA's action to add these chemical compounds to the list of chemicals that are exempted from the definition of VOC. In the Final Rules section of this
EPA must receive written comments on or before April 22, 2004.
Send written comments to:
Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier, please follow the detailed instructions described in part(I)(B)(1)(i) through (iii) of the Supplementary Information section of the direct final rule published in the rules section of this
You may inspect copies of the documents relevant to this action during normal business hours at the following location:
Please contact Kathleen D'Agostino at (312) 886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 office.
Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767.
For additional information see the direct final rule published in the rules section of this
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Request for comments.
The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) is considering whether guidance in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) addressing the application of the Brooks Act to mapping services should be amended. The FAR currently requires application of the Brooks Act's qualifications based selection process to certain types of mapping services while precluding application in other instances. The FAR Council requests that interested parties provide comments.
Interested parties should submit comments in writing to the FAR Secretariat at the address shown below on or before May 24, 2004.
Submit written comments to— General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVA), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, ATTN: Laurie Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.
Submit electronic comments via the Internet to—
Please submit comments only and cite “mapping notice” in all correspondence related to this case.
The FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405, at (202) 501-4755 for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. The TTY Federal Relay Number for further information is 1-800-877-8973. For clarification of content, contact Ms. Cecelia Davis, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 219-0202. Please cite “mapping notice.”
The selection procedures currently prescribed by the FAR for the acquisition of mapping vary depending on the nature of the mapping service. In particular, FAR 36.601-4(a)(4) states that mapping associated with the research, planning, development, design, construction, or alteration of real property is considered to be an architectural and engineering (A&E) service and must be procured using the processes at FAR 36.601, which implements Public Law 92-582, as amended, also known as the “Brooks Architect-Engineers Act.” Under the Act, which is codified in chapter 11 of title 40 of the United States Code, contracts are negotiated based on the demonstrated competence and qualifications of prospective contractors to perform the services at a fair and reasonable price.
FAR 36.601-4(a)(4) further states that mapping services that are not connected to traditionally understood or accepted A&E activities are not incidental to such A&E activities or have not, in themselves, traditionally been considered A&E services, shall be procured pursuant to provisions in FAR parts 13, 14, and 15. These FAR parts, used for the procurement of most goods and services, allow agencies to employ sealed bids or competitive negotiations (using streamlined procedures in certain instances) through either the consideration of only price or cost or both price/cost and non-cost factors, including the tradeoff of cost and non-cost factors.
The policy set forth in FAR 36.601-4(a)(4) for the handling of mapping services has been in effect since 1991. This policy is based, in large part, on the 1988 statutory changes to the Brooks Act.
FAR 36.601-4(a)(4) was most recently modified in 1999 to implement section 8101 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-262). Section 8101 stated that the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), with limited exception, must use the procedures in FAR subpart 36.6 when using fiscal year 1999 funds to award contracts for mapping, charting, and geodesy activities, rather than the provisions in FAR parts 13, 14, and 15. The FAR coverage in effect at the time section 8101 was enacted made specific reference to NIMA as exemplifying the type of mapping services that must not be procured pursuant to FAR subpart 36.6. Consistent with section 8101, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC) and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (DARC) amended FAR 36.601-4(a)(4) to remove the reference to NIMA.
After the amendment to FAR 36.601-4(a)(4) was published in the
At least one commenter stated that Congress intended to apply the Brooks Act to a wide scope of mapping services and cited to House Report 105-746, which called upon the FAR drafters to:
The FAR Council does not consider the removal of the reference to NIMA in the 1999 FAR amendments to constitute a shift in longstanding policy regarding the application of the Brooks Act to mapping services. However, the FAR Council has decided to seek public comment on the mapping policies articulated in FAR 36.601-4(a)(4) so it, the CAAC, and the DARC may review the effectiveness of current policy in selecting quality firms to perform mapping services and consider if a FAR change should be pursued.
Accordingly, respondents are encouraged to discuss advantages and drawbacks of the current regulatory coverage in FAR 36.601-4(a)(4) as it pertains to the acquisition of mapping
Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule with request for comments.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to address issues related to contract performance outside the United States. The proposed rule contains a clause for use in contracts that require contractor employees to accompany a force engaged in contingency, humanitarian, peacekeeping, or combat operations.
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before May 24, 2004, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Respondents may submit comments directly via the Internet at
Respondents that cannot submit comments using either of the above methods may submit comments to: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Amy Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062; facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2003-D087.
At the end of the comment period, interested parties may view public comments on the Internet at
Ms. Amy Williams, (703) 602-0328.
This rule proposes amendments to the DFARS to add policy relating to contracts that require contractor employees to accompany a force engaged in contingency, humanitarian, peacekeeping, or combat operations outside the United States. The proposed changes will enable the uniform treatment of contractors that accompany a deployed force, and will enable combatant commanders to rapidly adjust contract requirements in response to changing conditions on the battlefield.
In addition, as a result of the DFARS Transformation initiative, this rule proposes to move text from DFARS 225.802-70 to the new DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI). A proposed rule describing the purpose and structure of PGI was published at 69 FR 8145 on February 23, 2004. Additional information on the DFARS Transformation initiative is available at
DoD particularly seeks comment on the following aspects of the proposed rule:
• Paragraphs (p) and (q) of the proposed clause, which permit the Combatant Commander to provide direction to the contractor.
• The authority and liability of the Government for providing support services, such as medical or legal services, to contractor personnel (section 225.7402-1 of the proposed rule).
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any new information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR Parts 207, 212, 225, and 252 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 207, 212, 225, and 252 continues to read as follows:
41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
2. Section 207.105 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(19)(E) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(19) * * *
(E) Ensure that the requirements of DoD Instruction 3020.37, Continuation of Essential DoD Contractor Services During Crises, are addressed.
3. Section 212.301 is amended by adding paragraph (f)(vii) to read as follows:
(f) * * *
(vii) Use the clause at 252.225-70XX, Contractors Accompanying a Force Deployed for Contingency, Humanitarian, Peacekeeping, or Combat Operations, as prescribed in 225.7402-2.
4. Section 225.802-70 is revised to read as follows:
Follow the procedures at PGI 225.802-70 when placing a contract requiring performance outside the United States and Canada. Also see Subpart 225.74, Defense Contractors Outside the United States.
5. Subpart 225.74 is revised to read as follows:
(a) If the acquisition requires performance of work in a foreign country by U.S. personnel or a third country contractor, follow the procedures at PGI 225.7401(a).
(b) For work performed in Germany, eligibility for logistics support or base privileges of contractor employees is governed by U.S.-German bilateral agreements. Follow the procedures in Army in Europe Regulation 715-9, available at
(a) Contractors shall generally provide their own in-country support for their personnel.
(b) If the use of Government-provided support is to be authorized or required when the contractor is accompanying a force, the exact support to be authorized or required shall be set forth in each contract or in the operation order of the combatant commander. For examples of such support, see PGI 225.7402-1(b).
Use the clause at 252.225-70XX, Contractors Accompanying a Force Deployed for Contingency, Humanitarian, Peacekeeping, or Combat Operations, in solicitation and contracts for services, construction, or supplies, when contract performance requires that contractor employees accompany, or be available to accompany, a force engaged in contingency, humanitarian, peacekeeping, or combat operations outside the United States.
Information and guidance pertaining to DoD antiterrorism/force protection policy for contracts that require performance or travel outside the United States can be obtained from the following offices:
(a) For Navy contracts: Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), Code 24; telephone, DSN 228-9113 or commercial (202) 433-9113.
(b) For Army contracts: HQDA (DAMO-ODL)/ODCSOP; telephone, DSN 225-8491 or commercial (703) 695-8491.
(c) For Marine Corps contracts: CMC Code POS-10; telephone, DSN 224-4177 or commercial (703) 614-4177.
(d) For Air Force contracts: HQ AFSFC/SFPA; telephone, DSN 945-7035/36 or commercial (210) 925-7035/36.
(e) For Combatant Command contracts: The appropriate Antiterrorism Force Protection Office at the Command Headquarters.
(f) For defense agency contracts: The appropriate agency security office.
(g) For additional information: Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, ASD(SOLIC); telephone, DSN 255-0044 or commercial (703) 695-0044.
Use the clause at 252.225-7043, Antiterrorism/Force Protection Policy for Defense Contractors Outside the United States, in solicitations and contracts that require performance or travel outside the United States, except for contracts with—
(a) Foreign governments;
(b) Representatives of foreign governments; or
(c) Foreign corporations wholly owned by foreign governments.
6. Section 252.225-70XX is added to read as follows:
As prescribed in 225.7402-2, use the following clause:
(a)
(1) Is designated by the Secretary of Defense as an operation in which members of the armed forces are or may become involved in military actions, operations, or hostilities against an enemy of the United States or against an opposing military force; or
(2) Results in the call or order to, or retention on, active duty of members of the uniformed services under section 688, 12301(a), 12302, 12304, 12305, or 12406 of 10 U.S.C., chapter 15 of 10 U.S.C., or any other provision of law during a war or during a national emergency declared by the President or Congress (10 U.S.C. 101(a)(13)).
(b)
(2) Contract performance in support of such forces is inherently dangerous. The Contractor accepts the risks associated with required contract performance in such operations.
(c)
(2) The Government at its sole discretion may authorize or may require the use of certain Government-provided logistical or in-country support.
(d)
(1) United States, host country, and local laws;
(2) Treaties and international agreements (e.g., Status of Forces Agreements, Host Nation Support Agreements, and Defense Technical Agreements);
(3) United States regulations, directives, instructions, policies, and procedures that are applicable to the Contractor in the area of operations;
(4) Orders, directives, and instructions issued by the Combatant Commander relating to force protection, security, health, safety, or relations and interaction with local nationals; and
(5) The Uniform Code of Military Justice where applicable.
(e)
(2) The Contractor shall have a current plan on file showing how the Contractor would replace employees who are unavailable for deployment or who need to be replaced during deployment. The plan shall identify all personnel who are subject to military mobilization and shall detail how the position would be filled if the individual were mobilized. In addition, the plan shall identify all personnel who occupy a position that is designated as mission essential by the Contracting Officer. This plan shall be available for review by the Contracting Officer's representative.
(f)
(2) The Contractor shall ensure that all employees on this list have at all times a current DD Form 93, Record of Emergency Data Card, on file with both the Contractor and the designated Government official.
(g)
(1) All applicable specified security and background checks are completed;
(2) All deploying personnel are medically and physically fit to endure the rigors of deployment in support of military operations and have received all required vaccinations;
(3) Deploying personnel possess the required licenses to operate all vehicles or equipment necessary to perform the contract in the theater of operations;
(4) Deploying personnel have all necessary passports, visas, and other documents required for contractor personnel to enter and exit an area of operations; and
(5) Country and theater clearance is obtained for personnel.
(h)
(2) The CONUS Replacement Center, or the theater commander, at his discretion, may provide to the contractor personnel military-unique organizational clothing and individual equipment (OCIE) and training to ensure contractor personnel security and safety.
(3) In accordance with Government-Furnished Property clauses specified elsewhere in this contract, the Contractor shall ensure that all issued OCIE is returned to the point of issue.
(i)
(2) If the Combatant Commander authorizes the carrying of firearms, the military may issue weapons and ammunition to the Contractor for issuance to specified contractor employees. The Contractor shall ensure that its personnel who receive weapons are adequately trained, are not barred from possession of a firearm by 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(9) or (g)(9), and adhere to all guidance and orders issued by the Combatant Commander regarding possession, use, safety, and accountability of weapons and ammunition. Upon redeployment or revocation by the Combatant Commander of a contractor's authorization to issue firearms, the Contractor shall ensure that all Government-issued weapons and unexpended ammunition are returned as directed by the Contracting Officer.
(j)
(1) Death of the employee.
(2) An injury to the employee requiring evacuation.
(3) The employee is missing.
(4) The employee is captured.
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(2) If there is a conflict between the instructions issued by the Combatant Commander under paragraph (p)(1) of this clause and the existing terms of the contract, the instructions issued by the Combatant Commander take precedence over any existing terms.
(3) The Contractor may submit a request for equitable adjustment for any additional effort required or any loss of contractor-owned equipment occasioned by such direction.
(q)
(2) The Contractor may submit a request for equitable adjustment for any additional effort required or any loss of contractor-owned equipment occasioned by such direction.
(r)
7. Section 252.225-7043 is amended in the introductory text by removing
Department of Defense (DoD).
Correction.
DoD is issuing a correction to the preamble to the proposed rule published at 69 FR 8152-8153, February 23, 2004, pertaining to protection of privacy and freedom of information.
Ms. Michele Peterson, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0311; facsimile (703) 602-0350.
In the issue of Monday, February 23, 2004, on page 8153, in the first column, the second paragraph of the BACKGROUND section is corrected by revising the second sentence to read as follows: “The rule deletes DFARS 224.102, which specifies that the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) does not apply to certain contractor records.”
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Withdrawal of rulemaking.
This document withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking published in 1999 in response to a petition for rulemaking from the American Academy of Pediatrics. After considering the comments on the NPRM and the advancements that have been attained in the testing of child passenger protection devices, the agency has decided not to proceed with the NPRM's proposed labeling requirement. Before taking further action in this area, the agency would like to expand its knowledge base with data from up-to-date tests of current belt positioners, using the advanced test protocols and child test dummies available today. Because NHTSA will not be able to conclude its analysis of the issues of this rulemaking in the near future, we have decided to withdraw the August 1999 NPRM.
For non-legal issues, you may call Mike Huntley, NHTSA Office of Rulemaking, at (202) 366-0029.
For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-2992.
You may send mail to both of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC 20590.
This document withdraws a rulemaking that began in response to a January 31, 1996 petition from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) that requested that the agency regulate aftermarket seat belt positioners under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, “Child Restraint Systems” (49 CFR 571.213). AAP stated in its petition that, because seat belt positioners are generally marketed as child occupant protection devices, the products should be subject to the same scrutiny and testing that child restraint systems undergo. AAP was concerned that some seat belt positioners “appear to interfere with proper lap and shoulder harness fit by positioning the lap belt too high on the abdomen, the shoulder harness too low across the shoulder, and by allowing too much slack in the shoulder harness.” Accordingly, AAP believed that the devices should be subject to a safety standard so that they would be required to meet a minimum level of performance.
On August 13, 1999 (64 FR 44164, Docket No. 99-5100), NHTSA granted the petition and published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that sought to regulate seat belt positioners by way of a consumer information regulation. The NPRM discussed the results of a study
The NPRM requested comments on four issues. The first issue was whether there was a safety need for the rulemaking action. There were no real-world data indicating that positioners were causing or exacerbating injuries. The second issue pertained to whether the devices should be labeled with a warning against using them with children under age 6. Third was whether the devices should be regulated by FMVSS No. 213. Then-existing child test dummies were not instrumented to measure abdominal loads, and there was no injury criterion developed that delineated between acceptable and unacceptable abdominal loading. The fourth issue related to the feasibility of adopting a performance requirement for seat belt positioners and the performance criteria that would distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable performance.
NHTSA received approximately 14 comments to the NPRM. Commenters
After the NPRM was published, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act of 2000 (the TREAD Act) (November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800) was enacted, which among other things, directed NHTSA to initiate a rulemaking for the purpose of improving the safety of child restraints. The agency's initiation of rulemaking resulted in a final rule, issued in June 2003, that amended FMVSS No. 213 to incorporate advanced child test dummies in the testing of child restraints and to revise the test conditions of the standard to better represent current model passenger vehicles. 68 FR 37620; June 24, 2003; Docket No. NHTSA-03-15351. New state-of-the-art Hybrid III test dummies representing a 12-month-old, 3-year-old and 6-year-old child were incorporated into the standard, as well as a weighted 6-year-old dummy.
NHTSA's work developing a Hybrid III test dummy representing a 10-year-old child was underway at the time of the TREAD Act, but was not far enough along for the dummy to be included in that rulemaking. Now, however, developmental work on the dummy is nearly complete.
After considering the comments on the August 13, 1999 NPRM and the advancements that have been attained in the testing of child passenger protection devices, the agency has decided not to proceed with the labeling requirement proposed in the NPRM. Before taking further action in this area, the agency would like to augment the technical basis of this rulemaking by supplementing the data obtained from the 1994 study of three seat belt positioners with data from up-to-date tests of current belt positioners, using the advanced test protocols and child test dummies available today.
There still is no evidence of a real-world safety problem with seat belt positioners. However, NHTSA has been directed by “Anton's Law” (Pub. L. 107-318, 116 Stat. 2772, December 4, 2002) to initiate rulemaking to consider whether to establish injury performance criteria and seat belt fit performance requirements for belt guidance devices. Accordingly, rather than requiring labeling at this time, the agency has initiated a targeted test program with the advanced child test dummies, including the Hybrid III 10-year-old child test dummy, to assess the need for and feasibility of developing performance requirements for belt positioners.
We are especially interested in the potential use of the 10-year-old dummy in evaluating forces that a seat belt positioner could redirect to a child's abdominal and lumbar areas in a crash. That dummy has a molded seated pelvis with anterior superior iliac spine load cell attachment locations for measuring lap belt forces. The dummy's lumbar and pelvis can also be adjusted to slouched or upright postures, so the dummy can be used to assess performance of the belts and belt positioners with slouching children. Children whose legs are too short to allow them to bend their knees when sitting upright against the vehicle seat back will slouch down when seated directly on the cushion to bend their knees. “Study of Older Child Restraint/Booster Seat Fit and NASS Injury Analysis,” Klinich
One anticipated use of the data will be to assess how labeling can be made most effective at inducing parents to restrain children in a way that is appropriate for those children. After reviewing the comments on the NPRM, NHTSA became concerned that the labeling proposed in the NPRM could be misconstrued by some parents as an agency recommendation that it would be acceptable to restrain 6-year-old children in a vehicle belt system if a belt-positioner were used. Such a conclusion would be contrary to the recommendations of the agency that 6-year-olds are best restrained when in a belt-positioning booster.
Given the complexity of the issues, the testing that will be conducted pursuant to Anton's Law, and the limited resources of the agency, NHTSA will not be able to conclude its analysis of the issues of this rulemaking in the near future. We have therefore decided to withdraw the August 1999 NPRM. Notwithstanding this withdrawal, it is noted that seat belt positioners are items of motor vehicle equipment and therefore their manufacturers are subject to the requirements in 49 U.S.C. 30119 and 30120 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects.
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166 and Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period and notice of public hearing.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are extending the comment period on a proposed rule
Comments must be received on or before April 12, 2004, to receive consideration. (
Submit written comments to the Colorado Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 755 Parfet Street, Suite 361, Lakewood, Colorado 80215, or by facsimile to 303-275-2371. You may hand deliver written comments to our Colorado Ecological Services Field Office at the address given above. The complete file for this rule is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Colorado Ecological Services Field Office at the address given above.
In Colorado, contact Susan Linner, Field Supervisor, at the above address or telephone (303) 275-2370. In Wyoming, contact Brian Kelly, Field Supervisor, 4000 Airport Parkway, Cheyenne, Wyoming, at telephone (307) 772-2374.
On May 22, 2001, the Service adopted special regulations governing take of the threatened Preble's meadow jumping mouse (
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning the proposed rule. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. In some circumstances, we will withhold a respondent's identity from the rulemaking record, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses available for public inspection in their entirety (
On March 9, 2004, we received a request for a public hearing on the proposed extension of the amended special rule. In response to this request, we will hold a public hearing on Thursday, April 1, 2004, from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. at the Platte County Public Library, 904 9th Street, Wheatland, Wyoming.
Anyone wishing to make an oral comment or statement for the record at the public hearing listed above is encouraged (but not required) to also provide a written copy of the statement and present it to us at the hearing. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited.
The primary author of this notice is Mary Jennings, Wyoming Field Office, telephone 307-772-2374.
Authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The New Mexico Collaborative Forest Restoration Program Technical Advisory Panel will meet in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The purpose of the meeting is to provide recommendations to the Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service Southwestern Regional, on which forest restoration grant proposals submitted in response to the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program Request For Proposals best meet the objectives of the Community Forest Restoration Act (Title VI, Pub. L. 106-393).
The meeting will be held April 26-30, 2004, beginning at 1 p.m. on Monday, April 26 and ending at approximately 4 p.m. on Friday, April 30.
The meeting will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott, Journal Center, 5151 Journal Center Blvd., Albuquerque, NM 87109, telephone (505) 823-1919. Written comments should be sent to Walter Dunn, at Cooperative and International Forestry Staff, USDA Forest Service, 333 Broadway SE., Albuquerque, NM 87102. Comments may also be sent via email to
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Cooperative and International Forestry Staff, USDA Forest Service, 333 Broadway SE., Albuquerque, or during the Panel meeting at the Courtyard by Marriott, Journal Center, 5151 Journal Center Blvd., Albuquerque, NM. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to the Courtyard by Marriott, Journal Center, 5151 Journal Center Blvd., Albuquerque, NM 8709, telephone (505) 823-1919 to facilitate entry into the building.
Walter Dunn, Designated Federal Official, at (505) 842-3425, Elaine Waterbury, at (505) 842-3881, or Angela Sandoval, at (505) 842-3289, Cooperative and International Forestry Staff, USDA Forest Service, 333 Broadway SE., Albuquerque, NM 87102.
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The meeting is open to the public. Council discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Council members. However, persons who wish to bring Collaborative Forest Restoration Program Grant Review matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by April 26, 2004, will have the opportunity to address the Council at those sessions.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Red Bluff, California. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Introductions, (2) Approval of Minutes, (3) Public Comment, (4) Chairman Report, (5) Reports from Committees, (6) Approving Project Proposals, (7) Review New Member Applications, (8) General Discussion, (9) Next Agenda.
The meeting will be held on April 8, 2004 from 9 a.m. and end at approximately 12 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Lincoln Street School, Conference Room A, 1135 Lincoln Street, Red Bluff, CA. Individuals wishing to speak or propose agenda items must send their names and proposals to Jim Giachino, DFO, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988.
Bobbin Gaddini, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, P.O. Box 164, Elk Creek, CA 95939. (530) 968-5329; e-mail
The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by April 7, 2004 will have the opportunity to address the committee at those sessions.
Economic Development Administration (EDA), Commerce.
To give all interested parties an opportunity to comment.
Petitions have been accepted for filing on the dates indicated from the firms listed below.
The petitions were submitted pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341). Consequently, the United States Department of Commerce has initiated separate investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each firm contributed importantly to total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm. Any party having a substantial interest in the proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter.A request for a hearing must be received by Trade Adjustment Assistance, Room 7315, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than the close of business of the tenth calendar day following the publication of this notice.The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official program number and title of the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), DOC.
Notice of intent to evaluate and notice of availability of final evaluation findings.
The NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) announces its intent to evaluate the performance of the New Jersey Coastal Management Program; the Maryland Coastal Management Program; the Florida Coastal Management Program; the Maine Coastal Management Program and the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve, Maine; the South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, Oregon; and the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program.
The Coastal Zone Management Program evaluations will be conducted pursuant to section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended, and regulations at 15 CFR part 923, subpart L. The National Estuarine Research Reserve evaluations will be conducted pursuant to sections 312 and 315 of the CZMA and regulations at 15 CFR part 921, subpart E and part 923, subpart L.
The CZMA requires continuing review of the performance of states with respect to coastal program implementation. Evaluation of Coastal Zone Management Programs and National Estuarine Research Reserves requires findings concerning the extent to which a State has met the national objectives, adhered to its Coastal Management Program document or Reserve final management plan approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance awards funded under the CZMA.
The evaluations will include a site visit, consideration of public comments, and consultations with interested Federal, State, and local agencies and members of the public. Public meetings will be held as part of the site visits.
Notice is hereby given of the dates of the site visits for the listed evaluations, and the dates, local times, and locations of the public meetings during the site visits.
The New Jersey Coastal Management Program evaluation site visit will be held May 10-14, 2004. Two public meetings will be held during the week. The first public meeting will be on Wednesday, May 12, 2004, at 2 p.m., in the Classroom at the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve, 130 Great Bay Boulevard, Tuckerton, New Jersey. The second public meeting will be on Thursday, May 13, 2004, at 7 p.m., at the Marine Sciences Consortium, Sandy Hook Field Station,
The Maryland Coastal Management Program evaluation site visit will be held May 10-14, 2004. One public meeting will be held during the week. The public meeting will be on Monday, May 10, 2004, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., at the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Joe Macknis Memorial Conference Room, 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 116, Annapolis, Maryland.
The Florida Coastal Management Program evaluation site visit will be held May 17-21, 2004. One public meeting will be held during the week. The public meeting will be on Monday, May 17, 2004, at 6 p.m., at the Department of Environmental Protection, Douglas Building, Conference Room A, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida.
The Maine Coastal Management Program and Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve, Maine, joint evaluation site visit will be held June 7-11, 2004. Two public meetings will be held during the week. The first public meeting will be on Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 6 p.m., at the Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve, Mather Auditorium, 342 Laudholm Farm Road, Wells, Maine. The second public meeting will be on Thursday, June 10, 2004, at 7 p.m., at the Camden Public Library, Main Street, Camden, Maine.
The South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, Oregon, evaluation site visit will be held June 14-18, 2004. One public meeting will be held during the week. The public meeting will be on Thursday, June 17, 2004, at 6:30 p.m., at the North Bend Library, 1800 Sherman Avenue, North Bend, Oregon.
The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program evaluation site visit will be held June 21-25, 2004. One public meeting will be held during the week. The public meeting will be held on Monday, June 21, 2004, at 5:30 p.m., at the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center, Multipurpose Room, 29270 County G, Ashland, Wisconsin.
Copies of States' most recent performance reports, as well as OCRM's notifications and supplemental request letters to the states, are available upon request from OCRM. Written comments from interested parties regarding these Programs are encouraged and will be accepted for each Program until 15 days after the last public meeting held for that Program. Please direct written comments to: Ralph Cantral, Chief, National Policy and Evaluation Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM7, 10th Floor, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. When the evaluations are completed, OCRM will place a notice in the
Notice is hereby given of the availability of the final evaluation findings for the Alaska and Guam Coastal Management Programs and the Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Alaska. Sections 312 and 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended, require a continuing review of the performance of coastal states with respect to approval of coastal management programs and the operation and management of NERRs.
The State of Alaska and territory of Guam were found to be implementing and enforcing their federally approved coastal management programs, addressing the national coastal management objectives identified in CZMA section 303(2)(A)-(K), and adhering to the programmatic terms of their financial assistance awards. The Kachemak Bay NERR was found to be adhering to programmatic requirements of the NERR System. Copies of these final evaluation findings may be obtained upon written request from: Ralph Cantral, Chief, National Policy and Evaluation Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM7, 10th Floor, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
Ralph Cantral, Chief, National Policy and Evaluation Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM7, 10th Floor, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, (301) 713-3155, extension 118.
Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419; Coastal Zone Management Program Administration.
Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Washington Headquarters Services announces the proposed extension of a public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received May 24, 2004.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to the Department of Defense, Federal Voting Assistance Program, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, ATTN: Ms. Elaine Perna Tucker.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the above address, or call the Federal Voting Assistance Program at (703) 588-1584 or 1-(800) 438-8683.
UOCAVA requires the states to allow Uniformed Services personnel, their family members, and overseas citizens
Defense Acquisition University, DoD.
Board of Visitors meeting.
The next meeting of the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Board of Visitors (BoV) will be held at Defense Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA. The purpose of this meeting is to report back to the BoV on continuing items of interest.
May 5, 2004 from 0900-1500.
Packard Conference Center, Defense Acquisition University, Bldg. 184, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060.
Ms. Christen Goulding at 703-805-5133.
The meeting is open to the public; however, because of space limitations, allocation of seating will be made on a first-come, first served basis. Persons desiring to attend the meeting should call Ms. Christen Goulding at (703) 805-5133.
Department of Defense, USSTRATCOM.
Notice of closed meeting.
The Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) will meet in a closed session on April 22 and 23, 2003. The mission of the SAG is to provide timely advice on scientific, technical, intelligence, and policy-related issues to the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command during the development of the Nation's war plans. Full development of the topics will require discussion of information classified in accordance with Executive Order 12958, dated April 17, 1995. Access to this information must be strictly limited to personnel having the requisite security clearances and specific need-to-know. Unauthorized disclosure of the information to be discussed at the SAG meeting could have exceptionally grave impact on national defense.
In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., section 552b(c)), this meeting will be closed.
April 22 and 23, 2004.
USSTRATCOM, 901 SAC Boulevard, Suite 1F7, Offutt Air Force Base, NE 68113-6030.
Connie Druskis, SAG, (402) 294-4102.
Jerome Mahar, Joint Staff, (703) 614-6465.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of closed meeting.
The CNO Executive Panel Expeditionary Strike Study Group will provide consensus advice to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). The meeting is a directed follow-up report to the CNO regarding the Study Group's advice and recommendations delivered in a December 5, 2003, closed meeting. The meeting will consist of discussions relating to appraisals of expeditionary strike capabilities within the context of broader U.S. national capabilities and strategic planning.
The meeting will be held on Friday, April 2, 2004, from 11:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Chief of Naval Operations office, Room 4E542, 2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-2000.
Commander Kevin Wilson, CNO Executive Panel, 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311, (703) 681-4906.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), these matters constitute classified information that is specifically authorized by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense and are, in fact, properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order.
Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that the public interest requires that all sessions of the meeting be closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of closed meetings.
The Naval Research Advisory Committee (NRAC) Panel on Venture Capital Technology met to identify emerging standards and technologies in the technology sector that the Department of the Navy should incorporate in its technology roadmap
The meetings were held on Wednesday, March 17, and Thursday, March 18, 2004, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meetings were held at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego, 53560 Hull Street, San Diego, CA.
Dennis Ryan, Program Director, Naval Research Advisory Committee, 800 North Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22217-5660, (703) 696-6769.
This notice is provided in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). All sessions of the meetings contained proprietary information and classified information that is specifically authorized under criteria established by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order. The proprietary, classified and non-classified matters to be discussed were so inextricably intertwined as to preclude opening any portion of the meetings. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d), the Secretary of the Navy determined in writing that all sessions of the meetings must be closed to the public because they were concerned with matters listed in 5 U.S.C. section 552b(c)(1) and (4).
Due to an unavoidable delay in administrative processing, the 15 days advance notice could not be provided.
Department of Education.
The 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 April 22, 2004.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Melanie Kadlic, Desk Officer, 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,
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 Joe Schubart at his e-mail address
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.269A.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Because there are no program specific regulations for the Institute for International Public Policy Program, applicants are encouraged to read the authorizing statute in sections 621-628 of part C, Title VI, of the HEA.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
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 a copy of the application package in an alternative format (
2.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions. However, you may single space all text in charts, tables, figures and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12-point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10-point font in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
The page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract or the appendices. However, you must include your complete response to the selection criteria in the application narrative.
We will reject your application if—
• You apply these standards and exceed the page limit; or
• You apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit.
3.
The dates and times for the transmittal of applications by mail or by hand (including a courier service or commercial carrier) are in the application package for this program. The application package also specifies the hours of operation of the e-Application Web site.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
4.
5.
6.
Some of the procedures in these instructions for transmitting applications differ from those in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) (34 CFR 75.102). Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, these amendments make procedural changes only and do not establish new substantive policy. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the Secretary has determined that proposed rulemaking is not required.
We are requiring that applications for grants under Institute for International Public Policy—CFDA Number 269A be submitted electronically using the Electronic Grant Application System (e-
If you are unable to submit an application through the e-GRANTS system, you may submit a written request for a waiver of the electronic submission requirement. In your request, you should explain the reason or reasons that prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application. Address your request to: Tanyelle Richardson, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 6017, Washington, DC 20006-8521. Please submit your request no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
If, within two weeks of the application deadline date, you are unable to submit an application electronically, you must submit a paper application by the application deadline date in accordance with the transmittal instructions in the application package. The paper application must include a written request for a waiver documenting the reasons that prevented you from using the Internet to submit your application.
Pilot Project for Electronic Submission of Applications: We are continuing to expand our pilot project for electronic submission of applications to include additional formula grant programs and additional discretionary grant competitions. Institute for International Public Policy—CFDA Number 269A is one of the programs included in the pilot project. If you are an applicant under Institute for International Public Policy you must submit your application to us in electronic format or receive a waiver.
The pilot project involves the use of e-Application. If you use e-Application, you will be entering data online while completing your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. The data you enter online will be saved into a database. We shall continue to evaluate the success of e-Application and solicit suggestions for its improvement.
If you participate in e-Application, please note the following:
• When you enter the e-Application system, you will find information about its hours of operation. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to initiate an e-Application package.
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit a grant application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you submit an application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including the Application for Federal Education Assistance (ED 424), Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524) and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• Your e-Application must comply with any page limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement, which will include a PR/Award number (an identifying number unique to your application).
• Within three working days after submitting your electronic application, fax a signed copy of the application for Federal Education assistance (ED 424) to the Application Control Center after following these steps:
1. Print ED 424 from e-Application.
2. The institution's Authorizing Representative must sign this form.
3. Place the PR/Award number in the upper right hand corner of the hard copy signature page of the ED 424.
4. Fax the signed ED 424 to the Application Control Center at (202) 260-1349.
• We may request that you give us original signatures on other forms at a later date.
Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of System Unavailability: If you are prevented from submitting your application on the application deadline date because the e-Application system is unavailable, we will grant you an extension of one business day in order to transmit your application electronically, by mail, or by hand delivery. We will grant this extension if—
1. You are a registered user of e-Application and you have initiated an e-Application for this competition; and
2. (a) The e-Application system is unavailable for 60 minutes or more between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date; or
(b) The e-Application system is unavailable for any period of time during the last hour of operation (that is, for any period of time between 3:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time) on the application deadline date.
We must acknowledge and confirm these periods of unavailability before granting you an extension. To request this extension or to confirm our acknowledgement of any system unavailability, you may contact either (1) the person listed elsewhere in this notice under For Further Information Contact (
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
Take notice that on March 10, 2004, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets:
Columbia Gulf states that it is making this filing to comply with the Commission's January 26, 2004, Order (January 26 Order) in the above referenced docket.
Columbia Gulf states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all firm customers, interrptible customers, and affected state commissions.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on March 10, 2004, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets, to become effective April 10, 2004:
El Paso states that the tariff sheets implement the pro forma incremental fuel charge provisions accepted by the Commission applicable to El Paso's Bondad Expansion Facilities.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.211 of the Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on March 10, 2004, MIGC, Inc. (MIGC) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No.1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective May 1, 2004:
MIGC asserts that the purpose of this filing is to update MIGC's tariff to combine revisions which were previously approved in separate proceedings, and to incorporate the correction of a minor word processing error. MIGC states that these proposed
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on March 11, 2004, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Original Sheet No. 26D.04, to be effective April 1, 2004.
Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to implement two new negotiated rate transactions entered into by Natural and Nicor Gas Company, under Natural's Rate Schedule FTS pursuant to Section 49 of the General Terms and Conditions of Natural's Tariff.
Natural states that copies of the filing has been mailed to all parties on the Commission's official service list in Docket No. RP99-176.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
On February 27, 2004, the Commission issued an order in the above captioned docket requesting briefs on a jurisdictional issue raised by Texaco Petrochemical Pipeline's proposal to cancel its tariff for the transportation of ethylene.
Take notice that on March 10, 2004, Trailblazer Pipeline Company (Trailblazer) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective March 1, 2004:
Trailblazer states that the purpose of this filing is to implement lower rates for Trailblazer consistent with an Offer of Settlement and Stipulation and Agreement filed by Trailblazer on September 22, 2003 in Docket No. RP03-162, as approved by a Commission Order issued January 23, 2004 106 FERC 61,034. Trailblazer states that the lower rates will be effective March 1, 200. Trailblazer explains that this filing supersedes a similar filing made by Trailblazer on February 27, 2004, reflecting that the Settlement is no longer contested as of March 1, 2004.
Trailblazer states that copies of the filing are being mailed to all parties on the service list, Trailblazer's customers, and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that on March 11, 2004, WPS-ESI Gas Storage, LLC filed an application, pursuant to § 284.224 of the Commission's regulations, as a Hinshaw natural gas storage entity in Michigan not subject to Commission jurisdiction by reason of section 1(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). WPS-ESI Gas Storage requests a blanket certificate authorizing it to engage in the transportation or sale of natural gas that is subject to the Commission's NGA jurisdiction to the same extent that and in the same manner that intrastate pipelines are authorized to engage in such activities, transactions and services by Part 284, subparts C and D of the regulations. WPS-ESI Gas Storage also applies for authorization to charge market-based, firm and interruptible rates for such services because it asserts that it lacks the necessary market power in performing gas storage services to be able to charge rates in excess of amounts that its competitors charge for comparable storage services in the relevant market (or which that market would pay for alternatives for storage) for a significant period of time.
WPS-ESI Gas Storage explains that it owns and operates the Kimball 27 Gas Storage Field, which is an underground Niagaran gas reservoir storage facility with a working gas capacity of 3.049 Bcf that is located in St. Clair County, Michigan. WPS-ESI Gas Storage presently provides storage services at Kimball 27 subject to regulation by the Michigan Public Service Commission.
WPS-ESI Gas Storage states that a copy of this filing has been served on the interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.214 or § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on March 9, 2004, Salmon River Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Salmon River) filed a request for waiver of the requirements of Order No. 888, Order No. 889, Order No. 2003, and Order No. 2004 pursuant to 18 CFR 35.28(d) and (f) and 358.1(d) and of the Commission's regulations. Salmon River also requests waiver of 18 CFR 35.28(d)(ii) and 35.28(f)(3)(ii)'s 60-day notice requirement. Salmon River states that their filings are available for public inspection at its offices in Challis, Idaho.
Take notice that on March 9, 2004, Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (SET) tendered for filing an amendment to SET's market-based rate tariff to include the market behavior rules adopted by the Commission in its order amending market-based rate tariff's and authorizations,
Take notice that on March 3, 2004, Sierra Pacific Power Company (Sierra) tendered for filing revisions to the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement No. 2 between Sierra and Mt. Wheeler Power, Inc., designated as Supplement No. 2 to Rate Schedule FERC No. 33. Sierra states that the proposed revisions consist of additional language to permit Sierra to interconnect a wind project generator to Mt. Wheeler's Gondor 230kV substation bus. Sierra has requested that the Commission accept the amendment and permit service in accordance therewith effective November 1, 2003.
Take notice that on March 9, 2004, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) tendered for filing a Letter Agreement between SCE and the Blythe Energy, LLC (Blythe Energy). SCE states that the purpose of the Letter Agreement is to provide an interim arrangement pursuant to which SCE will commence the required biological and cultural studies and certain other tasks required to prepare an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the California Public
SCE states that copies of this filing were served upon the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California and Blythe Energy.
Take notice that on March 9, 2004, Milford Power Company, LLC (Milford Power) tendered for filing an amendment to its market based rate tariff to provide for sales of ancillary services, reassignment of transmission capacity and resales of firm transmission rights. Milford Power requests waiver of the notice requirements of 18 CFR 5.3 to permit an effective date of March 10, 2004.
Take notice that on March 9, 2004, Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc. (Soyland) tendered for filing with the Commission proposed changes to its Rate Schedule A, designated as Supplement No. 2 to its Rate Schedules. Soyland requests an effective date of January 1, 2004, for the proposed change to its Rate Schedule A. Soyland also requests a waiver of the Commission's regulations. Soyland states that Rate Schedule A is the formulary rate under which Soyland recovers the costs associated with its service to its Members pursuant to the Wholesale Power Contract that Soyland has with each Member.
Take notice that on March 9, 2004, Salmon River Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Salmon River) filed with the Commission, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824d, and part 35 of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part 35, (1) Pole Replacement and Back-up Agreement between Salmon River and Bonneville Power Administration Transmission Business Line designated as Rate Schedule FERC No. 1; (2) Joint Use Agreement between Salmon River and Lost River Electric Cooperative designated as Rate Schedule FERC No. 2; (3) Maintenance and Back-up Agreement between Salmon River and Bonneville Power Administration designated as Rate Schedule FERC No. 3; (4) two Electric Service Agreements for Transmission Services between Salmon River and Lois von Morganroth designated as Rate Schedules FERC Nos. 4 and 5; and (5) Operation and Maintenance Agreement between Salmon River and Cyprus Thompson Creek Mining Company designated as Rate Schedule FERC No. 6. Salmon River requests that the Commission grant all waivers necessary to allow the rate schedules to have effective dates retroactive to the effective date of the service agreement or to the date Salmon River became subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, as applicable. Salmon River states that its filing is available for public inspection at its offices in Challis, Idaho.
Salmon River states that a copy of the filing was served upon Salmon River's customers subject to the Rate Schedules and the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification.
Take notice that on March 11, 2004, Commonwealth Energy Corporation (Commonwealth) and Commerce Energy Group, Inc. (Commerce Energy) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) for Commission authorization to implement the intra-corporate reorganization described more fully in the application, and for expedited action.
Take notice that on March 12, 2004, Midwest Generation, LLC; Nesbitt Asset Recovery, Series C-1; Nesbitt Asset Recovery, Series C-2; Nesbitt Asset Recovery, Series C-3; and Nesbitt Asset Recovery, Series C-4 (collectively, the Applicants) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization of the disposition of jurisdictional facilities in connection with the termination of a sale and leaseback transaction involving the Collins Generating Station, a 2,698-MW generating plant located in Morris, Illinois.
Take notice that on March 12, 2004, MSW Energy Holdings LLC, MSW Acquisition LLC, United American Energy Holdings Corp., Highstar Renewable Fuels LLC, Highstar Renewable Fuels I LLC and Highstar Renewable Fuels II LLC (collectively, the Applicants) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization of a disposition of jurisdictional facilities whereby the Applicants would affect a change in control over the American Ref-Fuel Company of Essex County, American Ref-Fuel Company of Hempstead, American Ref-Fuel Company of Delaware Valley, L.P., the SEMASS Partnership ARC Project Companies and UAE Mecklenburg Cogeneration L.P.
Take notice that on March 11, 2004, Union Power Partners, L.P. (UPP) tendered for filing its triennial market power analysis in compliance with the Commission orders granting UPP market-based rate authority.
UPP states that copies of this filing were served upon those parties on the official service list in Docket No. ER01-930.
Take notice that on March 11, 2004, Panda Gila River, L.P. (Gila River) tendered for filing its triennial market power analysis in compliance with the Commission Orders granting Gila River market-based rate authority.
Gila River states that copies of this filing were served upon those parties on the official service list in Docket No. ER01-931.
Take notice that on March 11, 2004, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO) submitted a filing in compliance with the Commission's Order on Proposed Tariff Amendment No. 54 issued on October 22, 2003, in Docket No. ER03-1046-003, 105 FERC ¶61,091.
The ISO states that it has served copies of this filing upon all entities that are on the official service list for the docket.
Take notice that on March 12, 2004, The Dayton Power and Light Company (Dayton), on behalf of Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (CG&E) and Columbus Southern Power Company (CSP) (together CCD) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commiision's letter order issued February 11, 2004, in Docket Nos. ER04-77-000 and 001.
Take notice that on March 11, 2004, the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Participants Committee submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's order issued January 28, 2004, in
The NEPOOL Participants Committee states that copies of these materials were sent to the NEPOOL Participants, Non-Participant Transmission Customers and the New England state governors and regulatory commissions.
Take notice that on March 11, 2004, PacifiCorp submitted for filing a refund report pursuant to Section 35.19a of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 35.19a (2003), and a Commission order issued on February 4, 2004, in Docket No. ER04-287-000.
Take notice that on March 10, 2004, American Transmission Systems, Incorporated (ATSI) tendered for filing an amendment to their March 4, 2004, filing in Docket No. ER04-618-000.
Take notice that on March 10, 2004, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) tendered for filing a Construction and Interconnection Agreement between PNM and the City of Farmington, New Mexico (Farmington), designated as Service Agreement No. 222 under PNM Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 4, to provide for the construction and interconnection of facilities necessary to interconnect Farmington(s proposed 230 kV transmission line from an associated (Farmington owned) 230/115 kV substation to the San Juan Generating Station 230 kV transmission switchyard (jointly owned by PNM and Tucson Electric Power Company), located in northwestern New Mexico.
PNM states that copies of the filing have been sent to Farmington, the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, and the New Mexico Attorney General.
Take notice that on March 10, 2004, American Transmission Systems, Incorporated (ATSI), filed an Agreement for Construction, Operation, Modification and Compensation of Delivery Point with the City of Cleveland. ATSI requests an effective date for the agreement of March 1, 2004.
ATSI states that copies of this filing have been served on the City of Cleveland, the Midwest ISO, and the public utility commissions of Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on March 10, 2004, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL Electric) filed Interconnection Agreements between PPL Electric and the following Pennsylvania Boroughs: Borough of Blakely, Borough of Catawissa, Borough of Duncannon, Borough of Hatfield, Borough of Lansdale, Borough of Lehighton, Borough of Mifflinburg, Borough of Olyphant, Borough of Quakertown, Borough of St. Clair, Borough of Schuylkill Haven, Borough of Watsontown and Borough of Weatherly (the Boroughs).
PPL Electric has served a copy of this filing on each of the Boroughs.
Take notice that on March 10, 2004, Praxair Plainfield, Inc. (Plainfield) filed an application requesting acceptance of its proposed Market-Based Rate Tariff (Tariff), waiver of certain regulations, and blanket approvals. Plainfield requested authorization to engage in
On March 10, 2004, NorthWestern Energy, a division of NorthWestern Corporation, filed with the Commission pursuant to sections 35.3 and 35.13 of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 35.3 and 35.13, an amendment to its Rate Schedule WS-1 which (1) reflects the name change from Northwestern Public Service Company to NorthWestern Energy and other designation requirements of Order No. 614, and (2) adds a termination date of 11:59 p.m. January 5, 2008.
Take notice that on March 12, 2004, NYSD Limited Partnership, (NYSD) Warrensburg Hydro Power Limited Partnership, Sissonville Limited Partnership, and Adirondack Hydro-Fourth Branch, LLC, pursuant to section 35.15, 18 CFR 35.15 (2003), of the Commission's regulations, filed with the Commission a Notice of Cancellation of market-based rate authority under each applicant's FERC Electric Tariff No. 1, effective October 1, 2003.
Take notice that on March 11, 2004, Entergy Services, Inc., (collectively, Entergy) on behalf of the Entergy Operating Companies, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc. (collectively, Entergy) filed revisions to the Transmission Service Rate formulas under Entergy's Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Entergy states that it has mailed a copy of this filing to each of its transmission customers.
Take notice that on March 11, 2004, Total Gas & Electricity, Inc. (Total) tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation of its Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to be effective March 1, 2004.
Take notice that on March 11, 2004, Total Gas & Electricity, Inc. (Total) tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation of its Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to be effective March 1, 2004.
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
As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on February 18, 2004, a technical conference will be held on March 19, 2004, to discuss with states and market participants in the SPP region reasonable timetables for RTO development activities to benefit customers within the region. Members of the Commission will attend and participate in the discussion.
The conference will focus on the issues identified in the agenda, which is appended to this notice as Attachment A. However, participants/stakeholders may present their views on other important issues that relate to the development of the Regional Transmission Organization.
The conference will begin at 9 a.m. Central Time and will adjourn at about 1 p.m. Central Time. The conference will be held at the Hyatt Regency DFW, inside the Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport in Dallas, Texas. This conference is open for the public to attend, and registration is not required; however, in-person attendees are asked to register for the conference on-line by close of business on Wednesday, March 17 at
Transcripts of the conference will be immediately available from Ace Reporting Company (202-347-3700 or 1-800-336-6646) for a fee. They will be available for the public on the Commission's “eLibrary” seven calendar days after FERC receives the transcript. Additionally, Capitol Connection offers the opportunity to remotely listen to the conference via the Internet or a Phone Bridge Connection for a fee. Interested persons should make arrangements as soon as possible by visiting the Capitol Connection Web site at
For more information about the conference, please contact Sarah McKinley at (202) 502-8004 or
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
March 24, 2004, 10 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Open.
Agenda.
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400. For a recording listing items stricken from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all papers relevant to the items on the agenda; however, all public documents may be examined in the Reference and Information Center.
OR00-10, 000,
OR98-1, 000,
OR00-9, 000,
The Capitol Connection offers the opportunity for remote listening and viewing of the meeting. It is available for a fee, live over the Internet, via C-Band Satellite. Persons interested in receiving the broadcast, or who need information on making arrangements should contact David Reininger or Julia Morelli at the Capitol Connection (703-993-3100) as soon as possible or visit the Capitol Connection Web site at
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. No. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
March 24, 2004 (Within a relatively short time after the regular Commission Meeting).
Room 3M 4A/B, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Closed.
Non-Public Investigations and Inquiries, Enforcement Related Matters, and Security of Regulated Facilities.
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. Telephone (202) 502-8400.
Chairman Wood and Commissioners Brownell, Kelliher, and Kelly voted to hold a closed meeting on March 24, 2004. The certification of the General Counsel explaining the action closed the meeting is available for public inspection in the Commission's Public Reference Room at 888 First Street NW., Washington, DC 20426.
The Chairman and the Commissioners, their assistants, the Commission's Secretary and her assistant, the General Counsel and members of her staff, and a stenographer are expected to attend the meeting. Other staff members from the Commission's program offices who will advise the Commissioners in the matters discussed will also be present.
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of exempt and prohibited off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive an exempt or prohibited off-the-record communication relevant to the merit's of a contested on-the-record proceeding, to deliver a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication, to the Secretary.
Prohibited communications will be included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications will be included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of prohibited and exempt communications recently received in the Office of the Secretary. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act(44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before May 24, 2004.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OAR-2004-0016, to EPA online using EDocket (our preferred method), by e-mail to “
A. Scott Voorhees, Ph.D., Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C304-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-541-5348; fax number: 919-541-5509; e-mail address:
The EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OAR-2004-0016, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets(EDOCKET) at
Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice. The EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket,
Pursuant to regulations promulgated by EPA on February 19, 1999 (64 FR 8247), EPA has authority to establish part 71 programs within Indian Country, and EPA began administering the program in Indian country on March 22, 1999. Since many Indian tribes lack the resources and capacity to develop operating permit programs, EPA is currently administering and enforcing part 71 programs in the areas that comprise Indian Country in order to protect the air quality of areas under tribal jurisdiction.
The EPA intends to protect tribal air quality through the development of implementation plans, permits programs, and other means, including direct assistance to tribes in developing comprehensive and effective air quality management programs. The EPA will consult with tribes to identify their particular needs for air program development assistance and will provide ongoing assistance as necessary.
The EPA will also issue permits to “outer continental shelf” (OCS) sources (sources located in offshore waters of the United States) pursuant to the requirements of section 328(a) of the Act. For sources beyond 25 miles (40 km) of the States' seaward boundaries, EPA is the permitting authority, and the provisions of part 71 will apply to the permitting of those OCS sources. Permits for sources located within 25 miles of a State's seaward boundaries are issued by the Administrator (or a State or local agency which has been delegated the OCS program in accordance with 40 CFR part 55 of this chapter) pursuant to the part 70 or part 71 program which is effective in the corresponding onshore area.
Investigation of the OCS ICR indicates currently there are only two OCS sources which fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal program. There are approximately 95 sources in Indian Country that require part 71 permits.
The EPA has the authority to establish a partial part 71 program in limited geographical areas of a State if EPA has approved a part 70 program (or combination of part 70 programs) for the remaining areas of the State. The EPA will promulgate a part 71 program for a permitting authority if EPA finds that a permitting authority is not adequately administering or enforcing its approved program and it fails to correct the deficiencies that precipitated EPA's finding.
The EPA may use part 71 in its entirety or any portion of the regulations as needed. Similarly, EPA may use only portions of the regulations to correct and issue a State permit without, for example, requiring an entirely new application. Section 71.4(f) also authorizes EPA to exercise its discretion in designing a part 71 program. The EPA may promulgate a part 71 program based on the national template described in part 71 or may modify the national template by adopting appropriate portions of a State's program as part of the Federal program for that State, provided the resulting program is consistent with the requirements of title V.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
The EPA would like to solicit comments to:
(i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act(44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before May 24, 2004.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OAR-2004-0015, to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to “
Grecia Castro, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C304-04, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1351; fax number: (919) 541-5509; e-mail address:
The EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OAR-2004-0015, which is available for public viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at
Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice. The EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket,
In implementing title V of the Act and EPA's part 70 operating permits regulations, State and local permitting agencies must develop programs and submit them to EPA for approval (section 502(d)) and sources subject to the program must develop operating permit applications and submit them to the permitting authority within 1 year after program approval (section 503). Permitting authorities will then issue permits (section 503(c)) and thereafter enforce, revise, and renew those permits at no more than 5-year intervals (section 502(d)). Permit applications and proposed permits will be provided to, and are subject to review by, EPA (section 505(a)). All information submitted by a source and the issued permit shall also be available for public review except for confidential information which will be protected from disclosure (section 503(e)). Sources will semi-annually submit compliance monitoring reports to the permitting authorities (section 504(a)). The EPA has the responsibility to oversee implementation of the program and to administer a Federal operating permits program in the event a program is not approved for a State (section 502(d)(3)) or if EPA determines the permitting authority is not adequately administering its approved program (section 502(i)(4)). The activities to carry out these tasks are considered mandatory and necessary for implementation of title V and the proper operation of the operating permits program. This notice provides updated burden estimates from a previously approved ICR. An agency may not
The EPA would like to solicit comments to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The burden hours breakout will be around 1.1 million hours for 112 permitting authorities and about 4 million hours for 17,626 sources. The costs break out to be 40.7 million dollars per year for 112 permitting authorities and 130 million dollars per year for 17,626 sources. During the period of this ICR, permitting authorities (in addition to general administration of the program) primarily will be issuing the remaining permits required by the program (around 1,300), processing revisions for permits that have already been issued, renewing permits whose 5-year terms will expire, and reviewing semiannual, or more frequent, monitoring reports and annual compliance certifications for issued permits. Sources in the part 70 program primarily will be interacting with the permitting authority on permit issuance, be it an initial permit, renewal permit or permit revision; preparing applications for permit renewal or for revisions, as needed; preparing semiannual, or more frequent, monitoring and deviation reports, and annual compliance certification reports; and carrying out periodic monitoring that was created as a result of the program.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has authorized its contractor Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI), of Columbus, Ohio, access to information which has been submitted to EPA under sections 4, 5, 6, 8(a), 11, and 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).
Access to the confidential data will occur no sooner than March 30, 2004.
Colby Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address:
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under TSCA. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at
Under Contract Number EP-W-04-020, BMI of 505 King Avenue, Columbus, OH, will assist EPA in statistical and technical support for the assessment of toxic substances. BMI will also provide statistical, mathematical, high production volume, field data collection and technical analysis support and planning for EPA's Office
Under Contract Number EP-W-04-021, BMI of 505 King Avenue, Columbus, OH, will assist EPA in statistical and technical support for the assessment of toxic substances. BMI will also provide statistical, mathematical, field data collection, physical testing, technical analysis support, and planning for OPPT programs, such as Lead Programs and other technology and exposure-related studies.
In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under Contract Numbers EP-W-04-020 and EP-W-04-021, BMI will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under sections 4, 5, 6, 8(a), 11, and 21 of TSCA, to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract.
BMI personnel will be given information submitted to EPA under sections 4, 5, 6, 8(a), 11, and 21 of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.
EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under sections 4, 5, 6, 8(a), 11, and 21 of TSCA, that the Agency may provide BMI access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under these contracts will take place at EPA Headquarters and BMI's site located at 505 King Avenue, Columbus, OH. BMI personnel will be required to adhere to all provisions of EPA's
Clearance for access to TSCA CBI under Contract Numbers EP-W-04-020 and EP-W-04-021 may continue until March 2, 2009. Access will commence no sooner than March 30, 2004.
BMI personnel have signed nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.
Environmental protection, Confidential business information.
Region 6 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Issuance of Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
EPA Region 6 is preparing an EIS on the proposed Mississippi River Reintroduction Into Bayou Lafourche project. The proposed project is intended to enhance freshwater flows in Bayou Lafourche to nourish and protect marshes of the Barataria and Terrebonne Basins and meet human water supply needs. EPA has determined that the proposed multiple use and multiple benefit wetlands restoration effort is a Major Federal Action significantly affecting the human environment. The purpose of the EIS is to provide information and analysis for decisions on the project in accordance with the policies and purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA), Pub. L. 101-646, provides funding for projects intended to restore and protect sensitive Louisiana coastal areas and establishes a multi-agency task force to consider, develop, and implement such projects. The Mississippi River Reintroduction Into Bayou Lafourche is one such proposed project. The EPA is designated the Federal member of the CWPPRA Task Force to carry out the project. As proposed, the project would significantly increase the flow of water from the Mississippi River into Bayou Lafourche, historically a natural distributary channel of the River. By human action, the Bayou was cut off from the River with construction of the existing flood protection levee. Over time, it was recognized that precipitation alone into the bayou system was not adequate to meet the human or natural ecosystem needs. The project proposes to significantly increase Mississippi River water flow through a structure constructed through or over the flood protection levee of the River at Donaldsonville, Louisiana. The water would then flow down the bayou and connected waterways toward the Gulf of Mexico and into adjacent wetlands, increasing input of freshwater, nutrients and some sediments. Portions of the Ascension, Assumption, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes are included in the proposed project area. The proposed project also includes installation of emergency water level management measures in the bayou such as inflatable weirs. Drainage systems associated with the bayou will be analyzed for impacts. Evaluation studies carried out for use in project development included alternative water sources; existing bayou conditions and basic reintroduction scenarios; surveys of elevations and cross-sections; hydrologic modeling of flows and of salinity; baseline ecological field studies; surveys of flora and fauna of bayou; transportation and utilities infrastructure; potential dredging options; value-engineering study; and cost evaluations. Impacts on the natural and the human environment, including economics and culture, will be evaluated in the EIS.
The estimated date for release of the Draft EIS is Fall, 2005. EPA will publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the
Ms. Jeanene Peckham,U.S. EPA, Water Quality Protection Division Field Office, 707 Florida Blvd, Suite B-21, Baton Rouge, LA, 70801. Telephone: 225-389-0736; or e-mail:
Environmental Protection Agency.
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 which includes compromise of past response costs incurred in connection with the Amber Oil site in Milwaukee, Wisconsin with the following settling parties: Ametek, Inc.; Arvin Meritor, Inc.; A-C Compressor, Corp.; Besly Products Corporation; Carlson Tool and Manufacturing Corp.; Charter Wire Div of Charter Manufacturing; Detroit Edge Tool Co.; Eco-Tech of Milwaukee, Inc.; Elenco Carbide Tool Corporation; Emerson Electric Co.; EOG Environmental, Inc.; Everbrite, LLC; The Falk Corporation; Graco Inc.; General Portable Products LLC (Briggs & Stratton Power Products LLC); Hafemeister Machine Corp.; Helgesen Industries; Ingersoll Equipment Co. Inc.; International Paper; International Truck and Engine Corporation; INX International Ink Co.; J&L Fiber Services, Inc.; Karl Schmidt Unisia, Inc.; Kettle Moraine Coatings, Inc.; Kingsbury, Inc.; Madison Kipp Corp; Manitowoc; Manitowoc Tool & Manufacturing; Menasha Corporation; Mercury Marine; The Metal Ware Corporation; Miller Brewing Company; Neenah Foundry Company; Nordco; Oshkosh Marine Supply Company; Oshkosh Truck Corporation; Peterson Industries LLC; Pierce Manufacturing Inc.; Precision Gears, Inc.; Regal-Beloit Corporation; Rietschle Thomas; Rollex Corporation; Rollmeister, Inc.; Seats, Inc.; Simplicity Manufacturing, Inc.; Sta-Rite Industries, Inc.; Stroh Die Casting Co., Inc.; Triangle Tool Corporation; Tulip Corporation; Union Pacific Railroad; Valleycast, Inc.; Vilter Manufacturing Corporation; The Vollrath Co., LLC; Waukesha Electric Systems, Inc.; and Weasler Engineering Inc. The settlement requires the settling parties to perform a removal action at the site estimated to cost approximately $900,000, and reimburse U.S. EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund for $15,000 of U.S. EPA's costs incurred before March 31, 2003, its costs incurred since April 1, 2003 to the signing of the consent order, and the cost of U.S. EPA to oversee the clean-up by the fifty-five settling parties. Past costs (U.S. EPA costs incurred prior to April 1, 2003) in the amount of $155,591 are being compromised in consideration of the settling parties' commitment to perform the removal and pay the costs described above. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling parties pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). For thirty (30) days following 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 U.S. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the site record repository in the West Allis Public Library, 7421 West Nation Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and at the U.S. EPA Record Center, Room 714, U.S. EPA, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois.
Comments must be submitted to U.S. EPA on or before April 22, 2004.
The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at the U.S. EPA Record Center, Room 714, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from U.S. EPA Record Center, Room 714, U.S. EPA, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois or by calling tel. # (312)-353-5821. Comments should reference the Amber Oil site in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and EPA Docket No. V-W-'04-C-780 and should be addressed to Mr. Jerome Kujawa, U.S. EPA Office of Regional Counsel (C-14J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Mr. Jerome Kujawa, U.S. EPA Office of Regional Counsel (C-14J) at 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604 or at tel.#(312)-886-6731.
Notice of meeting.
This notice sets forth an announcement of a public workshop on Laboratory Biosecurity: A Culture of Responsibility, and describes the purpose of the workshop.
• What information should be contained in a BMBL chapter on biosecurity in order to provide sufficient guidance to assess biosecurity risk and develop a risk-management plan?
• What do you need in the way of outreach to facilitate putting a biosecurity program in place?
• Does your facility feel confident to implement risk management decisions?
• What, in your institution, is the best way to conduct biosecurity training and what should it consist of?
• What is the role for Institutional Biosafety Committees in biosecurity at your facility?
• To what extent has the cost of implementing biosecurity procedures had an impact on your facility/institution? Do existing facilities make retrofitting to accommodate biosecurity difficult? Have you found alternative methods to achieve compliance?
• What personnel requirements are applied toward biosecurity at your facility? Are these measures appropriate for small institutions? Do you have suggestions for compliance guidance in this area?
• Can you provide examples of how low cost measures have been put in place that have precluded the need for “high-tech” solutions? An example might be a protocol for assuring personnel reliability, instead of mounting and monitoring cameras.)
• How best can biosecurity measures be instituted in clinical microbiological labs so as to avoid interfering with patient care?
• What have been the positive impacts of biosecurity implementation in your institution?
• What have been the negative impacts of biosecurity implementation in your institution?
• If you represent a company that has not yet incorporated biosecurity as part of its overall business plan, how difficult would it be to do so, and how would it impact business planning and intellectual property protection?
The public comment time is designed for substantive commentary on the successes and challenges of biosecurity implementation at laboratory facilities. Please submit a request for the opportunity to make an oral public comment five (5) days in advance of the meeting. The time for oral public comments will be limited to no more than 5 minutes per person. Written comments are also welcome and will be distributed at the meeting if provided electronically at least five (5) days in advance of the meeting. Please submit your request to make an oral comment or copy of written comments to: Rachel E. Levinson, OSTP, at
For further information, please call (202) 456-6130, prior to 3 p.m. on Friday, April 9, 2004. Please note that public seating for this meeting is limited and is available on a first-come, first-served basis.
The publication entitled, “Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories,” better known as the BMBL, is a publication of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that outlines recommended safety practices for research and clinical laboratories and research animal facilities. It describes the combinations of standard and special microbiological practices, safety equipment, and facilities constituting Biosafety Levels 1-4, which are recommended for work with a variety of infectious agents in various laboratory settings. The recommendations in the BMBL are advisory. They are intended to provide a voluntary guide or code of practice as well as goals for upgrading operations. They also are offered as a guide and reference in the construction of new laboratory facilities and in the renovation of existing facilities.
The most current version, the Fourth Edition, was published in May 1999. The 4th edition of the BMBL was the first edition to address laboratory security concerns. Appendix F of the BMBL was updated in December 2002 to provide assistance to facility managers with meeting the Select Agent regulatory mandate of 42 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 73. These guidelines are intended for laboratories where select agents are used. Appendix F (Dec. 2002) provides a summary of issues that should be considered when evaluating laboratory security in facilities that utilize Select Agents. An electronic copy of the BMBL 4thed. is available at:
In September 2003, CDC and NIH initiated efforts to update the BMBL. This revision process occurs every 5-years extending over an 18-24 month period. Completion of the 5th edition is anticipated by Summer 2005. This new edition will include for the first time a chapter on biosecurity.
This workshop is an opportunity for the public to provide input into the chapter on biosecurity, as well as an appendix providing supplementary information related to select agents. Public comments on the successes and challenges in implementing biosecurity will be taken into consideration when drafting the new chapter.
Notice of a partially open meeting of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Thursday, April 1, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.
Extension of Ex-Im Bank's Environmental Procedures & Guidelines and the Nuclear Procedures & Guidelines.
The meeting will be open to the public participation for Item No. 1 only.
Office of the Secretary, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571 (Tele. No. 202-565-3957).
This is to provide notice of filing and to invite comments on or before April 2, 2004, with regard to the Petition described below.
FedEx Trade Networks Transport & Brokerage, Inc. (“Petitioner”) has petitioned, pursuant to Section 16 of the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. app. § 1715, for an exemption from the tariff publishing and adherence requirements of the Shipping Act in order to permit Petitioner to depart from the provisions of its tariff and enter into confidential agreements for ocean transportation services with shippers.
In order for the Commission to make a thorough evaluation of the Petition, interested persons are requested to submit comments on the Petition no later than April 2, 2004. Comments on this Petition shall consist of an original and 15 copies, be directed to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001, and be served on Petitioner's counsel
The Petition will be posted on the Commission's homepage at
Interested parties may also make oral presentations in this proceeding. At the discretion of individual Commissioners, interested persons may request one-on-one meetings at which they may make presentations describing their views on the Petition. All meetings shall be completed before the close of the comment period. A summary or transcript of each oral presentation will be included in the record and must be submitted to the Secretary of the Commission within 5 days of the meeting. Persons wishing to make oral presentations should contact the Office of the Secretary to secure contact names and numbers for individual Commissioners.
Comments submitted in response to this Notice shall be limited to the merits of this Petition. Commenters shall not use this as an opportunity to submit further comments or replies to Petition Nos. P3-03, P5-03, P7-03, P8-03, P9-03, P1-04 and P2-04 or any replies thereto. The comment period in these petitions is closed and the Commission's rules at 46 CFR 502.74 prohibit replies to replies.
Parties participating in this proceeding may elect to receive service of the Commission's issuances in this proceeding through e-mail in lieu of service by U.S. mail. A party opting for electronic service shall advise the Office of the Secretary in writing and provide an e-mail address where service can be made. Such request should be directed to
10 a.m.—March 31, 2004.
800 North Capitol Street, NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.
A portion of the meeting will be open to the public and the remainder of the meeting will be closed.
The open portion of the meeting:
1.
The closed portion of the meeting:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary, (202) 523-5725.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than April 6, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 17, 2004.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 16, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 17, 2004.
Federal Trade Commission
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint that accompanies the consent agreement and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before April 16, 2004.
Comments filed in paper form should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments filed in electronic form should be directed to:
Heather Hippsley or Shira Modell, FTC, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3285 or 326-3116.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 17, 2004), on the World Wide Web, at
Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. Comments filed in paper form should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If a comment contains nonpublic information, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “confidential.” Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form (in ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft Word) as part of or as an attachment to email messages directed to the following e-mail box:
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Creative Health Institute, Inc., and Kyl L. Smith, individually and as an officer of the corporation.
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter involves practices relating to the advertising and promotion of Focus Factor, a dietary supplement containing, among other things, vitamins, minerals, botanicals, and amino acids. Marketing materials for Focus Factor claimed that the product enhanced brain function and improved the focus, memory, mood, concentration, and energy of children, adults, and seniors.
According to the FTC complaint, the respondents failed to have substantiation for their claims that Focus Factor: (a) Improves the focus, memory, and concentration of healthy adults; (b) alleviates stress and combats the fatigue, irritability and mood swings that healthy adults experience; (c) makes children and teenagers feel more alert, focused, and mentally sharp; (d) improves students' ability to concentrate and their academic performance; (e) improves senior citizens' memory, mental clarity, and energy; (f) improves adults' ability to absorb information in books and to recall facts, figures and names; and (g) works in as little as one to ten days.
The complaint also alleges that the respondents failed to disclose that certain of the endorsers who appeared in advertising for Focus Factor had material connections with the product.
The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent the respondents from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future.
Part I of the order prohibits claims that Focus Factor or any substantially similar product (defined as any ingestible dietary supplement containing one or more specified ingredients): (a) Improves the focus, memory, and concentration of healthy adults; (b) alleviates stress, fatigue, irritability and mood swings in healthy adults; (c) makes children and teenagers feel more alert, focused, and mentally sharp; (d) improves students' ability to concentrate and their academic performance; (e) improves senior citizens' memory, mental clarity, and energy; (f) improves adults' ability to absorb information in books and to recall facts, figures and names; or (g) works in as little as one to ten days, unless the claims are substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence.
Part II requires that the respondents possess competent and reliable scientific evidence to support any future claims about the benefits, performance, or efficacy of any food, drug, or dietary supplement for: (a) The brain or any
Part III requires disclosure of any material connection that exists between an endorser and the respondents or any other person or entity involved in marketing or selling the food, drug or dietary supplement that is the subject of the endorsement.
Part IV permits any representation for any product that is permitted in labeling for such product by the FDA pursuant to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, and any representation for any drug that is permitted in labeling for such drug under any tentative or final standard promulgated by the FDA or under any new drug application approved by the FDA.
Part V states that nothing in the order shall be constituted as a waiver of the respondents' rights to engage in speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Part VI provides for the payment of $60,000 to the Commission.
Part VII requires the respondents to retain certain records for five (5) years after the last date of dissemination of any representation covered by the order: (1) All advertisements and promotional materials containing the representation; (2) all materials relied upon in disseminating the representation; and (3) all evidence in respondents' possession or control that contradicts, qualifies, or calls into question the representation or the basis for the representation.
Part VIII requires the respondents for ten (10) years to provide copies of the order to personnel having responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order, and to obtain signed copies acknowledging receipt of the order.
Part IX requires that the Commission be notified of changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance obligations arising under the order.
Part X requires that the individual respondent notify the Commission for five (5) years of any changes in employment that might affect his compliance obligations arising under the order.
Part XI requires the respondents to file compliance reports with the Commission.
Part XII provides that the order will terminate after twenty (20) years under certain circumstances.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of Federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint that accompanies the consent agreement and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before April 16, 2004.
Comments filed in paper form should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments filed in electronic form should be directed to:
Heather Hippsley or Shira Modell, FTC, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3285 or 326-3116.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 17, 2004), on the World Wide Web, at “
Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. Comments filed in paper form should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If a comment contains nonpublic information, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “confidential.” Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form (in ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft Word) as part of or as an attachment to email messages directed to the following e-mail box:
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Vital Basics, Inc., and Robert B. Graham and Michael B. Shane, individually and as officers of the corporation.
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter involves practices relating to the advertising and promotion of two products: Focus Factor and V-Factor Natural Pack. Focus Factor is a dietary supplement containing, among other things, vitamins, minerals, botanicals, and amino acids. Marketing materials for Focus Factor claimed that the product enhanced brain function, and improved the focus, memory, mood, concentration, and energy of children, adults, and seniors. V-Factor Natural
According to the FTC complaint, the respondents failed to have substantiation for their claims that Focus Factor: (a) Improves the focus, memory, and concentration of healthy adults; (b) alleviates stress and combats the fatigue, irritability and mood swings that healthy adults experience; (c) makes children and teenagers feel more alert, focused, and mentally sharp; (d) improves students' ability to concentrate and their academic performance; (e) improves senior citizens' memory, mental clarity, and energy; (f) improves adults' ability to absorb information in books and to recall facts, figures and names; and (g) works in as little as one to ten days.
The complaint further alleges that the respondents failed to have substantiation for their claims that V-Factor Natural Pack is safe for virtually all men, and falsely represented that a clinical study of the V-Factor Natural Pack conducted by Dr. Carlon Colker proves that V-Factor is safe and is effective at improving sexual response and function.
Finally, the complaint alleges that the respondents: (1) Failed to disclose that certain of the consumer and expert endorsers who appeared in advertising for Focus Factor had material connections with the companies and individuals marketing the product, and that other consumer endorsements were solicited by the promise of a free 6-month supply of Focus Factor to those individuals whose testimonials were used in the company's advertising; and (2) misrepresented that certain radio infomercials were independent radio programs, not paid commercial advertising.
The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent the respondents from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future.
Part I of the order prohibits representations that Focus Factor or any substantially similar product (defined as any ingestable dietary supplement containing one or more specified ingredients): (a) Improves the focus, memory, and concentration of healthy adults; (b) alleviates stress, fatigue, irritability and mood swings in healthy adults; (c) makes children and teenagers feel more alert, focused, and mentally sharp; (d) improves students' ability to concentrate and their academic performance; (e) improves senior citizens' memory, mental clarity, and energy; (f) improves adults' ability to absorb information in books and to recall facts, figures and names; or (g) works in as little as one to ten days, unless the claims are substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence.
Part II requires that the respondents possess competent and reliable scientific evidence to support any future claims about the safety, performance, benefits, or efficacy of any food, drug, or dietary supplement for: (a) The brain or any mental functions or processes (including, but not limited to cognitive function, memory, focus, learning or concentration), stress, anxiety, energy, mood or behavior, academic or business performance, longevity, age-related memory impairment or dementia; (b) sexual response, function, enhancement, or performance; or (c) the treatment, cure, mitigation, or prevention, of any disorder. Although the order does not prohibit the trade name “Focus Factor,” it does require the respondents to have competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate any covered claims conveyed directly or by implication through the use of the product name.
Part III requires that the respondents possess competent and reliable scientific evidence to support any future claims that V-Factor Natural Pack or any product containing yohimbine is safe.
Part IV prohibits any misrepresentation of the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test or study, in connection with the marketing of sale of any product or program.
Part V requires disclosure of any material connection that exists between an endorser and the respondents or any other person or entity involved in marketing or selling the product or program that is the subject of the endorsement.
Part VI prohibits the creation or dissemination of any advertisement that misrepresents that it is not a paid advertisement, and requires that specific disclosures be included in any video or radio advertisement that is at least fifteen minutes in length.
Part VII permits any representation for any product that is permitted in labeling for such product by the FDA pursuant to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990.
Part VII provides for the payment of $1 million to the Commission.
Part IX requires the respondents to retain certain records for five (5) years after the last date of dissemination of any representation covered by the order: (1) All advertisements and promotional materials containing the representation; (2) all materials relied upon in disseminating the representation; and (3) all evidence in respondents' possession or control that contradicts, qualifies, or calls into question the representation or the basis for the representation.
Part X requires the respondents for ten (10) years to provide copies of the order to personnel having responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order, and to obtain signed copies acknowledging receipt of the order.
Part XI requires that the Commission be notified of changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance obligations arising under the order.
Part XII requires that the individual respondents notify the Commission for five (5) years of any changes in employment that might affect their compliance obligations arising under the order.
Part XIII requires the respondents to file compliance reports with the Commission.
Part XIV provides that the order will terminate after twenty (20) years under certain circumstances.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms.
By direction of the Commission.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) has determined that the establishment of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (Committee) is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the duties of the Administration and that such duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of such a group.
This Committee shall advise the Secretary of Health and Human Services; the Director, National Institutes of Health; and the heads of all federal departments and agencies that conduct or support life sciences research. The Committee will advise on and recommend specific strategies for the efficient and effective oversight of dual use biological research, taking into consideration both national security
The Committee will be composed of not more than 25 voting, non-government subject matter experts, as well as ex officio members from federal departments and agencies that conduct or support life science research. Members will be appointed by the Secretary, HHS, in consultation with the heads of federal departments and agencies represented on the Committee in ex officio capacity.
Unless renewed by appropriate action prior to its expiration, the Charter for the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity will expire two years from the date of establishment.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings:
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), little 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting do to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting do to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552(b)(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and
To review and evaluate grant applications.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provision set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets for commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, April 1, 2004, 12 p.m. to April 1, 2004, 2 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held March 16, 2004. The meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Research on Women's Health.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and if accepted by the committee, presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding their statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page
Letters from State Single Point of Contact (SPOC) in response to E.O. 12372 are due July 27, 2004.]
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), and Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), announce the availability of FY 2004 funds for the Development of Comprehensive Drug/Alcohol and Mental Health Treatment Systems for Persons Who are Homeless (Short Title: Treatment for Homeless). A synopsis of this funding opportunity, as well as many other Federal Government funding opportunities, are also available at the Internet site:
For complete instructions, potential applicants must obtain a copy of SAMHSA's standard Services Grants Program Announcement, SVC-04 PA (MOD), and the PHS 5161-1 (Rev. 7/00) application form before preparing and submitting an application. The SVC-04 PA (MOD) describes the general program design and provides instructions for applying for all SAMHSA Services Grants, including the Treatment for Homeless program. SAMHSA's Services Grants provide funds to expand and strengthen effective, culturally appropriate substance abuse and mental health services at the State and local levels. The services implemented through SAMHSA's Services Grants must incorporate the best objective information available regarding effectiveness and acceptability. In general, SAMHSA's Services Grants are appropriate for applicants seeking Federal support to implement substance abuse and mental health services that have a strong evidence-base for effectiveness. SAMHSA's Services Grants must be used primarily to support direct service delivery. SAMHSA expects that the services will be sustained beyond the term of the grant. Additional instructions and specific requirements for this funding opportunity are described below.
Section 506 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, and subject to the availability of funds.
The purpose of Treatment for Homeless grants is to enable communities to expand and strengthen their treatment services for homeless individuals with substance abuse disorders, mental illness, or with co-occurring substance abuse disorders and mental illness. “Homeless” persons are those who lack a fixed, regular, adequate nighttime residence, including persons whose primary nighttime residence is: a supervised public or private shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations; a time-limited/nonpermanent transitional housing arrangement for individuals engaged in mental health and/or substance abuse treatment; or a public or private facility not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation. “Homeless” also includes “doubled-up”—a residential status that places individuals at imminent risk for becoming homeless—defined as sharing another person's dwelling on a temporary basis where continued tenancy is contingent upon the hospitality of the primary leaseholder or owner and can be rescinded at any time without notice.
Applications for SAMHSA Services Grants must include evidence of experience and credentials as described in Section III-3 of the SVC-04 PA (MOD). Applications that do not include the required evidence will be screened out and will not be reviewed.
Complete application kits may be obtained from: the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI) at 1-800-729-6686. When requesting an application kit, the applicant must specify the funding opportunity title (Treatment for Homeless) and the funding opportunity number (TI 04-001) for which detailed information is desired. All information necessary to apply, including where to submit applications and application deadline instructions, is included in the application kit. The PHS 5161-1 application form is also available electronically via SAMHSA's World Wide Web home page:
When submitting an application, be sure to type “TI 04-001, Treatment for Homeless” in Item Number 10 on the face page of the application form. Also, SAMHSA applicants are required to provide a DUNS Number on the face page of the application. To obtain a DUNS Number, access the Dun and Bradstreet Web site at
Because grantees in the Treatment for Homeless program may use grant funds to provide direct substance abuse services, applicants are required to complete the Assurance of Compliance with SAMHSA Charitable Choice Statutes and Regulations, Form SMA 170. This form will be posted on SAMHSA's Web site with the NOFA and provided in the application kits available at NCADI.
Information including required documents, required application components, and application formatting requirements is available in the SVC-04 PA (MOD) in Section IV-2.
SAMHSA's goal is to review all applications submitted for grant funding. However, this goal must be balanced against SAMHSA's obligation to ensure equitable treatment of applications. For this reason, SAMHSA has established certain formatting requirements for its applications. If you do not adhere to these requirements, your application will be screened out and returned to you without review.
—Use the PHS 5161-1 application.
—Applications must be received by the application deadline.
—Applications received after this date must have a proof of mailing date from the carrier dated at least 1 week prior to the due date. Private metered postmarks are not acceptable as proof of timely mailing. Applications not received by the application deadline or not postmarked at least 1 week prior to the application deadline will not be reviewed.
—Information provided must be sufficient for review.
—Text must be legible.
• Type size in the Project Narrative cannot exceed an average of 15 characters per inch, as measured on the physical page. (Type size in charts, tables, graphs, and footnotes will not be considered in determining compliance.)
• Text in the Project Narrative cannot exceed 6 lines per vertical inch.
—Paper must be white paper and 8.5 inches by 11.0 inches in size.
—To ensure equity among applications, the amount of space allowed for the Project Narrative cannot be exceeded.
• Applications would meet this requirement by using all margins (left, right, top, bottom) of at least one inch each, and adhering to the page limit for the Project Narrative stated in the SVC-04 PA (MOD).
• Should an application not conform to these margin or page limits, SAMHSA will use the following method to determine compliance: The total area of the Project Narrative (excluding margins, but including charts, tables, graphs and footnotes) cannot exceed 58.5 square inches multiplied by the page limit. This number represents the full page less margins, multiplied by the total number of allowed pages.
• Space will be measured on the physical page. Space left blank within the Project Narrative (excluding margins) is considered part of the Project Narrative, in determining compliance.
—The page limit for Appendices stated in the SVC-04 PA (MOD) cannot be exceeded.
To facilitate review of your application, follow these additional guidelines. Failure to adhere to the following guidelines will not, in itself, result in your application being screened out and returned without review. However, the information provided in your application must be sufficient for review. Following these guidelines will help ensure your application is complete, and will help reviewers to consider your application.
—The 10 application components required for SAMHSA applications should be included. These are:
• Face Page (Standard Form 424, which is in PHS 5161-1)
• Abstract
• Table of Contents
• Budget Form (Standard Form 424A, which is in PHS 5161-1)
• Project Narrative and Supporting Documentation
• Appendices
• Assurances (Standard Form 424B, which is in PHS 5161-1)
• Certifications (a form in PHS 5161-1)
• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (Standard Form LLL, which is in PHS 5161-1)
• Checklist (a form in PHS 5161-1)
—Applications should comply with the following requirements:
• Provisions relating to confidentiality, participant protection and the protection of human subjects, as indicated in the SVC-04 PA (MOD).
• Budgetary limitations as indicated in Sections I, II, and IV-5 of the SVC-04 PA (MOD).
• Documentation of nonprofit status as required in the PHS 5161-1.
—Pages should be typed single-spaced with one column per page.
—Pages should not have printing on both sides.
—Please use black ink, and number pages consecutively from beginning to end so that information can be located easily during review of the application. The cover page should be page 1, the abstract page should be page 2, and the table of contents page should be page 3. Appendices should be labeled and separated from the Project Narrative and budget section, and the pages should be numbered to continue the sequence.
—Send the original application and two copies to the mailing address in the funding announcement. Please do not use staples, paper clips, and fasteners. Nothing should be attached, stapled, folded, or pasted. Do not use heavy or lightweight paper, or any material that cannot be copied using automatic copying machines. Odd-sized and oversized attachments such as posters will not be copied or sent to reviewers. Do not include videotapes, audiotapes, or CD-ROMs.
Application must be received by May 28, 2004. You will be notified by postal mail that your application has been
Applicants for this funding opportunity must comply with Executive Order 12372 (E.O.12372). E.O.12372, as implemented through Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regulation at 45 CFR part 100, sets up a system for State and local review of applications for Federal financial assistance. Instructions for complying with E.O. 12372 are provided in the SVC-04 PA (MOD) in section IV-4. A current listing of State Single Points of Contact (SPOCs) is included in the application kit and is available at
Information concerning funding restrictions is available in the SVC-04 PA (MOD) in section IV-5.
Applications will be reviewed against the Evaluation Criteria and requirements for the Project Narrative specified in the SVC-04 PA (MOD). The following information describes exceptions or limitations to the SVC-04 PA (MOD) and provides special requirements that pertain only to Treatment for Homeless grants. Applicants for Treatment for Homeless grants are required to discuss the following requirements in their application, in addition to the requirements specified in the SVC-04 PA (MOD).
1.1 In “Section C: Proposed Implementation Approach”: Applicants must comprehensively describe how treatment services are linked with housing programs and other services for homeless persons,
1.2 In “Section E: Evaluation and Data”: Applicants are not required to address the sixth bullet regarding per person or unit cost of the project to be implemented, based on the applicant's actual costs and projected costs over the life of the project.
1.3 Treatment for Homeless grantees are required to provide quarterly progress reports instead of the annual progress reports required by the SVC-04 PA (MOD).
1.4 Treatment for Homeless grantees are required to send the Project Director and the Evaluator to all grantee meetings.
1.5 Performance Measurement: All SAMHSA grantees are required to collect and report certain data, so that SAMHSA can meet its obligations under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Grantees of the Treatment for Homeless program will be required to report performance in several areas. Applicants must document their ability to collect and report the required data in “Section E: Evaluation and Data” of their applications. All Treatment for Homeless grant applicants must document their ability to collect and report data using the Targeted Capacity Expansion Client Level GPRA tool, which can be found at
Information about the review and selection process is available in the SVC-04 PA (MOD) in section V-2.
In compliance with Sec. 506 of the Public Health Service Act, in making award decisions SAMHSA will give preference to entities that provide integrated primary health, substance abuse, and mental health services to homeless individuals, and to entities that have experience in providing substance abuse and mental health services to homeless individuals.
Award administration information, including award notices, administrative and national policy requirements, and reporting requirements are available in the SVC-04 PA (MOD) in section VI. SAMHSA's standard terms and conditions are available at
Letters from State Single Point of Contact (SPOC) in response to E.O. 12372 are due July 20, 2004.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) announces the availability of FY 2004 funds for a National Training and Technical Assistance Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health (NTTAC) Cooperative Agreement. A synopsis of this funding opportunity, as well as many other Federal Government funding opportunities, is also available at the Internet site:
For complete instructions, potential applicants must obtain a copy of SAMHSA's standard Infrastructure
Section 520 A of the Public Health Service Act, as amended and subject to the availability of funds.
The National Training and Technical Assistance Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health (NTTAC) Cooperative Agreement is one of SAMHSA's Infrastructure Grants. SAMHSA's Infrastructure Grants provide funds to increase the capacity of mental health and/or substance abuse service systems to support programs and services. The NTTAC is a crucial link in CMHS's ongoing efforts to implement the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health Report. Therefore, activities carried out under this announcement must be focused on strengthening the capacity of States and communities to transform their mental health system to meet the complex needs of children and youth with, or at risk for, serious emotional disturbances and/or co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders and their families, within home- and community-based settings.
The NTTAC will serve as a national resource and training center to promote the planning and development of child and family-centered, culturally competent, and coordinated systems of care for children and adolescents with, or at risk for, a serious emotional disturbance and their families. The NTTAC will provide access to information and expertise on systems of care development, implementation, and policy issues through a variety of knowledge distribution approaches and technologies. Priority areas of focus will include: State planning and policy development to implement family-driven, comprehensive systems of care across child-serving systems; family and youth-centered care planning; financing strategies in public and private sectors; data management and accountability; workforce and leadership development; evidence-based practice; early intervention including screening and assessment; integration of care with primary health, child-care, schools, child welfare, juvenile justice, and substance abuse; cultural, racial, and geographic disparities; and technology coordination and dissemination. NTTAC will provide targeted technical assistance to State and local child-serving agencies, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, Pacific Island jurisdictions to provide support for integrated, responsive mental health delivery systems for children, adolescents and their families (with families being broadly defined to include a variety of caretakers such as grandparents and extended kinship relationships). These activities will serve to implement the following goals set out by the President's New Freedom Commission Report: create a comprehensive state mental health plan; promote the mental health of young children; advance evidence-based practices using dissemination and demonstration projects and create a public-private partnership to guide their implementation; improve and expand the workforce providing evidence-based mental health services and supports; develop and implement integrated electronic health record and personal health information systems; create individualized plans of care for children and their families; address cultural, racial, and geographic disparities; and promote early mental health screening, assessment and referral.
When submitting an application, be sure to type “SM 04-002/NTTAC” in Item Number 10 on the face page of the application form. Also, SAMHSA applicants are required to provide a DUNS number on the face page of the application. To obtain a DUNS Number, access the Dun and Bradstreet Web site at
SAMHSA's goal is to review all applications submitted for grant funding. However, this goal must be balanced against SAMHSA's obligation to ensure equitable treatment of applications. For this reason, SAMHSA has established certain formatting requirements for its applications. If you do not adhere to these requirements, your application will be screened out and returned to you without review.
• Type size in the Project Narrative cannot exceed an average of 15 characters per inch, as measured on the physical page. (Type size in charts, tables, graphs, and footnotes will not be considered in determining compliance.)
• Text in the Project Narrative cannot exceed 6 lines per vertical inch.
• Applications would meet this requirement by using all margins (left, right, top, bottom) of at least one inch each, and adhering to the page limit for the Project Narrative stated in the specific funding announcement.
• Should an application not conform to these margin or page limits, SAMHSA will use the following method to determine compliance: The total area of the Project Narrative (excluding margins, but including charts, tables, graphs and footnotes) cannot exceed 58.5 square inches multiplied by the page limit. This number represents the full page less margins, multiplied by the total number of allowed pages.
• Space will be measured on the physical page. Space left blank within the Project Narrative (excluding margins) is considered part of the Project Narrative, in determining compliance.
• Face Page (Standard Form 424, which is in PHS 5161-1)
• Abstract.
• Table of Contents.
• Budget Form (Standard Form 424A, which is in PHS 5161-1).
• Project Narrative and Supporting Documentation.
• Appendices.
• Assurances (Standard Form 424B, which is in PHS 5161-1).
• Certifications (a form in PHS 5161-1).
• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (Standard Form LLL, which is in PHS 5161-1).
• Checklist (a form in PHS 5161-1).
• Provisions relating to confidentiality, participant protection and the protection of human subjects, as indicated in the specific funding announcement.
• Budgetary limitations as indicated in Sections I, II, and IV-5 of the specific funding announcement.
• Documentation of nonprofit status as required in the PHS 5161-1.
3.
4.
a. Applicants must describe plans for implementing the following required activities in a manner that addresses the needs identified in Section A : training institutes, policy academies, leadership development, efforts to address cultural competence, and other training and technical assistance activities.
b. Applicants must provide evidence that the proposed activities meet the infrastructure needs and that the proposed infrastructure development strategy will meet project goals and objectives.
c. Applicants must describe plans for integrating the priority focus areas into the planned activities for the project.
d. Applicants are not required to provide a plan to secure resources to sustain the proposed infrastructure enhancements when Federal funding ends.
• Increase outreach to prospective technical assistance recipients, including community-based and faith-based organizations.
• Increase the number of technical assistance recipients that demonstrate inclusion of family members and youth in planning, policy, and service delivery decisions.
• Increase the use of evidence-based models/interventions by technical assistance recipients.
• Increase the number of technical assistance recipients using a system-of-care approach. SAMHSA will work with grantees to finalize a standard methodology related to these indicators shortly after award.
Award administration information, including award notices, administrative and national policy requirements, and reporting requirements are available in the INF-04 PA (MOD) in Section VI. SAMHSA's standard terms and conditions are available at
For questions concerning program issues, contact: Michele Herman, SAMHSA/CMHS, Child, Adolescent and Family Branch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11C-16; Rockville, MD 20857; 301-443-1333; E-mail:
(
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), announces the availability of FY 2004 funds for State Incentive Grants to Build Capacity for Alternatives to Restraint and Seclusion. A synopsis of this funding opportunity, as well as many other Federal government funding opportunities, are also available at the Internet site:
For complete instructions, potential applicants must obtain a copy of SAMHSA's standard Infrastructure Grants Program Announcement (INF-04 PA (MOD)) and the (PHS 5161-1, Rev. 7/00) application form before preparing and submitting an application. The INF-04 PA (MOD) describes the general
Title 4. Public Health and Welfare, chapter 6A—Public Health Service, subchapter III A—Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, part A Organization and General Authority, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 290aa
The Alternatives to Restraint and Seclusion SIG program is one of SAMHSA's Infrastructure Grants. SAMHSA's Infrastructure Grants provide funds to increase the capacity of mental health and/or substance abuse service systems to support programs and services.
The purpose of the Alternatives to Restraint and Seclusion SIG program is to support States in their efforts to adopt best practices to reduce and ultimately eliminate the use of restraint and seclusion in institutional and community-based settings that provide mental health services (including services for people with co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders). Through the Alternatives to Restraint and Seclusion SIG program, States will: (1) Increase the number of programs that adopt best practices involving alternative approaches to reduce restraint and seclusion, including staff training models and other multi-faceted approaches; and (2) collect data to document the program's impact on reducing seclusion and restraint use and adoption of alternative practices.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
(1) A copy of the State's administrative procedures, regulations, or statutes addressing issues related to restraint and seclusion.
(2) Policies and procedures related to certification of facility personnel in issues related to restraint and seclusion. Minimum educational requirements of staff authorized to approve restraint and seclusion techniques must also be provided. If there are no such requirements, a statement to that effect must be included.
(3) The State's reporting requirements related to serious injury and/or death resulting from restraint and seclusion techniques, including the process for sharing this information with the State's Protection and Advocacy Agency.
1.
When submitting an application, be sure to type “SM 04-007/Alternatives to Restraint and Seclusion SIG” in Item Number 10 on the face page of the application form. Also, SAMHSA applicants are required to provide a DUNS Number on the face page of the application. To obtain a DUNS Number, access the Dun and Bradstreet Web site at
2.
SAMHSA's goal is to review all applications submitted for grant funding. However, this goal must be balanced against SAMHSA's obligation to ensure equitable treatment of applications. For this reason, SAMHSA has established certain formatting requirements for its applications. If you do not adhere to these requirements, your application will be screened out and returned to you without review.
3.
4.
5.
1.
1.1
b. Applicants must report on the following outcome indicators. This information must be provided in total and by race/ethnicity, gender and diagnosis:
(1) The number of incidents involving the use of restraint and seclusion for calendar years 2002 and 2003 (January 1, 2002—December 31, 2003).
(2) The number and types of injuries (minor to severe) related to incidents involving the use of restraint and seclusion for calendar years 2002 and 2003 (January 1, 2002—December 31, 2003).
(3) The number of deaths related to incidents involving the use of restraint and seclusion for calendar years 2002 and 2003 (January 1, 2002—December 31, 2003).
(4) The number of facilities within the State, territory or tribe in which administrators are implementing alternatives to the use of restraint and seclusion.
1.2
1.3
(1) The number of programs that adopt best practices involving alternative approaches to reduce restraint and seclusion, including staff training models and other multi-faceted approaches.
(2) The number of incidents of the use of restraint and seclusion techniques.
(3) In addition, you must document which of the following variables you have the ability to collect and report on. CMHS will select a set of core measures from among these measures that all grantees will be required to report on post award.
(a) Temporal data (
(b) Episode location;
(c) Episode precipitants (
(d) Gender;
(e) Age;
(f) Race/ethnicity;
(g) Developmental/cognitive age;
(h) Unit/program where the individual is housed or treated;
(i) Precipitous discharges;
(j) Monitoring;
(k) Debriefing;
(l) Restraint types used (
1.4
2.
Award administration information, including award notices, administrative and national policy requirements, and reporting requirements are available in the INF-04 PA (MOD) in Section VI. SAMHSA's standard terms and conditions are available at
For questions about program issues contact: Karen Armstrong, SAMHSA/CMHS, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15C-21, Rockville, MD 20857; 301-443-3667; e-mail:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
[
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), announces the availability of FY 2004 funds for Youth Transition Into the Workplace Grants (YIW). A synopsis of this funding opportunity, as well as many other Federal Government funding opportunities, is also available at the Internet site:
For complete instructions, potential applicants must obtain a copy of SAMHSA's standard Service-to-Science Grants Program Announcement [STS-04 PA (MOD)], and the PHS 5161-1 (Rev. 7/00) application form before preparing and submitting an application. The STS-04 PA (MOD) describes the general program design and provides instructions for applying for all SAMHSA Service-to-Science Grants, including the Youth Transition Into the Workplace Grants. Additional instructions and specific requirements for this funding opportunity are described below.
Section 501(d)(5) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended and subject to the availability of funds.
Youth Transition Into the Workplace Grants (YIW Grants) is one of SAMHSA's Service-to-Science Grants. SAMHSA's Service-to-Science Grants provide funds to document and evaluate innovative practices that address critical substance abuse and mental health service gaps, but have not yet been formally evaluated. These grants will help organizations that have identified promising new practices to evaluate and package those innovations for review and inclusion in the National Registry of Effective Programs (NREP), as well as for future research. (Information on NREP is at:
The purpose of the YIW Grants is to broaden CSAP's prior workplace prevention initiatives related to prevention and early intervention, as well as related co-morbidity issues for employees and their families. Examples of well-researched interventions are: NREP workplace programs, Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs); drug-free workplace programs; peer to peer; health and wellness programs; health risk assessments and health care prevention initiatives. Grantees will be expected to document, implement, and evaluate workplace prevention/early intervention programs tailored for young adult employees ages 16-24. Specific attention should be paid to gender, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and occupational variations.
The YIW Grant Program will be implemented in two phases. Applicants must apply for the combined Phase I & II grant, as described in the STS-04 PA (MOD). Applications for Phase I or Phase II alone will not be accepted. Phase I and II grants will be made as “cooperative agreements.” As such, grantees will be expected to work with a national steering committee to share early findings, apply agreed-upon methodologies and analysis techniques, and write cross-cutting documents and articles. They will also be expected to participate in an OMB approved, confidential, cross-site survey of employees administered by the cross-site contract evaluator. Phase I will take place in years 1-2. During Phase I, applicants will develop or enhance and document an existing intervention and collect baseline survey and administrative data.
During Phase II (years 3-5), the intervention/program will be implemented and fully evaluated. Phase II will include follow-up survey and administrative data collection supporting a cross-site evaluation of all Phase II grantees. Grantees completing the 5-year process will have sufficient documentation to apply for NREP status.
It is important to note that SAMHSA/CSAP does not expect that all Phase I grantees will necessarily move on to Phase II. Grantees must document, to the satisfaction of the Government Project Officer, that they have achieved the Phase I Performance Expectations articulated in the STS-04 PA (MOD); that they can provide the required performance data; and that the practice to be evaluated shows sufficient promise to warrant continued funding before the Phase II award will be approved. Continuation criteria by which Phase I grantees will be approved for Phase II funding is as follows: Baseline survey response rate; baseline survey sample size (number of completed surveys); baseline prevalence of targeted behaviors (
The CSAP workplace prevention research initiative identified a variety of successful workplace prevention, early identification, and early intervention activities for entire workforces. (For complete listings see:
1.
Phase I awards will be made for project periods of up to 2 years, and Phase II awards will be made for project
2.
Role of Grantee: Each grantee will retain responsibility for data collection, data analysis and interpretation, quality control, and preparation of reports and publications specific to each site. The YIW Contractor will conduct the cross-site survey. However, grantees will be responsible for all work related to survey access, consent procedures, response rates, and marketing the survey. Grantees must be willing to collaborate with the SAMHSA CSAP staff and participate in the cross-site activities. As SAMHSA CSAP, the YIW Contractor, the Steering Committee, and grantees will identify new and useful methodologies or standardized measures, grantees should be willing to consider adaptation of this information as appropriate.
Cross-site activities will include, but are not limited to: Participation in Steering Committee meetings; agreement on the study analysis across projects; adoption of cross-site measures and instruments; submission of data (which will be kept confidential within the specifications of the grantee) to the YIW Contractor throughout the study (on an agreed upon schedule) for cross-site analysis and reports; support of the cross-site Contractor's collection of survey data (which includes GPRA data); and participation in meetings and publications to disseminate the findings of the individual project and the overall program.
Participants must be willing to share data (confidentiality of the data source will be assured by SAMHSA CSAP), and comply with publication and authorship policies to be developed by the Steering Committee for this program. Specific activities for future replication of these projects in Phase II will include the development of a replication training manual.
Role of Contractor: The YIW Contractor, under direction of the SAMHSA CSAP project officer, will be responsible for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of cross-site and employee survey data. The YIW Contractor shall host the grantee employee survey (including GPRA data) and assure confidentiality of that data. The YIW Contractor will be responsible for participating as a member of the Steering Committee; serving as a repository for and analyzing the cross-site analysis data; and for providing technical assistance to grantees, as appropriate.
Role of Federal Staff: SAMHSA CSAP staff will be active participants in all aspects of the cooperative agreements and will serve as collaborators with the grantee project directors and Contractor. SAMHSA CSAP staff will provide substantial input, in collaboration with the grantees and the Contractor, both in the planning and conduct of this program.
SAMHSA CSAP staff involvement may include provision of technical assistance; participation in the redesign/modification of grantee or cross-site study design; consultation assuring reproducibility of results and the development of the replication training manuals; arrangement of meetings supporting cooperative agreement activities; membership on the Steering Committee and other working groups established to meet program goals; and authorship/co-authorship of publications to disseminate findings. SAMHSA CSAP staff will be subject to the publication/authorship policies to be developed by the Steering Committee.
SAMHSA CSAP will be responsible for arranging and convening Steering Committee meetings with assistance from the Contractor; for meeting costs not covered by the grantee's and Contractor's budgets (
SAMHSA CSAP will be providing grantees with information and findings it has obtained and analyzed over the course of the contract. This may include descriptions of operating models of workplace prevention programs for youthful populations ages 16-24 incorporating substance use/abuse prevention, early intervention, and treatment activities and strategies; health, wellness, and safety strategies; measurement instruments and tools; and findings from national, State, and local surveys and research.
Role of Steering Committee: The Steering Committee members will consist of the project director and evaluator from each project, project director and staff of the YIW contract, ex-officios, and SAMHSA CSAP staff. SAMHSA CSAP will appoint the Chair of the Steering Committee from the pool of grantee members in accordance with the majority vote of members, one vote per grantee, one vote by SAMHSA CSAP. SAMHSA CSAP will appoint ex-officios from other Federal and/or State agencies having exceptional knowledge and experience concerning this issue. SAMHSA CSAP staff will participate in, but not chair, the Committee. No entity will have veto power. SAMHSA CSAP staff will participate as a full member of any subcommittee that is established.
The Steering Committee will have the primary responsibility for agreeing to the cross-site evaluation design, the dissemination of findings and products. The Steering Committee will, consistent with the provisions of 45 CFR 74.36, develop policies on access to data and materials and publications in accordance with the requirements of SAMHSA. Publications will be written and authorship decided using procedures developed by the Steering Committee. The quality of publications resulting from the study will be the responsibility of the authors; no SAMHSA clearances will be required. (
The Steering Committee will develop its own procedures and is expected to develop consensus agreement on most decisions. All decisions that cannot be made by consensus will be made by majority vote.
The first meeting of the Steering Committee will be convened at the request of the SAMHSA CSAP staff. It is estimated that up to two meetings (not to exceed two meetings) will be needed in years 1 and 2 to develop the final cross-site analysis study design. The first meeting will be for 3 days and other meetings should last between 1-2 days per meeting. In years 3-5, Phase II, 1 day meetings will be held 2-3 times per year. One meeting per year will be a Steering Committee Meeting along with a Knowledge Exchange Meeting to share early findings and outcomes with the field. The majority of Steering Committee meetings will be held in the Washington, DC area.
All participants will agree to abide by the decisions and recommendations made by the Steering Committee and any required SAMHSA approvals set forth in the terms and conditions of this cooperative agreement.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
Because grantees in the YIW program may use funds to provide direct substance abuse services, applicants are required to complete the Assurance of Compliance with SAMHSA Charitable Choice Statutes and Regulations, Form SMA 170. This form will be posted on SAMHSA's web site with the NOFA and provided in the application kits available at NCADI.
SAMHSA's goal is to review all applications submitted for grant funding. However, this goal must be balanced against SAMHSA's obligation to ensure equitable treatment of applications. For this reason, SAMHSA has established certain formatting requirements for its applications. If you do not adhere to these requirements, your application will be screened out and returned to you without review.
3.
4.
5.
1.1
1.2
a. In “Section A: Statement of Need,” applicants must identify the proposed target population as employees ages 16-24, and specifically address their gender, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and occupational variations.
b. In “Section B: Proposed Approach,” applicants must describe how interventions will be redesigned and adapted for the target population, and how they will be implemented successfully in or through the workplace.
c. In “Section C: Evaluation Design and Analysis,” applicants must describe how they will work with SAMHSA, the YIW cross-site evaluator, and other grantees to adopt a common self-report survey to measure use/abuse and change of perception of harm, as well as other behavioral and attitudinal measures related to substance abuse prevention and early intervention programs. Baseline data will be collected during Phase I, with follow-up data collection occurring during the Phase II grant.
d. In “Section C: Evaluation Design and Analysis,” applicants must discuss how they will collect baseline, process, and outcome data (
1.3
a.
b.
c.
In addition to the above data, any Phase I grantee providing direct services to individuals is required to collect data from service recipients as described under #3 below.
a.
b.
(1) total labor hours used by all personnel that are involved in the intervention (paid labor and volunteers);
(2) total square feet of space used in delivering the intervention (paid space and space used free of charge);
(3) total number of supplies and materials such as brochures, handouts, office supplies, computer software, etc. used in the intervention (paid supplies and donated/free supplies);
(4) wages of paid labor (including fringe benefits such as paid time off, health insurance, disability benefits, pension, etc. and reproduction cost) and the fair market value of volunteer time;
(5) cost of space used for the intervention (either the rent paid or the estimated fair market value of the property given its location and total area);
(6) additional costs related to space use that includes building maintenance and utilities;
(7) unit cost of all supplies and materials;
(8) depreciation costs of capital resources used in the intervention such as furniture, equipment, security system, and computers; and
(9) administrative overheads (either a flat figure or a percentage of direct labor costs or total expenditure).
Grantees will be required to provide supporting documentation through process logs or other time reporting mechanisms that adequately document the total labor hours required to do the intervention. In addition, grantees must use other costing tools (
An electronic version of this form, along with instructions for completing the form, are available on the SAMHSA web site, along with this NOFA. Hard copies of the form and instructions for completing the form will be provided in the application kits distributed by SAMHSA's National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information.
c.
The following documents should be consulted when planning for data collection and reporting:
Award administration information, including award notices, administrative and national policy requirements, and reporting requirements are available in the STS-04 PA (MOD) in Section VI. SAMHSA's standard terms and conditions are available at
For questions concerning program issues, contact:Deborah M. Galvin, Ph.D., SAMHSA/CSAP/DWP, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockwall II, Suite 815,Rockville, MD 20857,301-443-6816,E-mail:
For questions on grants management issues, contact:Edna Frazier, SAMHSA/Division of Grants Management, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockwall II, Suite 630,Rockville, MD 20857,301-443-6816,E-mail:
Letters from State Single Point of Contact (SPOC) in response to E.O. 12372 are due August 2, 2004.)
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) and the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) announce the availability of FY 2004 funds for Child and Adolescent Mental Health and Substance Abuse State Infrastructure Grants. A synopsis of this funding opportunity, as well as many other Federal Government funding opportunities, is also available at the Internet site:
For complete instructions, potential applicants must obtain a copy of SAMHSA's standard Infrastructure Grants Program Announcement (INF-04 PA (MOD)), and the PHS 5161-1 (Rev. 7/00) application form before preparing and submitting an application. The INF-04 PA (MOD) describes the general program design and provides instructions for applying for all SAMHSA Infrastructure Grants, including the Child and Adolescent SIG. Additional instructions and specific requirements for this funding opportunity are described below.
520A of the Public Health Service Act, as amended and subject to the availability of funds.
The Child and Adolescent Mental Health and Substance Abuse State Infrastructure Grants (Short Title: Child and Adolescent SIG) is one of SAMHSA's Infrastructure Grants. SAMHSA's Infrastructure Grants provide funds to increase the capacity of mental health and/or substance abuse service systems to support programs and services. SAMHSA's Infrastructure Grants are intended for applicants seeking Federal support to develop or enhance their service system infrastructure in order to support effective substance abuse and/or mental health service delivery.
The purpose of SAMHSA's Child and Adolescent SIG is to strengthen the capacity of States, territories, and Native American tribal governments to develop, expand and sustain substance abuse and mental health services including early intervention, treatment, and/or continuing services and supports at the local level for children, adolescents, and youth in transition, who have a serious emotional disturbance, substance abuse disorder, and/or co-occurring disorders, and their families. Applicants are expected to use grant funds to build the infrastructure necessary to promote, support, and sustain local service and treatment intervention capabilities for the target population across service delivery systems. The program is intended to provide sufficient flexibility and scope to enable States to determine whether they will focus on the entire target population or demographic/geographic subsets of the population.
The Child and Adolescent SIG Program is a critical part of the SAMHSA/CMHS effort to implement the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health Report. Therefore, activities carried out under this announcement must be focused on strengthening the capacity of States to transform their mental health system to meet the complex needs of children and youth with serious emotional disturbances and/or co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders and their families within home and community-based settings.
For over a decade, SAMHSA has funded local demonstrations of promising treatment, and continuing services and supports for children, adolescents, and youth in transition who have a serious emotional disturbance, substance abuse disorder, and/or co-occurring disorders, and their families. A critical lesson provided by the local demonstrations is the difficulty of expanding and sustaining local capacity without the investment of key state-level stakeholders. Partnership between State and local stakeholders is essential to the development, sustainability and growth of effective early intervention and treatment systems.
Despite the increased efforts of many localities to engage in system-building efforts for the target population, state-level capacity often has not kept pace or has become diminished for a variety of reasons. In some instances, reorganizations in response to managed care or department consolidations have eliminated an identifiable state-level entity for children's mental health or adolescent substance abuse policies and programs. Devolution of service responsibility to local levels also has had an impact on state-level infrastructure, and, more recently, budget deficits are constraining state capacity. A priority focus of this new grant program is to strengthen the infrastructure in States, territories, and Native American tribes where there are existing local SAMHSA grant projects to ensure the sustainability and growth of these initiatives.
2.
1. Eligible Applicants are limited to States, the District of Columbia, territories and tribal governments. The application must be submitted by the Office of the Chief Executive of the State, territory or tribe. These funds are expected to increase capacity for Statewide and tribal wide changes that promote effective home and community-based mental health/substance abuse services across all service sectors. Therefore, investment of key state-level stakeholders is crucial to the development, sustainability and growth of effective early intervention and treatment systems. Additional information regarding program requirements and application formatting requirements is provided in the INF-04 PA (MOD) in Section III-3. These eligibility criteria supersede the criteria specified in Section III-1 of the INF-04 PA (MOD).
2. Cost Sharing or Matching is not required.
3.
When submitting an application, be sure to type “SM 04-006/Child and Adolescent SIG” in Item Number 10 on the face page of the application form. Also, SAMHSA applicants are required to provide a DUNS Number on the face page of the application. To obtain a DUNS Number, access the Dun and Bradstreet web site at
2.
SAMHSA's goal is to review all applications submitted for grant funding. However, this goal must be balanced against SAMHSA's obligation to ensure equitable treatment of applications. For this reason, SAMHSA has established certain formatting requirements for its applications. If you do not adhere to these requirements, your application will be screened out and returned to you without review.
• Use the PHS 5161-1 application.
• Applications must be received by the application deadline. Applications received after this date must have a proof of mailing date from the carrier dated at least 1 week prior to the due date. Private metered postmarks are not acceptable as proof of timely mailing. Applications not received by the application deadline or not postmarked at least 1 week prior to the application deadline will not be reviewed.
• Information provided must be sufficient for review.
• Text must be legible.
• Type size in the Project Narrative cannot exceed an average of 15 characters per inch, as measured on the physical page. (Type size in charts, tables, graphs, and footnotes will not be considered in determining compliance.)
• Text in the Project Narrative cannot exceed 6 lines per vertical inch.
• Paper must be white paper and 8.5 inches by 11.0 inches in size.
• To ensure equity among applications, the amount of space allowed for the Project Narrative cannot be exceeded.
• Applications would meet this requirement by using all margins (left, right, top, bottom) of at least one inch each, and adhering to the page limit for the Project Narrative stated in the specific funding announcement.
• Should an application not conform to these margin or page limits, SAMHSA will use the following method to determine compliance: The total area of the Project Narrative (excluding margins, but including charts, tables, graphs and footnotes) cannot exceed 58.5 square inches multiplied by the page limit. This number represents the full page less margins, multiplied by the total number of allowed pages.
• Space will be measured on the physical page. Space left blank within the Project Narrative (excluding margins) is considered part of the Project Narrative, in determining compliance.
• The page limit for Appendices stated in the specific funding announcement cannot be exceeded. To facilitate review of your application, follow these additional guidelines. Failure to adhere to the following guidelines will not, in itself, result in your application being screened out and returned without review. However, the information provided in your application must be sufficient for review. Following these guidelines will help ensure your application is complete, and will help reviewers to consider your application.
• The 10 application components required for SAMHSA applications should be included. These are:
• Applications should comply with the following requirements:
• Provisions relating to confidentiality, participant protection and the protection of human subjects, as indicated in the specific funding announcement.
• Budgetary limitations as indicated in Sections I, II, and IV-5 of the specific funding announcement.
• Documentation of nonprofit status as required in the PHS 5161-1.
• Pages should be typed single-spaced with one column per page.
• Pages should not have printing on both sides.
• Please use black ink, and number pages consecutively from beginning to end so that information can be located easily during review of the application. The cover page should be page 1, the abstract page should be page 2, and the table of contents page should be page 3. Appendices should be labeled and separated from the Project Narrative and budget Section, and the pages should be numbered to continue the sequence.
• Send the original application and two copies to the mailing address in the funding announcement. Please do not use staples, paper clips, and fasteners. Nothing should be attached, stapled, folded, or pasted. Do not use heavy or lightweight paper, or any material that cannot be copied using automatic copying machines. Odd-sized and oversized attachments such as posters will not be copied or sent to reviewers. Do not include videotapes, audiotapes, or CD-ROMs.
3.
4.
5.
1.
a. Applicants must describe the aspects of the substance abuse treatment and mental health service systems that will be affected by the proposed project and demonstrate that the proposed project cuts across service delivery systems.
b. Applicants must demonstrate that they have developed or are creating a partnership with relevant local SAMHSA-funded programs (
c. Applicants must provide evidence that the new grant program will strengthen the sustainability and growth of these local initiatives and include Memoranda of Understanding that outline roles and responsibilities of these organizations in Appendix 6 (Memoranda of Support) of the application.
d. Applicants must identify the universe of other relevant federally funded grants operating in the State and describe how the proposed project will be coordinated with these other Federally funded grants. A rationale should be presented, if it does not.
Applicants must document their ability to collect and report data using the Knowledge Application-Client Satisfaction tools which can be found at
All SAMHSA grantees are required to collect and report certain data, so that SAMHSA can meet its obligations under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Grantees of the Child and Adolescent SIG program will be required to report performance in several areas. Applicants must document their ability to collect and report data on the following indicators in “Section D: Evaluation and Data” of their application:
• Increase inclusion of family members and youth in planning, policy, and service delivery.
• Increase the use of evidence-based models/interventions.
• Increase the use of culturally and linguistically competent practices.
• Increase the use of training to build an effective workforce.
• Increase adaptation statewide of promising local grant project practices.
• Increase access statewide to effective treatment and continuing services and supports for the target population.
In addition, SAMHSA grantees will measure customer satisfaction related to training, technical assistance, and meetings conducted with grant funds. SAMHSA will work with grantees to finalize a standard methodology related to these indicators shortly after award.
2.
Award administration information, including award notices, administrative and national policy requirements, and reporting requirements are available in the INF-04 PA (MOD). SAMHSA's standard terms and conditions are available at
For questions about program issues contact: Diane L. Sondheimer, Child, Adolescent, and Family Branch, SAMHSA/CMHS, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11C-16, Rockville, MD 20857; 301-443-1334; E-mail:
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), announces the availability of FY 2004 funds for Grants to Expand Substance Abuse Treatment Capacity in Targeted Areas of Need (Short Title: Targeted Capacity Expansion (TCE) Grants). A synopsis of this funding opportunity, as well as many other Federal Government funding opportunities, is also available at the Internet site:
For complete instructions, potential applicants must obtain a copy of SAMHSA's standard Services Grants Program Announcement, SVC-04 PA (MOD), and the PHS 5161-1 (Rev. 7/00) application form before preparing and submitting an application. The SVC-04 PA (MOD) describes the general program design and provides instructions for applying for most SAMHSA Services Grants including the Targeted Capacity Expansion Grants program. SAMHSA's Services Grants provide funds to expand and strengthen effective, culturally appropriate substance abuse and/or mental health services at the State and local levels. The services implemented through SAMHSA's Services Grants must incorporate the best objective information available regarding effectiveness and acceptability. In general, SAMHSA's Services Grants are appropriate for applicants seeking Federal support to implement substance abuse and/or mental health services that have a strong evidence-base for effectiveness. SAMHSA's Services Grants must be used primarily to support direct service delivery. SAMHSA expects that the services will be sustained beyond the term of the grant. Additional instructions and specific requirements for the Targeted Capacity Expansion Grants are described below.
Section 509 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended and subject to the availability of funds.
The purpose of the Targeted Capacity Expansion Grants program is to expand and/or enhance the community's ability to provide a comprehensive, integrated, and community-based response to a targeted, well-documented substance abuse treatment capacity problem and/or improve the quality and intensity of services. For example, a community might seek a Targeted Capacity Expansion Grant to add state-of-the-art treatment approaches or new services to address emerging trends or unmet needs (
To encourage the substance abuse treatment system to become more responsive and bridge the gap between what is needed by individual States, localities, and/or tribal organizations, and what is known about effective treatments to meet those needs, SAMHSA/CSAT intends to fund programs in four areas in FY 2004: (1) treatment for minority populations
Background: Information reported by SAMHSA underscores a significant disparity between the availability of treatment services for persons with alcohol and drug use disorders and the demand for such services. It is estimated, based on various studies, that there are 3-5 million individuals who use and abuse alcohol and other drugs who have a significant impact on both the utilization of services and costs within the health care, juvenile justice, welfare, child welfare, and other publicly funded social support systems. However, currently, of these individuals, only 1.8 million can be served through the existing publicly funded treatment system. By providing needed treatment services, this program is intended to reduce the health and social costs of substance abuse and dependence to the public, and increase the safety of America's citizens by reducing substance abuse related crime and violence.
1.
SAMHSA expects that approximately $3 million will be available for awards in each category, and that approximately 6 awards will be made in each category. The maximum allowable award is $500,000 in total costs (direct and indirect) per year for up to 3 years. Proposed budgets cannot exceed the allowable amount in any year of the proposed project. The actual amount available for the awards may vary, depending on unanticipated program requirements and the number and quality of the applications received. Annual continuations will depend on the availability of funds, grantee progress in meeting program goals and objectives, and timely submission of required data and reports.
2.
1.
Applications for SAMHSA Services Grants must include evidence of experience and credentials as described in Section III-3 of the SVC-04 PA (MOD). Applications that do not include the required evidence will be screened out and will not be reviewed.
2.
3.
1.
When submitting an application, be sure to type “TI 04-003, TCE” in Item Number 10 on the face page of the application form. Also, SAMHSA applicants are required to provide a DUNS Number on the face page of the application. To obtain a DUNS Number, access the Dun and Bradstreet web site at
Because grantees in the TCE Grants program may use grant funds to provide direct substance abuse services, applicants are required to complete the Assurance of Compliance with SAMHSA Charitable Choice Statutes and Regulations, Form SMA 170. This form will be posted on SAMHSA's web site with the NOFA and provided in the application kits available at NCADI.
2.
SAMHSA's goal is to review all applications submitted for grant funding. However, this goal must be balanced against SAMHSA's obligation to ensure equitable treatment of applications. For this reason, SAMHSA has established certain formatting requirements for its applications. If you do not adhere to these requirements, your application will be screened out and returned to you without review.
• Space will be measured on the physical page. Space left blank within the Project Narrative (excluding margins) is considered part of the Project Narrative, in determining compliance.
To facilitate review of your application, follow these additional guidelines. Failure to adhere to the following guidelines will not, in itself, result in your application being screened out and returned without review. However, the information provided in your application must be sufficient for review. Following these guidelines will help ensure your application is complete, and will help reviewers to consider your application.
These are:
• Provisions relating to confidentiality, participant protection and the protection of human subjects, as indicated in the SVC-04 PA (MOD).
• Budgetary limitations as indicated in Sections I, II, and IV-5 of the SVC-04 PA (MOD).
• Documentation of nonprofit status as required in the PHS 5161-1.
5.
1.1 The 2-year experience requirement in Section III.3.2., Evidence of Experience and Credentials, of the SVC-04 PA (MOD) applies only to specialist substance abuse treatment providers participating in the project.
1.2 You must plan to send a minimum of three persons (Authorized Grantee, Project Director if different, Evaluator) to at least two joint grantee meetings each year instead of the requirement for two persons to one joint grantee meeting each year as stated in the SVC-04 PA (MOD).
1.3 In “Section E, Evaluation and Data,” applicants must, in addition to the requirements specified in the SVC-04 PA (MOD), address the following requirements that are added to the end of the 6th bullet in the Evaluation Criteria section of the SVC-04 PA (MOD):
a. State whether or not these costs are within the acceptable ranges by treatment modality provided in the “Review and Selection Process” section of this document.
b. Discuss the reasonableness of the per person costs. If proposed costs exceed acceptable ranges, a detailed justification must be provided.
1.4 Performance Measurement: All SAMHSA grantees are required to collect and report certain data, so that SAMHSA can meet its obligations under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Grantees of the Targeted Capacity Expansion Grants program will be required to report performance in several areas. Applicants must document their ability to collect and report the required data in “Section E: Evaluation and Data” of their applications.
All Targeted Capacity Expansion grant applicants must document their ability to collect and report data using the Targeted Capacity Expansion Client Level GPRA tool that can be found at
1.5 Progress and Financial Reports. Grantees must provide progress reports every six months instead of annual progress reports required by the SVC-04 PA (MOD). The last report will be a final, cumulative report.
1.6 Public Health System Impact Statement (PHSIS). State and local governments and Indian tribal government applicants are not subject to the Public Health System Reporting Requirements; therefore, applicants for this TCE program are not required to follow the instructions for completing the PHSIS contained in the SVC-04 PA (MOD). In addition, applicants do not have to include an Appendix 4, Letter to the SSA, as required in the SVC-04 PA (MOD).
Award administration information, including information about award notices, administrative requirements and reporting requirements, is included in the SVC-04 PA (MOD) in Section VI. SAMHSA's standard terms and conditions are available at
(
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), announces the availability of FY 2004 funds for Residential Treatment for Pregnant and Postpartum Women and Residential Treatment for Women and Their Children (Short Title: PPW/RWC). A synopsis of this funding opportunity, as well as many other Federal Government funding opportunities, are also available at the Internet site:
For complete instructions, potential applicants must obtain a copy of SAMHSA's standard Services Grants Program Announcement (SVC-04 PA (MOD)), and the PHS 5161-1 (Rev. 7/00) application form before preparing and submitting an application. The SVC-04 PA (MOD) describes the general program design and provides instructions for applying for all SAMHSA Services Grants, including the PPW/RWC program. SAMHSA's Services Grants provide funds to expand and strengthen effective, culturally appropriate substance abuse and mental health services at the State and local levels. The services implemented through SAMHSA's Services Grants must incorporate the best objective information available regarding effectiveness and acceptability. In general, these grants are appropriate for applicants seeking Federal support to implement substance abuse and mental health services that have a strong evidence-base for effectiveness. SAMHSA's Services Grants must be used primarily to support direct service delivery. SAMHSA expects that the services will be sustained beyond the term of the grant. Additional instructions and specific requirements for this funding opportunity are described below.
Section 509 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended and subject to the availability of funds.
The purpose of PPW/RWC grants is to expand the availability of comprehensive, high quality residential substance abuse treatment services for low-income (as defined by Federal poverty definitions) women, age 18 and over, who are pregnant, postpartum (the period after childbirth up to12 months), or other parenting women, and their minor children, age 17 and under, who
For purposes of this grant announcement, residential treatment programs are programs that offer organized substance abuse treatment services that feature a planned regimen of care in a safe 24-hour residential setting with staff supervision. If treatment services are provided off-site, they must be well coordinated and integrated to ensure that specific aspects of the individual treatment plan and services for the children can be addressed in both facilities. Such services must be coupled with access to primary health, mental health and social services for pregnant, postpartum, and other parenting women who suffer from alcohol and drug use problems, and for their minor children impacted by the perinatal and environmental effects of maternal substance use and abuse. These systems of care must be designed to improve the overall treatment outcomes for the woman, her children, and the family unit as a whole. For those minor children who do not reside in the treatment facility, it is important that they are actively engaged in the treatment process with their mothers. Applicants are required to: (1) Identify state-of-the-art clinical and service delivery approaches that are gender-specific and culturally appropriate for women and their minor children; and (2) utilize effective strategies for outreach, engagement, and retention of women in treatment.
Projects must expand or create additional treatment services that contribute to a comprehensive continuum of care. To accomplish a comprehensive service system, SAMHSA/CSAT expects that applicant organizations will need to partner with other organizations. As evidence of these partnerships, SAMHSA/CSAT requires applicants to have written memoranda of understanding/agreement (MOU/MOA) signed by the authorizing official in all partnership agencies and organizations that are critical to the success of the project. These partnership agencies and organizations may include local public housing authorities (for permanent housing for families), child welfare, health, mental health, and child serving agencies, family court, criminal justice, employment and education programs, and other public and private partners.
A recent NIDA study shows that children exposed to alcohol and illicit drugs are at-risk for birth defects, mental retardation, and later behavioral and learning difficulties. Other studies reveal that children who are raised by drug abusing adults tend to exhibit a wide range of developmental, mental health and behavioral problems, and are themselves at higher risk for using alcohol and other drugs.
SAMHSA/CSAT is especially concerned about the high morbidity and mortality rates of African American pregnant women and their infants. African American pregnant women tend to use illicit drugs at a higher rate than any other population of pregnant women. Data from the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that among pregnant women 15 to 44 years of age, 6.2 percent of African American women reported illicit drug use in the month prior to survey compared to 3.6 percent of white women. The effects of illicit drug use by women during the prenatal period are well documented in the literature to include inadequate prenatal care, premature labor, low birth weight infants, and other adverse outcomes. The National Center for Health Statistics reports persistent racial/ethnic disparities in infant mortality. From 1997-2001, the infant mortality rate for babies born to African American mothers was 14.0 per 1000 births while the rate for babies born to Caucasian mothers was 5.7 per 1000.
A CSAT cross-site evaluation study of PPW/RWC projects found strikingly positive treatment outcomes on low birth weight (LBW) deliveries, premature deliveries, and infant deaths. These outcomes were compared to outcomes for women in the general population and to the best available estimates of the rates of adverse outcomes that would have been likely had women continued abusing drugs throughout their pregnancies. The rate of LBW delivery among women in treatment was 5.8% compared to 7.5% for a national sample, and 34% for a comparison of women testing positive for cocaine at delivery. The rate of premature delivery among women in treatment was 7.3% compared to the national sample of 11.4% and a cocaine-using sample of 27%. The rate of infant death for women in treatment was 0.4% compared to the national sample of 0.7% and the cocaine-using sample of 1.2%.
The effects of alcohol and drug use have negative consequences for women, their children, and the entire family. Providing comprehensive treatment services significantly improves the quality of life for women and their children.
1. Eligible Applicants are domestic public and private nonprofit entities. For example, State, local or tribal governments; public or private universities and colleges; community- and faith-based organizations; and tribal organizations may apply. The statutory authority for this program prohibits grants to for-profit organizations.
Applications for SAMHSA Services Grants must include evidence of experience and credentials as described in Section III-3 of the SVC-04 PA (MOD). Applications that do not include the required evidence will be screened out and will not be reviewed.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching is not required.
Because grantees in the PPW/RWC program may use grant funds to provide direct substance abuse services, applicants are required to complete the Assurance of Compliance with SAMHSA Charitable Choice Statutes and Regulations, form SMA 170. This form will be posted on SAMHSA's web site with the NOFA and provided in the Application kits available at NCADI.
SAMHSA's goal is to review all applications submitted for grant funding. However, this goal must be balanced against SAMHSA's obligation to ensure equitable treatment of applications. For this reason, SAMHSA has established certain formatting requirements for its applications. If you do not adhere to these requirements, your application will be screened out and returned to you without review.
• Use the PHS 5161-1 application.
• Applications must be received by the application deadline. Applications received after this date must have a proof of mailing date from the carrier dated at least 1 week prior to the due date. Private metered postmarks are not acceptable as proof of timely mailing. Applications not received by the application deadline or not postmarked at least 1 week prior to the application deadline will not be reviewed.
• Information provided must be sufficient for review.
• Text must be legible.
• Type size in the Project Narrative cannot exceed an average of 15 characters per inch, as measured on the physical page. (Type size in charts, tables, graphs, and footnotes will not be considered in determining compliance.)
• Text in the Project Narrative cannot exceed 6 lines per vertical inch.
• Paper must be white paper and 8.5 inches by 11.0 inches in size.
• To ensure equity among applications, the amount of space allowed for the Project Narrative cannot be exceeded.
• Applications would meet this requirement by using all margins (left, right, top, bottom) of at least one inch each, and adhering to the page limit for the Project Narrative stated in the SVC-04 PA (MOD).
• Should an application not conform to these margin or page limits, SAMHSA will use the following method to determine compliance: The total area of the Project Narrative (excluding margins, but including charts, tables, graphs and footnotes) cannot exceed 58.5 square inches multiplied by the page limit. This number represents the full page less margins, multiplied by the total number of allowed pages.
• Space will be measured on the physical page. Space left blank within the Project Narrative (excluding margins) is considered part of the Project Narrative, in determining compliance.
• The page limit for Appendices stated in the SVC-04 PA (MOD) cannot be exceeded.
To facilitate review of your application, follow these additional guidelines. Failure to adhere to the following guidelines will not, in itself, result in your application being screened out and returned without review. However, the information provided in your application must be sufficient for review. Following these guidelines will help ensure your application is complete, and will help reviewers to consider your application.
• The 10 application components required for SAMHSA applications should be included. These are:
• Applications should comply with the following requirements:
• Pages should be typed single-spaced with one column per page.
• Pages should not have printing on both sides.
• Please use black ink, and number pages consecutively from beginning to end so that information can be located easily during review of the application. The cover page should be page 1, the abstract page should be page 2, and the table of contents page should be page 3. Appendices should be labeled and separated from the Project Narrative and budget section, and the pages should be numbered to continue the sequence.
• Send the original application and two copies to the mailing address in the funding announcement. Please do not use staples, paper clips, and fasteners. Nothing should be attached, stapled, folded, or pasted. Do not use heavy or lightweight paper, or any material that cannot be copied using automatic copying machines. Odd-sized and oversized attachments such as posters will not be copied or sent to reviewers. Do not include videotapes, audiotapes, or CD-ROMs.
a. Applicants must demonstrate that residential treatment services will be provided to pregnant, postpartum, or other parenting women and their minor children.
b. Applicants must identify state-of-the art clinical and service delivery approaches that are gender-specific and culturally appropriate for women and also age appropriate for their minor children. Applicants must also discuss effective strategies for outreach, engagement, and retention of women in treatment.
a. Applicants are not required to respond to the 4th bullet related to how project components will be embedded within the existing service delivery system.
b. Applicants must describe a comprehensive service system of care that includes the
• Outreach, screening, and assessment;
• Detoxification;
• Substance abuse education and treatment;
• Medical, dental, other physical health care services, including diabetes, hypertension, prenatal and postpartum health care; and referrals for necessary hospital services;
• Training in parenting;
• Education, screening, counseling, and treatment of Hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, other STDs, and related issues;
• Mental health assessment and treatment;
• Trauma-informed services, including assessment and interventions for emotional, sexual, and physical abuse;
• Employment readiness, training, and placement;
• Education and tutoring assistance for obtaining a GED and higher education;
• Childcare during periods in which the woman is engaged in therapy or in other necessary health or rehabilitative activities; and
• Transportation and other wraparound services.
• Screenings and developmental diagnostic assessments regarding the social, emotional, cognitive, and physical status of the infants and children;
• Therapeutic interventions, including counseling, occupational, and physical therapies;
• Pediatric health care, including immunizations, and treatment for asthma, diabetes, hypertension, and any perinatal effects of maternal substance abuse,
• Social services and financial supports; and
• Education and recreational services.
• Individual and family counseling/therapy;
• Alcohol and drug education;
• Parenting training; and
• Referral services for substance abuse, social, psychological, and medical services.
• Coordinate services;
• Assess and monitor the extent to which required services are appropriate for women and children;
• Assist with community reintegration, before and after discharge, including referrals to appropriate resources; and
• Assist in accessing resources from Federal, State, and local programs that provide a range of treatment services, including substance abuse, health, mental health, housing, employment, education, and training.
Program costs. The following are considered reasonable ranges by treatment modality:
SAMHSA/CSAT computes per person costs as follows. The total support requested for the life of the project is multiplied by .8 (.2 will be the allowance for GPRA reporting requirements). The resulting amount is then be divided by the number of persons the applicant proposes to serve over the life of the project.
The outreach and pretreatment services cost band only applies to outreach and pretreatment programs that do not also offer treatment services but operate within a network of substance abuse treatment facilities. Treatment programs that add outreach and pretreatment services to a treatment modality or modalities are expected to fall within the cost band for that treatment modality.
2.
VI. Award Administration Information
Award administration information, including award notices, administrative and national policy requirements, and reporting requirements are available in the SVC-04 PA (MOD) in Section VI. SAMHSA's standard terms and conditions are available at
VII. Agency Contact for Additional Information
For questions concerning program issues, contact Linda White Young, SAMHSA/CSAT, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockwall II, Suite 740, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-8392; E-mail:
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of request for applications for Recovery Community Services Program (RCSP III) (TI 04-008).
Section 509 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended and subject to the availability of funds.
The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) is accepting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2004 grants to deliver and evaluate peer-to-peer recovery support services that help prevent relapse and promote sustained recovery from alcohol and drug use disorders, as authorized under section 509 of the Public Health Service Act. Successful applicants will provide peer-to-peer recovery support services that are responsive to community needs and strengths, and will carry out a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the services.
This Recovery Community Services Program (RCSP III) complements SAMHSA's Access to Recovery (ATR) program, which provides grant funding to States, Territories and Tribal Organizations to implement voucher programs for substance abuse clinical treatment and recovery support services. ATR is part of a major Presidential Initiative to provide client choice among substance abuse clinical treatment and recovery support service providers, expand access to a comprehensive array of clinical treatment and recovery support options (including faith-based programmatic options), and increase substance abuse treatment capacity. Although not required, applicants for RCSP III are encouraged to coordinate with their State/Territorial/Tribal governments so that RCSP applications will complement the State/Territorial/Tribal governments' applications for ATR.
Applications are due on May 18, 2004.
For questions on program issues, contact: Catherine D. Nugent, M.S., SAMHSA/CSAT, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockwall II, Room 7-213, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2662, Fax: (301) 443-8345, E-mail:
For questions on grants management issues, contact: Kathleen Sample, Division of Grants Management, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration/OPS, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockwall II 6th Floor, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-9667, Fax: (301) 443-6468, E-mail:
Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) No.: 93.243.
As authorized under section 509 of the Public Health Service Act, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) announces the availability of FY 2004 funds for grants to deliver and evaluate peer-to-peer recovery support services that help prevent relapse and promote sustained recovery from alcohol and drug use disorders. Successful applicants will provide peer-to-peer recovery support services that are responsive to community needs and strengths, and will carry out a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the services.
This Recovery Community Services Program (RCSP III) complements SAMHSA's Access to Recovery (ATR) program. ATR provides grant funding to States, Territories and Tribal Organizations to implement voucher programs for substance abuse clinical treatment and recovery support services pursuant to sections 501(d)(5) and 509 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa(d)(5) and 290bb-2). ATR is part of a major Presidential Initiative to provide client choice among substance abuse clinical treatment and recovery support service providers, expand access to a comprehensive array of clinical treatment and recovery support options (including faith-based programmatic options), and increase substance abuse treatment capacity. Although not required, applicants for RCSP III are encouraged to coordinate with their State/Territorial/Tribal governments so that RCSP applications will complement the State/Territorial/Tribal governments' applications for ATR.
The primary target for this program is people with a history of alcohol and/or drug problems who are in or seeking recovery, along with their family members and significant others who will be both the providers and recipients of recovery support services. For purposes of this document, the term
Peer-to-peer recovery support services are designed and delivered by peers rather than by professionals. Professionals will be good allies, and successful peer initiatives will network and build strong and mutually supportive relationships with formal systems and professionals in their communities. However, peer services will be designed and delivered primarily by individuals and families in recovery to meet their recovery support needs, as they define them. Therefore, although supportive of formal treatment, peer recovery support services are not treatment in the commonly understood clinical sense of the term.
At the same time, peer recovery support services are expected to extend and enhance the treatment continuum in at least two ways. These services will help prevent relapse and promote long-term recovery, thereby reducing the strain on the over-burdened treatment system. Moreover, when individuals do experience relapse, recovery support services can help minimize the negative effects through early intervention and, where appropriate, timely referral to treatment.
Continued sobriety or abstinence (which includes abstinence attained with medication, such as methadone or buprenorphine) is an important part of sustained recovery from addiction. However, recovery is a larger construct than sobriety or abstinence that embraces a full reengagement with the community based on resilience, health, and hope. Therefore, peer recovery support services are expected to focus less on the pathology of substance use disorders and more on maximizing the opportunities to create a lifetime of recovery and wellness for self, family, and community. Appendix B provides a listing of examples of peer-to-peer recovery support services.
Applicants must demonstrate that the array of services offered is responsive to community need and complements existing community resources. The goal is to add to the existing resources in the community with peer-to-peer recovery support services that can meet the stage-appropriate needs of people who are seeking to initiate recovery or working to sustain it. Successful peer-to-peer recovery support services will include ongoing assessment of participants' support needs and a menu of supportive services to meet the needs at various stages in recovery.
Because peer recovery support services operationalize the construct of social support, it may be helpful for applicants to consider four types of social support cited in the literature (Cobb, 1976; Salser, 1998), and to design a mix of services that includes activities in the following categories:
•
•
•
•
Based on assessment of the targeted recovery community, the applicant should determine which services, and in which proportion, are expected to be optimally responsive to community needs.
Although alcohol- and drug-free social and recreational activities are acceptable services under this grant, applicants may not limit their services to companion support, but, rather, must include a broad range of supports from the various social support categories.
Applicants must identify the core values that will guide their approach, and explain how these values will be operationalized in the design and delivery of peer-to-peer recovery support services. Applicants must discuss each of the following values, which are further explained in Appendix D: (a) Keeping recovery first; (b) participatory process; (c) authentic recovery community voice; (d) leadership development, and (e) cultural diversity and inclusion. Applicants may identify and discuss other values important to the targeted recovery community, but must discuss these five.
Applications may be submitted by either independent
The facilitating organization's role in the grant will be to:
• Enable the formation of an independent RCO that will provide peer-to-peer recovery support services; or
• Develop some other viable organizational structure that enables recovery community members to provide peer-to-peer recovery support services in an autonomous and self-directed manner within the facilitating organization.
Whether through formation of an
Treatment providers, units of government, universities, and all other professionally-based organizations may apply
Members of the recovery community must have a meaningful leadership role in any project, whether carried out by an
Organizations funded under RCSP III must be sufficiently established to begin implementing peer recovery support services within six months of award. However, SAMHSA recognizes that infrastructure development may be needed to support organizational start-up and development, as well as service design, in some instances. Although the majority of grant funds should be used for direct services, you may use up to 15% of the total RCSP III grant award for the following types of infrastructure development, if necessary, to support the design, development, and initiation of the peer services you will offer:
• Activities related to organizational and project start-up, such as staff and board development, as well as ongoing organizational functions, such as risk management and accounting services.
• Community assessment and development. (Although you must demonstrate knowledge of community needs and resources in your application, if you are funded, you may use a limited amount of grant funds to conduct additional assessments and refine your service plan, and to further mobilize the targeted recovery community to participate in the program.)
• Building partnerships to ensure the success of the project and entering into service delivery or other agreements.
It is expected that peer leadership development (
You must plan to send at least two to three key staff members (including the Project Director) to a yearly technical assistance meeting, and you must plan to send approximately 5-8 representatives of your project, including key staff and peer leaders from your targeted recovery community, to a yearly RCSP conference. You must include funding for this travel in your budget. At these meetings, grantees will present the results of their projects and Federal staff will provide technical assistance. Each meeting will be 3 days. These meetings will usually be held in the Washington, DC., area, and attendance is mandatory.
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-62, or “GPRA”) requires all Federal agencies to set program performance targets and report annually on the degree to which the previous year's targets were met.
Agencies are expected to evaluate their programs regularly and to use results of these evaluations to explain their successes and failures and justify their request for funding.
To meet GPRA requirements, SAMHSA must collect performance data (
The purpose of the RCSP III GPRA data is to provide information that helps to establish the value of peer-to-peer recovery support services in preventing relapse and promoting sustained recovery. To accomplish this, you will be required to provide data on a set of required performance indicators. (Note to previous RCSP applicants: The GPRA requirements have changed; RCSP III is designed to provide performance data that was not required in previous RCSP programs.)
• Are currently employed or engaged in productive activities
• Have a permanent place to live in the community
• Have reduced their involvement with the criminal justice system
• Have not used illegal drugs or misused alcohol or prescription drugs during the past month
• Have experienced reduced health, behavior, or social consequences related to abuse of alcohol or illegal drugs or misuse of prescription drugs.
• Are attending school
• Are residing in a stable living environment
• Have no involvement in the juvenile justice system
• Have not used alcohol or illegal drugs or misused prescription drugs during the previous month
• Have experienced reduced health, behavior, or social consequences related to use of alcohol, abuse of illegal drugs, or misuse of prescription drugs.
GPRA data are to be collected at baseline (
You may allocate up to 20% of your project budget to collect and report GPRA data and for your process evaluation (see below).
The data collection tool, Targeted Capacity Expansion Client Level GPRA Tool, to be used for reporting the required data will be provided in the application kits distributed by the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI) and can be found at
In your application, you must demonstrate your ability to collect and report on these measures. (You should not, however, include GPRA data collection forms.) If you do not have the capability to collect and report on the GPRA measures, you will need to partner with an individual or organization that does.
GPRA data are to be collected and then entered into CSAT's GPRA Data Entry and Reporting System (
The terms and conditions of the grant award also will specify the data to be submitted and the schedule for submission. Grantees will be required to adhere to these terms and conditions of award.
Applicants should be aware that SAMHSA is working to develop a set of required core performance measures for four types of grants (
Grantees must evaluate their projects, and you are required to describe your evaluation plans in your application. The evaluation should be designed to provide regular feedback to the project to improve services. The evaluation must include the required GPRA performance measures (outcome evaluation) described above, as well as process components (process evaluation—described below), which measure change relating to project goals and objectives over time compared to baseline information. Control or comparison groups are not required.
• How closely did implementation match the plan?
• What types of deviation from the plan occurred?
• What led to the deviations?
• What effect did the deviations have on the planned intervention and evaluation?
• Who provided (program staff, peer leaders) what services (modality, type, intensity, duration), to whom (individual characteristics), in what context (organization, community), and at what cost (facilities, personnel, dollars)?
You may use no more than 20% of the total grant award for evaluation and data collection, including GPRA.
It is expected that approximately $2.5 million will be available in fiscal year 2004 to fund approximately 7 grants. The average annual award is expected to be about $350,000 in total costs (direct and indirect), and grants will be awarded for a period of up to 4 years. The actual amount available for the awards may vary, depending on unanticipated program requirements and the number and quality of the applications received.
Out of the $2.5 million available, SAMHSA/CSAT plans to set aside approximately $1.4 million to fund up to 4 RCOs (as defined in Section I.2.5, entitled Types of Peer Services Organizations).
Awards will be made as grants.
Eligible applicants are domestic public and private nonprofit entities. For example, State, local or tribal governments; public or private universities and colleges; community- and faith-based organizations; and tribal organizations may apply. The statutory authority for this program precludes grants to for-profit organizations.
Consortia comprised of various types of eligible organizations are permitted; however, a single organization representing the consortium must be the applicant, the recipient of any award, and the entity responsible for satisfying the grant requirements.
If you are proposing a consortia, a recovery community organization or people in recovery and their families must have a significant role in the consortium and the project.
Organizations that were funded under
Cost-sharing (
Applicants must comply with the following requirements, or they will be screened out and will not be reviewed: use of the PHS 5161-1 application; application submission requirements in Section IV-3 of this document; and formatting requirements provided in Section IV-2.3 of this document.
To ensure that you have met all submission requirements, a checklist is provided for your use in Appendix C of this document.
You may request a complete application kit by calling the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI) at 1-800-729-6686. You also may download the required documents from the SAMHSA Web site at
Additional materials available on this Web site include:
• A technical assistance manual for potential applicants;
• Standard terms and conditions for SAMHSA grants;
• Guidelines and policies that relate to SAMHSA grants (
• Enhanced instructions for completing the PHS 5161-1 application.
SAMHSA application kits include the following documents:
• PHS 5161-1 (revised July 2000)—Includes the face page, budget forms, assurances, certification, and checklist. Use the PHS 5161-1.
• Request for Applicants (RFA)—Includes instructions for the grant application. This document is the RFA.
You must use the above documents in completing your application.
To ensure equitable treatment of all applications, applications must be complete. In order for your application to be complete, it must include the required ten application components (Face Page, Abstract, Table of Contents, Budget Form, Project Narrative and Supporting Documentation, Appendices, Assurances, Certifications, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, and Checklist).
•
•
•
•
•
The Supporting Documentation provides additional information necessary for the review of your application. This supporting documentation should be provided immediately following your Project Narrative in Sections F through I. There are no page limits for these sections, except for Section H, the Biographical Sketches/Job Descriptions.
•
•
•
—Include a biographical sketch for the Project Director and other key positions. Each sketch should be 2 pages or less. If the person has not been hired, include a letter of commitment from the individual with a current biographical sketch.
—Include job descriptions for key personnel. Job descriptions should be no longer than 1 page each.
—Sample sketches and job descriptions are listed on page 22, Item 6 in the Program Narrative section of the PHS 5161-1.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Applicants also must comply with the following basic application requirements. Applications that do not comply with these requirements will be screened out and will not be reviewed.
• Information provided must be sufficient for review.
• Text must be legible.
• Paper must be white paper and 8.5 inches by 11.0 inches in size.
• To ensure equity among applications, the amount of space allowed for the Project Narrative cannot be exceeded.
• The 30-page limit for Appendices 1, 3 and 4 cannot be exceeded.
To facilitate review of your application, follow these additional guidelines. Failure to adhere to the following guidelines will not, in itself, result in your application being screened out and returned without review. However, following these guidelines will help reviewers to consider your application.
• Pages should be typed single-spaced with one column per page.
• Pages should not have printing on both sides.
• Please use black ink and number pages consecutively from beginning to end so that information can be located easily during review of the application. The cover page should be page 1, the abstract page should be page 2, and the table of contents page should be page 3. Appendices should be labeled and separated from the Project Narrative and budget section, and the pages should be numbered to continue the sequence.
• Send the original application and two copies to the mailing address in Section IV-6.1 of this document. Please do not use staples, paper clips, and fasteners. Nothing should be attached, stapled, folded, or pasted. Do not use heavy or lightweight paper or any material that cannot be copied using automatic copying machines. Odd-sized and oversized attachments such as posters will not be copied or sent to reviewers. Do not include videotapes, audiotapes, or CD-ROMs.
You must describe your procedures relating to Confidentiality, Participant Protection and the Protection of Human Subjects Regulations in Section I of your application, using the guidelines provided below. Problems with confidentiality, participant protection, and protection of human subjects identified during peer review of your application may result in the delay of funding.
• Identify and describe any foreseeable physical, medical, psychological, social, and legal, risks or
• Describe the procedures you will follow to minimize or protect participants against potential risks, including risks to confidentiality.
• Identify plans to provide guidance and assistance in the event there are adverse effects to participants.
• Where appropriate, describe alternative treatments and procedures that may be beneficial to the participants. If you choose not to use these other beneficial treatments, provide the reasons for not using them.
• Describe the target population(s) for the proposed project. Include age, gender, and racial/ethnic background and note if the population includes homeless youth, foster children, children of substance abusers, pregnant women, or other targeted groups.
• Explain the reasons for including groups of pregnant women, children, people with mental disabilities, people in institutions, prisoners, and individuals who are likely to be particularly vulnerable to HIV/AIDS.
• Explain the reasons for
• Explain how you will recruit and select participants. Identify who will select participants.
• Explain if participation in the project is voluntary or required. Identify possible reasons why participation is required, for example, court orders requiring people to participate in a program.
• If you plan to compensate participants, state how participants will be awarded incentives (
• State how volunteer participants will be told that they may receive services intervention even if they do not participate in or complete the data collection component of the project.
• Identify from whom you will collect data (
• Identify what type of specimens (
• Provide in Appendix 2, “Data Collection Instruments/Interview Protocols,” copies of
• Explain how you will ensure privacy and confidentiality. Include who will collect data and how it will be collected.
• Describe:
If applicable, grantees must agree to maintain the confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse client records according to the provisions of title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part II.
• List what information will be given to people who participate in the project. Include the type and purpose of their participation. Identify the data that will be collected, how the data will be used and how you will keep the data private.
• State:
• Explain how you will get consent for youth, the elderly, people with limited reading skills, and people who do not use English as their first language.
If the project poses potential physical, medical, psychological, legal, social or other risks, you must obtain
• Indicate if you will obtain informed consent from participants or assent from minors along with consent from their parents or legal guardians. Describe how the consent will be documented. For example: Will you read the consent forms? Will you ask prospective participants questions to be sure they understand the forms? Will you give them copies of what they sign?
• Include, as appropriate, sample consent forms that provide for: (1) Informed consent for participation in service intervention; (2) informed consent for participation in the data collection component of the project; and (3) informed consent for the exchange (releasing or requesting) of confidential information. The sample forms must be included in Appendix 3 of your application, “Sample Consent Forms.”
• If needed, give English translations.
Never imply that the participant waives or appears to waive any legal rights, may not end involvement with the project, or releases your project or its agents from liability for negligence.
• Describe if separate consents will be obtained for different stages or parts of the project. For example, will they be needed for both participant protection in treatment intervention and for the collection and use of data.
• Additionally, if other consents (
Discuss why the risks are reasonable compared to expected benefits and importance of the knowledge from the project.
A Sample Consent Form for Participation in Peer Recovery Support Services is in Appendix E. In addition, examples of risks and protections for peer recovery support services are included in Appendix F. Additional participant protection challenges for peer services are included in Appendix G, along with examples of strategies to address the challenges. These appendices are provided to help you consider some of the participant protection issues that may affect your proposed project. They are not to be considered exhaustive; you must consider the specific risks and protections that will be important for your particular project.
Applicants must be aware that even if the Protection of Human Subjects Regulations do not apply to all projects funded under a given funding opportunity, the specific evaluation design proposed by the applicant may
Applicants who projects must comply with the Protection of Human Subjects Regulations must describe the process for obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval fully in their applications. While IRB approval is not required at the time of grant award, these applicants will be required, as a condition of award, to provide the documentation that an Assurance of Compliance is on file with the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the IRB approval has been received prior to enrolling any clients in the proposed project.
Additional information about Protection of Human Subjects Regulations can be obtained on the Web at
Applications are due May 18, 2004.
Your application must be received by the application deadline. Applications received after this date must have a proof-of-mailing date from the carrier dated at least 1 week prior to the due date. Private metered postmarks are not acceptable as proof of timely mailing.
You will be notified by postal mail that your application has been received.
Applications not received by the application deadline or not postmarked by a week prior to the application deadline will be screened out and will not be reviewed.
Executive Order 12372, as implemented through Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regulation at 45 CFR part 100, sets up a system for State and local review of applications for Federal financial assistance. A current listing of State Single Points of Contact (SPOCs) is included in the application kit and can be downloaded from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Web site at
• Check the list to determine whether your State participates in this program. You do not need to do this if you are a federally recognized Indian tribal government.
• If your State participates, contact your SPOC as early as possible to alert him/her to the prospective application(s) and to receive any necessary instructions on the State's review process.
• For proposed projects serving more than one State, you are advised to contact the SPOC of each affiliated State.
• The SPOC should send any State review process recommendations to the following address within 60 days of the application deadline:
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Program Services, Review Branch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 17-89, Rockville, Maryland, 20857, ATTN: SPOC—Funding Announcement No. TI-04-008.
In addition, community-based, non-governmental service providers who are not transmitting their applications through the State must submit a Public Health System Impact Statement or PHSIS (approved by OMB under control no. 0920-0428; see burden statement below) to the head(s) of the appropriate State and local health agencies in the area(s) to be affected no later than the pertinent receipt date for applications. The PHSIS is intended to keep State and local health officials informed of proposed health services grant applications submitted by community-based, non-governmental organizations within their jurisdictions.
This PHSIS consists of the following information:
• A copy of the face page of the application (SF 424); and
• A summary of the project, no longer than one page in length, that provides: (1) A description of the population to be served, (2) a summary of the services to be provided, and (3) a description of the coordination planned with appropriate State or local health agencies.
For SAMHSA grants, the appropriate State agencies are the Single State Agencies (SSAs) for substance abuse and mental health. A listing of the SSAs can be found on SAMHSA's Web site at
Applicants who are not the SSA
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Program Services, Review Branch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 17-89, Rockville, Maryland, 20857, ATTN: SSA—Funding Announcement No. TI-04-008.
In addition:
• Applicants may request that the SSA send them a copy of any State comments.
• The applicant must notify the SSA within 30 days of receipt of an award.
[Public reporting burden for the Public Health System Reporting Requirement is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including the time for copying the face page of SF 424 and the abstract and preparing the letter for mailing. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this project is 0920-0428. Send comments regarding this burden to CDC Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS D-24, Atlanta, GA 30333, ATTN: PRA (0920-0428)].
Cost principles describing allowable and unallowable expenditures for Federal grantees, including SAMHSA grantees, are provided in the following documents:
• Institutions of Higher Education: OMB Circular A-21
• State and Local Governments: OMB Circular A-87
• Nonprofit Organizations: OMB Circular A-122
• Appendix E Hospitals: 45 CFR Part 74
In addition, SAMHSA Services Grant recipients must comply with the following funding restrictions:
• No more than 15% of the total grant award may be used for developing the infrastructure necessary for peer services.
• No more than 20% of the total grant award may be used for evaluation and data collection, including GPRA.
Service Grant funds must be used for purposes supported by the program and may not be used to:
• Pay for any lease beyond the project period.
• Pay for professional alcohol and/or drug treatment services. (Note: This program supports peer-to-peer recovery support services that prevent relapse and promote long-term recovery.)
• Provide services to incarcerated populations (defined as those persons in jail, prison, detention facilities, or in custody where they are not free to move about in the community),
• Pay for the purchase or construction of any building or structure to house any part of the program. (Applicants may request up to $75,000 for renovations and alterations of existing facilities, if necessary and appropriate to the project.)
• Pay for programs, services, or materials that are routinely provided free of charge to the recovery community.
• Pay for incentives to induce individuals to participate in recovery support services. However, grantees may allocate funds for various types of instrumental support for participants, such as bus tokens, coupons for food, access to clothing closet, etc., and may allocate funds to pay or provide incentives for peer leaders who will provide recovery support services. In addition, a grantee may provide up to $20 or equivalent (coupons, bus tokens, gifts, child care, and vouchers) to individuals as incentives to participate in required data collection follow-up. This amount may be paid for participation in each required interview. Any incentives for instrumental supports for participants or for data collection, as well as any proposed compensation for peer leaders, must be clearly described in the project narrative and included in the budget and budget narrative.
• Implement syringe exchange programs, such as the purchase and distribution of syringes and/or needles.
• Pay for advocacy or lobbying.
Send applications to the following address:
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Program Services, Review Branch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 17-89, Rockville, Maryland, 20857.
Be sure to include RCSP III, TI 04-008 in item number 10 on the face page of the application. If you require a phone number for delivery, you may use (301) 443-4266.
Mail an original application and 2 copies (including appendices) to the mailing address provided above. The original and copies must not be bound. Do not use staples, paper clips, or fasteners. Nothing should be attached, stapled, folded, or pasted.
You must use a recognized commercial or governmental carrier.
Your application will be reviewed and scored according to the quality of your response to the requirements listed below for developing the Project Narrative (Sections A-E). These sections describe what you intend to do with your project.
• In developing the Project Narrative section of your application, use these instructions, which have been tailored to this program. These are to be used instead of the “Program Narrative” instructions found in the PHS 5161-1.
• The Project Narrative (Sections A-E) together may be no longer than 30 pages.
• You must use the five sections/headings listed below in developing your Project Narrative. Be sure to place the required information in the correct section, or it will not be considered. Your application will be scored according to how well you address the requirements for each section of the Project Narrative.
• Reviewers will be looking for evidence of cultural competence in each section of the Project Narrative. Points will be assigned on how well you address the cultural aspects of the evaluation criteria. SAMHSA'S guidelines for cultural competence can be found on the SAMHSA Web site at
• The Supporting Documentation you provide in Sections F-I and Appendices 1-4 will be considered by reviewers in assessing your response, along with the material in the Project Narrative.
• The number of points after each heading is the maximum number of points a review committee may assign to that section of your Project Narrative. Bullet statements in each section do not have points assigned to them. They are provided to invite the attention of applicants and reviewers to important areas within the criterion.
• Define the target populations that will receive and provide peer recovery support services and provide a rationale for selecting those target populations, as well as the geographic area to be served. (
• Describe the nature of the problem and extent of the need for recovery support services for the target population. Documentation of need may come from quantitative and/or qualitative sources. The quantitative data could come from community assessments you or others have conducted, or from local data or trend analyses, State data (
• Based on your quantitative and qualitative findings, discuss your understanding of the recovery issues facing the targeted recovery community, including family members/significant others.
• Describe how the proposed peer recovery support services will complement existing professional and peer services in your community (
• Describe any other meaningful results you expect your project to produce.
• Clearly identify your organization as either a Facilitating Organization or Recovery Community Organization.
• Describe previous efforts organizing and mobilizing the targeted recovery community (by your organization and/or others), and explain why you think the community is ready to participate in providing and receiving peer-to-peer recovery support services.
• Describe the extent to which the recovery community indicates support for your proposed project.
• Describe the extent to which other categories of stakeholders indicate support for your proposed project. Identify categories of stakeholders—for example, treatment and other
• Clearly state the purpose, goals, and objectives of your proposed project. Describe how achievement of goals will produce meaningful and relevant results (
• Demonstrate how the proposed services will meet your goals and objectives.
• Discuss and explain the core values that will guide the project design and implementation, and explain how each of these values will be operationalized. At a minimum, discuss each of the following as it relates to the proposed project: (a) Recovery first; (b) participatory process; (c) authentic recovery community voice; (d) leadership development, and (e) cultural diversity, including the various “cultures of recovery” and/or routes to recovery. (See Appendix D for an explanation of these values.) You may identify and discuss other values important to your targeted recovery community, but you must discuss these five.
• Describe how the services will be implemented.
—Clearly explain each recovery support service you plan to provide. (Note: Be sure to include a mix of services that builds on the strengths and needs in the targeted recovery community.
—Explain your plans for building recovery community members' skills to serve as peer leaders and service providers in the delivery of peer-to-peer recovery support services. Include a discussion of your plans for recruiting, screening, orienting, training, and supervising the peers providing recovery support services.
• Clearly state the unduplicated number of individuals you propose to serve (annually and over the entire project period) with grant funds. Applicants should propose to serve no fewer than 100 individuals per year.
• Describe how the target population will be identified, recruited, and retained.
• Describe how the proposed project will address issues of age, race, ethnicity, culture, language, sexual orientation, disability, literacy, gender, and path to recovery in the target population.
• Describe how members of the recovery community helped prepare the application, and how they will help plan, implement, and evaluate the project.
• Discuss how you plan to develop effective partnerships with professional treatment organizations and self-help groups, so as to minimize duplication of services and perceived threats of encroachment on established “territory.”
• Describe the potential barriers to successful conduct of the proposed project and how you will overcome them.
• Provide a time line for Year I of the project (chart or graph) showing key activities, milestones, and responsible staff. [
• Show that the necessary groundwork (
• Discuss the capability and experience of the applicant organization and other participating organizations with similar projects and populations, including experience organizing and mobilizing in the recovery community, and providing peer services, as well as culturally appropriate/competent services.
• Provide a list of staff who will participate in the project, showing the role of each and their level of effort and qualifications. Include the Project Director and other key personnel, such as Volunteer/Peer Coordinator, and Evaluator.
• Describe the resources available for the proposed project (
• Document your ability to collect, manage, and report on the required GPRA performance measures for SAMHSA Services Grants. (
• If you choose to include an
• If you choose to include an
• Describe the
Although the budget for the proposed project is not a review criterion, the Review Group will be asked to comment on the appropriateness of the budget after the merits of the application have been considered.
SAMHSA applications are peer-reviewed according to the review criteria listed above. For those programs where the individual award is over $100,000, applications must also be reviewed by the appropriate National Advisory Council.
Decisions to fund a grant are based on:
• The strengths and weaknesses of the application as identified by the peer review committee and, when applicable, approved by the appropriate National Advisory Council;
• Availability of funds; and
• Equitable allocation of grants in terms of geography (including urban, rural and remote settings) and balance among target populations and program size.
• After applying the aforementioned criteria, the following method for breaking ties: When funds are not available to fund all applications with identical scores, SAMHSA will make award decisions based on the
After your application has been reviewed, you will receive a letter from SAMHSA through postal mail that describes the general results of the review, including the score that your application received.
If you are approved for funding, you will receive an additional notice, the Notice of Grant Award, signed by SAMHSA's Grants Management Officer. The Notice of Grant Award is the sole obligating document that allows the grantee to receive Federal funding for work on the grant project. It is sent by postal mail and is addressed to the contact person listed on the face page of the application.
If you are not funded, you can re-apply if there is another receipt date for the program.
• You must comply with all terms and conditions of the grant award. SAMHSA's standard terms and conditions are available on the SAMHSA Web site
• Depending on the nature of the specific funding opportunity and/or the proposed project as identified in the RFA or during review, additional terms and conditions may be negotiated with the grantee prior to grant award. These may include, for example:
• You will be held accountable for the information provided in the application relating to performance targets. SAMHSA program officials will consider your progress in meeting goals and objectives, as well as your failures and strategies for overcoming them, when making an annual recommendation to continue the grant and the amount of any continuation award. Failure to meet stated goals and objectives may result in suspension or termination of the grant award, or in reduction or withholding of continuation awards.
• In an effort to improve access to funding opportunities for applicants, SAMHSA is participating in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services “Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants.” This survey is included in the application kit for SAMHSA grants. Applicants are encouraged to complete the survey and return it, using the instructions provided on the survey form.
• Grantees must provide quarterly progress and final reports. The final report must summarize information from the quarterly reports, describe the accomplishments of the project, and describe next steps for implementing plans developed during the grant period.
• Grantees must provide annual and final financial status reports. Because SAMHSA is extremely interested in ensuring that recovery services can be sustained, your financial reports should explain plans to ensure the sustainability of efforts initiated under this grant. Initial plans for sustainability should be described in year 01. In each subsequent year, you should describe the status of your project, as well as the successes achieved and obstacles encountered in that year.
• SAMHSA will provide guidelines and requirements for these reports to grantees at the time of award and at the initial grantee orientation meeting after award. SAMHSA staff will use the information contained in the reports to determine the grantee's progress toward meeting its goals.
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) mandates accountability and performance-based management by Federal agencies. To meet the GPRA requirements, SAMHSA must collect performance data (.e.g., “GPRA data”) from grantees. These requirements are specified in Section I-2.8, Data and Performance Measurement, of this RFA.
If you are funded under this program, you are required to notify the Government Project Officer (GPO) and SAMHSA's Publications Clearance Officer (301-443-8596) of any materials based on the SAMHSA-funded grant project that are accepted for publication.
In addition, SAMHSA requests that grantees:
• Provide the GPO and SAMHSA Publications Clearance Officer with advance copies of publications.
• Include acknowledgment of the SAMHSA grant program as the source of funding for the project.
• Include a disclaimer stating that the views and opinions contained in the publication do not necessarily reflect those of SAMHSA or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and should not be construed as such.
SAMHSA reserves the right to issue a press release about any publication deemed by SAMHSA to contain information of program or policy significance to the addiction treatment and recovery, substance abuse prevention, and/or mental health services community.
For questions about program issues, contact:
Catherine D. Nugent, M.S., Recovery Community Services Program, CSAT/SAMHSA, Rockwall II, Room 7-213,5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2662,
For questions on grants management issues, contact:
Kathleen Sample, SAMHSA, Division of Grants Management, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockwall II 6th Floor, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-9667,
SAMHSA's goal is to review all applications submitted for grant funding. However, this goal must be balanced against SAMHSA's obligation to ensure equitable treatment of applications. For this reason, SAMHSA has established certain formatting requirements for its applications. If you do not adhere to these requirements, your application will be screened out and returned to you without review. In addition to these formatting requirements, programmatic requirements (
• Use the PHS 5161-1 application.
• Applications must be received by the application deadline. Applications received after this date must have a proof of mailing date from the carrier dated at least 1 week prior to the due date. Private metered postmarks are not acceptable as proof of timely mailing. Applications not received by the application deadline or not postmarked at least 1 week prior to the application deadline will not be reviewed.
• Information provided must be sufficient for review.
• Text must be legible.
• Paper must be white paper and 8.5 inches by 11.0 inches in size.
• To ensure equity among applications, the amount of space allowed for the Project Narrative cannot be exceeded.
• The page limit for Appendices stated in the specific funding announcement cannot be exceeded.
To facilitate review of your application, follow these additional guidelines. Failure to adhere to the following guidelines will not, in itself, result in your application being screened out and returned without review. However, the information provided in your application must be sufficient for review. Following these guidelines will help ensure your application is complete, and will help reviewers to consider your application.
• The 10 application components required for SAMHSA applications should be included. These are:
• Applications should comply with the following requirements:
• Pages should be typed single-spaced with one column per page.
• Pages should not have printing on both sides.
• Please use black ink and number pages consecutively from beginning to end so that information can be located easily during review of the application. The cover page should be page 1, the abstract page should be page 2, and the table of contents page should be page 3. Appendices should be labeled and separated from the Project Narrative and budget section, and the pages should be numbered to continue the sequence.
• Send the original application and two copies to the mailing address in the funding announcement. Please do not use staples, paper clips, and fasteners. Nothing should be attached, stapled, folded, or pasted. Do not use heavy or lightweight paper or any material that cannot be copied using automatic copying machines. Odd-sized and oversized attachments such as posters will not be copied or sent to reviewers. Do not include videotapes, audiotapes, or CD-ROMs.
RCSP III builds on the work of earlier SAMHSA/CSAT initiatives with the recovery community, as well as efforts in the mental health and HIV/AIDS consumer communities, that have focused on the importance and value of peer-to-peer service. The program is built on the recognition that individuals in recovery, their families, and their community allies are critical resources that can effectively extend, enhance, and improve formal treatment. RCSP III is designed to achieve its goals by focusing on recovery community resources and motivation that already exist within most communities; employing a peer-driven, strength-based, and wellness-oriented approach that is grounded in the “culture(s) of recovery”; and utilizing existing community resources.
Because peer services emphasize strength, wellness, community-based delivery, and provision by peers rather than experts, these services can be viewed as promoting self-efficacy, community connectedness, and quality of life, all important factors in sustained recovery.
Previous efforts among CSAT's RCSP grantees have pointed to the importance of five core values in recovery community organizing, including organizing to provide peer services. These values are:
•
•
•
•
•
I, ____________, (participant's name—printed) consent to participate in peer recovery support services offered by [grantee: insert name of grantee organization] (hereafter referred to as “the organization.”
I understand that these are peer-to-peer services, offered to support my recovery, help me avoid relapse, and promote my overall functioning and well-being. I understand that these are not professional services by a treatment provider, mental health counselor, or other professional, and that I may seek professional services elsewhere should I choose to do so.
The specific service I will be receiving is:
I expect to be receiving this service from ________ to ________.
I understand that my participation in this service is voluntary, and I have the right to terminate my participation in the service at any time without negative consequences.
I understand that I may be subject to certain risks as a consequence of my participation in this service, including:
I also understand that the organization is taking the following steps to help protect me from those risks:
If I have any questions about this peer-to-peer recovery support services, I understand that I may contact:
(Print name of participant or, if applicable, legal guardian)
(Signature)
(Print name of program staff)
(Signature)
This consent is effective as of the date of signing. It may be revoked in writing at any time. This consent will expire 15 months after the date of signing if not revoked before then.
Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of final determination.
This document provides notice that the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain multi-function printers to be offered to the United States Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. The final determination found that based upon the facts presented, the country of origin of the Canon iRC3200 multi-function printer is Japan.
The final determination was issued on March 17, 2004. A copy of the final determination is attached. Any party-at-interest as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of this final determination within 30 days of March 23, 2004.
Edward Caldwell, Special Classification and Marking Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings (202-572-8836).
Notice is hereby given that on March 17, 2004, pursuant to subpart B of part 177, Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 177, subpart B), CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of certain multi-function printers to be offered to the United States Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. The CBP ruling number is HQ 562936. This final determination was issued at the request of Canon, Inc., under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18).
The final determination concluded that, based upon the facts presented, the assembly in Japan of various Japanese- and Chinese-origin parts to create Canon iRC3200 multi-function printers substantially transformed the Chinese-origin components into a product of Japan.
Section 177.29, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that notice of
Dear Messrs. Applebaum, Grace, and Feldman: This is in response to your letter dated December 22, 2003, requesting a final determination under subpart B of Part 177, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 177.21
This final determination concerns the country of origin of the Canon “iRC3200” multi-function printer that is assembled in Japan and which Canon intends to sell to the U.S. Government through its Canon U.S.A. affiliate. We note that Canon is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.22(d)(2), and is entitled to request this final determination.
Canon has requested this final determination in order to determine the country of origin of the Canon iRC3200 multi-function printer that is capable of performing printing, copying, scanning, and facsimile functions. The printer is comprised of four main subassemblies that have been identified as the printer unit, reader scanner unit, color infrared (“iR”) controller unit, and control panel unit. The printer unit itself consists of four smaller subassemblies identified as the laser scanner unit, printer unit without laser scanner (“PWS”), drum unit, and toner cartridge. You state that the printer unit, assembled in Japan, performs the electrophotographic process which is described as the most essential task undertaken by the printer. You further state that the laser scanner unit is perhaps the most complex component of the printer and that its production requires the application of advanced manufacturing technologies.
It is our understanding that during the aforementioned electrophotographic process, a permanent photocopied image is placed onto a sheet of paper through the steps of exposure, development, transfer, and fixing. In describing the electrophotographic process, you state that during the first and most significant step, exposure, a computer image signal is converted into a laser drive signal which must be calibrated to cast a laser beam precisely onto a photosensitive drum. Following exposure, toner is electrostatically attracted to a latent image located on the surface of the photosensitive drum. The toner develops the latent image into a visible image that is thereafter permanently affixed to printing paper by a fixing unit which is comprised of a heater, fixing film unit, and roller.
The laser scanner unit performs the exposure function that is, in your opinion, the most important and precise element of the electrophotographic process. The laser scanner unit is manufactured within Japan from parts that are predominantly of Japanese origin. With respect to the origin of the other components that form the printer unit, you state that the toner cartridge (which supplies toner to the printer unit) and drum unit (which performs the development processes) are manufactured within Japan from parts of Japanese origin. The PWS unit, on the other hand, is assembled in China. However, the intermediate transfer belt, which is described as the key component of the PWS unit, is manufactured in Japan. The intermediate transfer belt transforms four color images, which are created by four drum units, into a fully integrated color image that is transferred onto print paper.
The second major subassembly of the printer, the reader scanner unit, functions as the “reader” unit of the printer by storing information onto a hard disk that is controlled by the color iR controller unit. The reader scanner unit is assembled within China. However, components that you describe as the key parts of the unit, such as the Charge Coupled Devide (“CCD”), lens unit, and xenon lamp, are manufactured in Japan. In regards to the purpose of each of these components, the xenon lamp radiates light onto a document, the lens unit focuses the light reflected from the document onto the sensor portion of the CCD, and the CCD converts the light signal into an electrical signal.
The third major component of the printer, the color iR controller unit, including the software embedded in the unit, is manufactured within Japan. The color iR controller unit integrates the local area network and executes multiple tasks (such as copying, printing, and scanning) efficiently on the network. You state that the cost incurred by Canon in researching and developing the color iR controller unit is substantial. The color iR controller unit consists of three main subassemblies: the MEDOC, which enables the simultaneous performance of multiple tasks; the GRAVES, which performs image processing functions; and the SURF, which allocates the burden of processing printing data between the computer and the printer.
The fourth major component of the printer is the control panel unit. The control panel unit is assembled in China. However, the color Liquid Crystal Display (“LCD”), which is described as the key component of the control panel unit, is manufactured in Japan. The LCD is part of the printer's “touch panel” that indicates the operational status of the printer.
As stated above, the printer's major subassemblies are assembled within Japan to form a completed Canon iRC3200 printer. A description of the processes undertaken to assemble a printer to completion, as set forth in a facsimile transmitted to our office on January 27, 2004, follows.
An operator assembles a laser chip terminal onto a laser unit printed circuit board (“PCB”) and adjusts the power of the laser beam. Then an operator attaches a collimator lens to the laser unit PCB after which the operator measures the focus of the laser spot and checks the exterior of the laser unit. A series of component parts are then attached to the optical case. Such component parts have been identified as the lens supporting board unit, auto registration motor, anamorphosis lens, motor unit, Beam Detect (“BM”) sensor unit, laser unit, reflection unit, cylindrical lens, long deflective element mirror, and BD mirror. After attaching the components to the optical case, the operator adjusts the focus of the cylindrical lens, position of sub scanning, position of BD mirror, power of laser beam, and jitter. A cover is thereafter attached and the image patterns and laser scanner unit exterior are inspected.
Various plates, mounts, rails, guides, stays, shafts, and covers are assembled in order to complete the mechanical frames of the printer unit and constitute the first assembly steps of the PWS. Thereafter, the following components are assembled to the frames: toner cartridge drive assembly, drum drive assembly, developing drive assembly, intermediate transfer belt drive assembly, fixing drive assembly, four laser scanner units, pick-up motor drive unit, paper pick-up unit, duplex driver PCB, color iR controller unit, intermediate transfer belt unit, duplex units, and fixing feeder unit. After attaching these various items, an operator uses cables to connect the components. The alignment of the rollers, intermediate transfer belt unit, laser beam angle, magnification, and starting point of laser scanning is adjusted. An operator then makes adjustments to the laser power, facsimile power, heaters, fans, and toner cartridge motor. Toner cartridges and drum units are subsequently inserted into the frame. An operator temporarily connects the reader scanner unit to the printer unit to check the image. Components used only for testing purposes, such as the four laser scanner units, color iR controller unit, drum
In order to complete the drum unit, an operator assembles numerous components, such as a photosensitive drum, primary changing roller, developing assembly, and developing cylinder. An operator uniformly coats the drum unit with photosensitive materials during assembly. Thereafter, the mechanical precision of the drum unit is inspected and the unit is packaged.
Items such as toner cartridge units, toner cartridge holders, insert labels, logo labels, color labels, and side pads are assembled to complete the toner cartridge. An operator thereafter inspects the item and packs the toner cartridge.
In order to assemble the color iR controller unit, an operator first combines the controller main PCB with the controller sub-PCB. Multiple components are then attached to the combined PCBs, including items such as a static random access memory PCB, boot read only memory, synchronous random access memory, fan, dust filter, and hard disk. The various components are subsequently connected with cables. An operator then inserts a power supply cable into the hard disk and distribution units. The assembled color iR controller unit is thereafter inspected.
In order to build the reader scanner unit, an operator begins by assembling a number of components such as a CCD, lens unit, xenon lamp, interface PCB, lamp regulator PCB, reader controller PCB, and sensor assembly. After connecting the components with cables, an operator adjusts the mechanical alignment of certain items that form the unit. Examples of such adjustments include modifying the position of the mirror assembly and the tension of belts and wires that move optical components, such as the CCD and mirror assembly. An operator then tests the functionality of the item's communication and paper size detection capabilities, the accuracy of input data, the starting point of scanning, and image signals. Upon successful completion of these tests, the reader scanner unit is packaged for shipment.
An operator assembles items such as a control panel key PCB, key tops, and LCD in order to produce a control panel unit. The various items are connected with cables. Thereafter, the operator inspects and packages the unit for shipment.
Using screws, an operator attaches four laser scanner units (yellow, magenta, cyan, and black) as well as a color iR controller unit to the PWS. An operator subsequently initializes the random access memory of the color iR controller unit and calibrates the angle of the laser beam, magnification performance, and the starting point of laser scanning. An operator then tests the laser's power and application communication within the printer unit. Drum units and toner cartridges are attached for testing. Thereafter, the starting point of sub-scanning, the blank spaces of right and left in the test print image, and the roller pressure of the fixing rollers are adjusted. The motors and sensors are tested and paper size data is registered. Next, the reader scanner and document feeder units are attached to the printer unit. Screws are utilized to attach covers to the printer and the exterior of the unit is inspected.
Upon completion of the aforementioned assembly procedures, an operator inspects the functionality of the assembled Canon iRC3200 printer. The level of precision of the assembled unit is further tested by printing test patterns and evaluating the images thereby produced. Upon successful completion of the final inspections, the completed iRC3200 is packaged and prepared for shipment.
Whether the assembled Canon iRC3200 printers are considered to be products of Japan for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Under subpart B of part 177, 19 CFR 177.21
Under the rule of origin set forth under 19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B):
An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed.
In determining whether the combining of parts or materials constitutes a substantial transformation, the determinative issue is the extent of operations performed and whether the parts lose their identity and become an integral part of the new article.
CBP has also previously considered, in a number of cases, whether components imported into a country for assembly into printers and other related items have been substantially transformed as a result of such processing. For example, in Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HRL”) 562495 dated November 13, 2002, color ink jet printers were assembled within Singapore from components obtained from Malaysia and a number of other countries. The assembly procedures undertaken in Singapore were described as follows:
1. Circuit board assembly for the input/output unit, left side, assembled to the chassis;
2. Power controller printed circuit board assembly assembled to the chassis;
3. Preheating thermal drum inserted into the chassis;
4. Paper path motor assembled to the chassis;
5. Stepper assembly motor assembly, with gear, assembled to the chassis;
6. Control panel cover assembly (user interface) assembled to the chassis;
7. High voltage power supply assembled to the chassis;
8. Input/output circuit assembly board, right, assembled to the chassis;
9. “Barracuda” print head assembly assembled to the chassis;
10. Purge control module assembled to the chassis;
11. Ink load assembly assembled to the chassis;
12. Electronic subsystem (ESS) controller board assembled to the chassis; and,
13. Front cover assembly assembled to the chassis.
After considering the totality of the circumstances in HRL 562495, we held that the various imported components were substantially transformed within Singapore and that the assembled printers were required to be marked as products of that country upon entry into the United States. In support of this determination, we noted that the processing operations that occurred within Singapore were complex and extensive, required the integration of 13 major subassemblies to the chassis, and that the resulting product was a new and distinct article of commerce that possessed a new name, character, and use.
Prior to the case cited above, CBP ruled in HRL 561734 dated March 22, 2001, 66 Fed. Reg. 17222, that Sharp multifunctional machines (printer, copier and fax machines) assembled in Japan were a product of Japan for purposes of government procurement. The machines in that case were comprised of 227 parts (108 parts obtained from Japan, 92
In HRL 734050 dated June 17, 1991, on the other hand, we determined that the operations performed in China to assemble printers did not substantially transform the Japanese components utilized in those printers. The printers in that case were assembled within China from five main components identified as the “head”, “mechanism”, “circuit”, “power source”, and “outer case.” The circuit, power source and outer case units were entirely assembled or molded in Japan. The head and mechanical units were manufactured in Japan but exported to China in an unassembled state. All five units were exported to China where the head and mechanical units were assembled with screws and screwdrivers. Thereafter, the head, mechanism, circuit, and power source units were mounted onto the outer case, also with screws and screwdrivers. It was stated that the value of the Japanese-origin components utilized in the printers far exceeded that of the Chinese-origin components. Based upon the foregoing facts, we held that, even though the printers were assembled to completion in China, the country of origin of the completed printers for marking purposes was Japan. In making this determination, we noted that the vast majority of the printer's parts were of Japanese origin and that the operations performed in China were only simple assembly operations.
As the cases set forth above demonstrate, in order to determine whether a substantial transformation occurs when components of various origins are assembled to form completed printers, CBP considers the totality of the circumstances and makes such decisions on a case-by-case basis. The country of origin of the printer's components, extent of the processing that occurs within a given country, and whether such processing renders a product with a new name, character, or use are primary considerations in such cases. Additionally, facts such as resources expended on product design and development, extent and nature of post-assembly inspection procedures, and worker skill required during the actual manufacturing process will be considered when analyzing whether a substantial transformation has occurred; however, no one such factor is determinative.
As applied to the facts of this case, we find that the assembled Canon iRC3200 multi-function printer is a product of Japan for purposes of U.S. Government procurement. In making this determination, we note that a substantial portion of the printer's individual components and subassemblies are of Japanese origin. You have described a number of these individual components and subassemblies as the “most complex”, “key”, and “essential” of the printer. In this regard, we recognize that, in addition to the Japanese subassemblies, certain critical Japanese-origin parts are incorporated into the Chinese subassemblies, namely the reader scanner unit and the control panel unit. Furthermore, we find that the processing that occurs in Japan is complex and meaningful, requires the assembly of a large number of components, and renders a new and distinct article of commerce that possesses a new name, character, and use.
Based upon the facts of this case, we find that the processing in Japan substantially transforms the components of Chinese origin. Therefore, the country of origin of the Canon iRC3200 printer is Japan for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.
Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal Register as required by 19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other than the party which requested this final determination may request, pursuant to 19 CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter anew and issue a new final determination. Any party-at-interest may, within 30 days after publication of the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice of upcoming meeting via conference call.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of an upcoming meeting of the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (the Committee) to be held via telephone conference. This meeting is open to the general public without participation.
The conference call will be held on Monday, April 5, 2004, from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Information concerning the conference call can be obtained from the Department's Consensus Committee Administering Organization, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Interested parties can log onto NFPA's Web site for instructions on how to participate and for contact information for the conference call:
William W. Matchneer III, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory Affairs and Manufactured Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-6409 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.2) and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee was established under section 604(a)(3) of the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 4503(a)(3). The Consensus Committee is charged with providing recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret manufactured housing construction and safety standards and procedural and enforcement regulations, and with developing proposed model installation standards. The purpose of this conference call is to discuss the Consensus Committee's review and recommendations to the Secretary on the draft Proposed Installation Standards.
A. Roll Call
B. Discussion of Minimum Payments to States
C. Discussion of Preamble to Subpart I
D. Adjournment
International Trade Commission.
Notice of opportunity to submit comments in connection with the 2003 ATPA report.
March 17, 2004.
Joanne Guth (202-205-3264 or
Section 206 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) (19 U.S.C. 3204) requires that the Commission submit annual reports to the Congress regarding the economic impact of the Act on U.S. industries and consumers and, in conjunction with other agencies, the effectiveness of the Act in promoting drug-related crop eradication and crop substitution efforts of the beneficiary countries. Section 206(b) of the Act requires that each report include:
(1) The actual effect of ATPA on the U.S. economy generally as well as on specific domestic industries which produce articles that are like, or directly competitive with, articles being imported under the Act;
(2) The probable future effect that ATPA will have on the U.S. economy generally and on domestic industries affected by the Act; and
(3) The estimated effect that ATPA has had on drug-related crop eradication and crop substitution efforts of beneficiary countries.
Notice of institution of the investigation and the schedule for such reports under section 206 of ATPA was published in the
The Commission does not plan to hold a public hearing in connection with the preparation of this tenth report. However, interested persons are invited to submit written statements concerning the matters to be addressed in the report. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's
All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be made available in the Office of the Secretary to the Commission for inspection by interested parties. The Commission intends to publish only a public report in this investigation. Accordingly, any confidential business information received by the Commission in this investigation will not be published in a manner that could reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information. To be assured of consideration by the Commission, written statements relating to the Commission's report should be submitted to the Commission at the earliest practical date and should be received no later than the close of business on June 11, 2004.
The Commission's rules do not authorize filing submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the Commission's Rules (19 CFR 201.8) (
The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting the joint motion of complainants Energizer Holdings, Inc. and Eveready Battery Co., Inc., and respondent Golden Million Enterprises, Inc. to terminate the above-captioned investigation with respect to that respondent on the basis of a consent order.
Michael K. Haldenstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-3041. Copies of the ALJ's ID and all other nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on May 27, 2003, based on a complaint filed by Energizer Holdings, Inc. and Eveready Battery Co., Inc., both of St. Louis, MO, 68 FR 32771 (2003). The complaint as amended alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain zero-mercury-added alkaline batteries, parts thereof, and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 5,464,709. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The Commission named as respondents 26 companies located in the United States, China, Indonesia, and Japan.
On February 3, 2004, complainants and one respondent, Golden Million Enterprises, Inc., filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to the respondent on the basis of settlement agreement and consent order. On February 13, 2004, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response supporting the motion. On February 17, 2004, the ALJ issued the subject ID terminating the investigation as to the respondent on the basis of a settlement agreement and consent order.
No party petitioned for review of the ID pursuant to 19 CFR 210.43(a), and the Commission found no basis for ordering a review on its own initiative pursuant to 19 CFR 210.44. The ID thus became the determination of the Commission pursuant to 19 CFR 210.42(h)(3).
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and Commission rule 210.42, 19 CFR 210.42.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation.
Following receipt on January 28, 2004, of a request from the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the Commission instituted investigation No. TA-2104-13,
In preparing its assessment, the Commission will review available economic assessments regarding the agreement, including literature regarding any substantially equivalent proposed agreement, and will provide in its assessment a description of the analyses used and conclusions drawn in such literature, and a discussion of areas of consensus and divergence between the various analyses and conclusions, including those of the Commission regarding the agreement.
Section 2104(f)(2) requires that the Commission submit its report to the President and the Congress not later than 90 days after the President enters into the agreement, which he can do 90 days after he notifies the Congress of his intent to do so. The President notified the Congress on February 20, 2004, of his intent to enter into an FTA with Central America. At that time, the President also stated that negotiations were under way to integrate the Dominican Republic into the FTA with Central America.
The ITC has begun its assessment, and it will seek public input for the investigation through a public hearing on April 27, 2004. The date of the hearing is contingent on the successful conclusion of the negotiations with the Dominican Republic and when a public version of the final agreement is made available by the U.S. Trade Representative.
James Stamps, Project Leader, Office of Economics (202-205-3227 or
Central America, Dominican Republic, tariffs, trade, imports and exports.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation.
Following receipt on March 8, 2004, of a request from the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the Commission instituted investigation No. TA-2104-14,
In preparing its assessment, the Commission will review available economic assessments regarding the agreement, including literature regarding any substantially equivalent proposed agreement, and will provide in its assessment a description of the analyses used and conclusions drawn in such literature, and a discussion of areas of consensus and divergence between the various analyses and conclusions, including those of the Commission regarding the agreement.
Section 2104(f)(2) requires that the Commission submit its report to the President and the Congress not later than 90 days after the President enters into the agreement, which he can do 90 days after he notifies the Congress of his intent to do so. The President notified the Congress on March 8, 2004, of his intent to enter into an FTA with Morocco.
The Commission has begun its assessment, and it will seek public input for the investigation through a public hearing on April 29, 2004 (
James Stamps, Project Leader, Office of Economics (202-205-3227 or
The Commission intends to publish only a public report in this investigation. Accordingly, any confidential business information received by the Commission in this investigation and used in preparing the report will not be published in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
The Commission's rules do not authorize filing submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by § 201.8 of the Commission's Rules (19 CFR 201.8)(see Handbook for Electronic
Morocco, tariffs, trade, imports and exports.
By order of the Commission.
Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
Notice of availability of funds and solicitation for grant applications.
The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) announces the availability of funds for grants to conduct public education programs about the rights afforded potential victims of employment discrimination and the responsibilities of employers under the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1324b.
It is anticipated that a number of grants will be competitively awarded to applicants who can demonstrate a capacity to design and successfully implement public education campaigns to combat immigration related unfair employment discrimination. Grants may range in size from $35,000 to $100,000.
OSC will accept proposals from applicants who have access to potential victims of discrimination or whose experience qualifies them to educate workers, employers and the general public about the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. OSC welcomes proposals from diverse nonprofit organizations providing information services to potential victims of discrimination and/or employers, such as local, regional or national ethnic and immigrants' rights advocacy organizations, labor organizations, trade associations, industry groups, professional organizations, or other nonprofit entities, including state and local government agencies.
Lilia Irizarry, Acting Public Affairs Specialist, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20530. Tel. (202) 616-5594, or (202) 616-5525 (TDD for the hearing impaired). OSC's e-mail address is:
The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice announces the availability of funds to conduct cost-effective public education programs concerning the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. Funds will be awarded to selected applicants who propose cost-effective ways of educating employers, workers covered by this statute, community service providers, and/or the general public.
Employers of four or more employees are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of citizenship status or national origin with respect to hiring, firing, recruitment or referral for a fee. They are also prohibited from committing “document abuse” on the basis of national origin or citizenship status in the employment eligibility verification process.
U.S. citizens and certain classes of work authorized individuals are protected from
• Legal Permanent Residents;
• Refugees;
• Asylees; and
• Temporary Residents.
Citizens and
In addition, under the
OSC is responsible for receiving and investigating discrimination charges and, when appropriate, filing complaints with specially designated administrative law judges. OSC also initiates independent investigations of possible immigration-related job discrimination.
While OSC has established a record of vigorous enforcement, studies have shown that there is an extensive lack of knowledge on the part of protected individuals and employers about the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. Enforcement cannot be effective if potential victims of discrimination are not aware of their rights. Moreover, discrimination can never be eradicated so long as employers are not aware of their responsibilities.
The educational efforts under the grant should be directed to: (1) Work-authorized non-citizens who are protected individuals, since this group is especially vulnerable to employment discrimination; (2) those citizens who are most likely to become victims of employment discrimination; and/or (3) employers, especially small businesses and industries that employ large numbers of work authorized non-U.S. citizens. The proposals should define the characteristics of the work authorized population or the employer group(s) intended to be the focus of the educational campaign, and the applicant's qualifications to reach credibly and effectively large segments of the intended audience(s).
The proposals should also detail the reasons for focusing on each group of protected individuals or employers by describing particular needs or other factors to support the selection. In defining the campaign focuses and supporting the reasons for the selection, applicants may use census data, studies, surveys, or any other sources of information of generally accepted reliability.
We encourage applicants to devise effective and creative means of public education and information dissemination that are specifically designed to reach the widest possible intended audience. Those applicants proposing educational campaigns addressing potential victims of discrimination should keep in mind that some of the traditional methods of public communication may be less than optimal for educating members of national origin or linguistic groups that have limited community-based support and communication networks.
Grants are an important component of OSC partnerships to better serve the public, employers and potential discrimination victims. Grantees should plan to include OSC attorneys and other professional staff in public outreach programs in order to more successfully reach their audiences and prevent discrimination before it occurs or combat it where it exists.
Some grantees who are conducting citizenship campaigns have, in the past, combined those efforts and resources with the INA anti-discrimination education campaigns in order to maximize the scope and breadth of the project and to reach a larger number of individuals. Applicants proposing to combine these efforts should discuss how the programs will interact and how the budgets will be administered.
Proposals should discuss the components of the campaign strategy, detail the reasons supporting the choice of each component, and explain how each component will effectively contribute to the overall objective of cost-effective dissemination of useful and accurate information to a wide audience of protected individuals or employers. Discussions of the campaign strategies and supporting rationale should be clear, concise, and based on sound evidence and reasoning.
Since there presently exists a wealth of materials for use in educating the public, applicants should include in their budget proposals the costs for distribution of materials received from OSC or from current/past OSC grantees.
To the extent that applicants believe the development of original materials particularly suited to their campaign is necessary, their proposal should articulate in detail the circumstances requiring the development of such materials. All such materials must be approved by OSC prior to production to ensure legal accuracy and proper emphasis. Proposed revisions/translations of OSC-approved materials must also be submitted for clearance. All information distributed should also identify OSC as a source of assistance, information and action, and include the correct address and telephone numbers of OSC (including the toll-free numbers, TDD numbers), and OSC e-mail and Internet addresses.
One of the central goals of this program is determining what public education strategies are most effective and thus, should be included in future public education efforts.
Therefore, it is crucial that the methods of evaluating the campaign strategy and public education materials and their results be carefully detailed. A full evaluation of a project's effectiveness is due within 60 days of the conclusion of a campaign. Interim evaluation/activity reports are due at least quarterly, or more frequently as needed throughout the grant year.
A panel made up of OSC staff will review and rate the applications and make recommendations to the Special Counsel regarding funding. The panel's results are advisory in nature and not binding.
In determining which applications to recommend, OSC staff will consider the following (based on a one-hundred point scale):
Sound program design and cost-effective strategies for educating the intended population are imperative. Consequently, areas that will be closely examined include the following:
a. Evidence of in-depth knowledge of the goals and objectives of the project. (10 points)
b. Clear statement of the proposed goals and objectives, including a listing of the major events, activities, products and timetables for completion and the extent of OSC participation in grantee outreach events. (10 points)
c. Selection and definition of the intended audience(s) for the campaign, and the factors that support the selection, including special needs, and the applicant's qualifications to reach effectively the intended audience(s). (10 points)
d. A cost-effective campaign strategy for educating employers and/or members of the protected class, with a justification for the choice of strategy, including the degree to which the campaign has prevented immigration related unfair employment practices and has reached individuals with such claims. (10 points)
e. The evaluation methods proposed by the applicant to measure the effectiveness of the campaign and their precision in indicating to what degree the campaign is successful. (10 points)
Proposals will be rated in terms of the capability of the applicant to define the intended audience, reach it, and implement the public education and evaluation components of the campaign:
a. Evidence of proven ability to provide high quality results. (10 points)
b. Evidence that the applicant can implement the campaign, and complete
OSC's experience during previous grant cycles has shown that a number of applicants choose to apply as a consortium of individual entities; or, if applying individually, propose the use of subcontractors to undertake certain limited functions. It is essential that these applicants demonstrate the proven management capability and experience to ensure that, as lead agency, they will be directly accountable for the successful implementation, completion, and evaluation of the project.
Applications will be evaluated in terms of the degree to which:
a. The duties outlined in the proposed staffing plan for grant-funded positions appear appropriate to the work that will be conducted under the award. (5 points)
b. The qualifications of the grant-funded positions appear to match the requirements of these positions. (5 points)
If the grant project manager or other member of the professional staff is to be hired later as part of the grant, or should there be any change in professional staff during the grant period, hiring is subject to review and approval by OSC at that time.
The proposals will be evaluated on the degree to which the applicant demonstrates that it has successfully carried out programs or work of a similar nature in the past.
Publication of this announcement does not require OSC to award any specific number of grants, or to obligate all or any part of available funds. The period of performance will be twelve months from the date of the grant award, in most cases beginning October 1, 2004.
1. A completed and signed Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424).
The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 16.110 and the title is “Education & Enforcement of the Anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act” (box #10 of the SF 424).
2. OJP Form 4061/6 (Certification Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements).
3. Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying (SF LLL)
4. OJP Form 4000/3 (Assurances)
5. An abstract of the full proposal, not to exceed one page.
6. A program narrative of not more than fifteen (15) double-spaced typed pages that clearly and specifically demonstrates how the applicant meets each of the four (4) elements set forth as Selection Criteria, above.
7. A proposed budget outlining all direct and indirect costs for personnel, fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, subcontracts, and a short narrative justification of each budgeted line item cost. If an indirect cost rate is used in the budget, then a copy of a current fully executed agreement between the applicant and the cognizant Federal agency must accompany the budget.
Program budgets must include the travel, lodging and other expenses necessary for not more than two program staff members to attend the mandatory OSC grantee training (2 days) that will be held in Washington, DC, at the end of September.
8. Copies of resumes of the professional staff proposed in the budget.
Application forms may be obtained by writing or telephoning: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Tel. (202) 616-5594, or (202) 616-5525 (TDD for the hearing impaired). This announcement and the required forms will also appear on the World Wide Web at:
60-Day Emergency Notice of Information Collection Under Review: National Firearms Act (NFA)—Special Occupational Taxes (SOT).
The Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with emergency review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB approval has been requested by March 31, 2004. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. If granted, the emergency approval is only valid for 180 days. Comments should be directed to OMB, Office of Information and Regulation Affairs, Attention: Department of Justice Desk Officer (202) 395-5806, Washington, DC 20503.
During the first 60 days of this same review period, a regular review of this information collection is also being undertaken. All comments and suggestions, or questions regarding additional information, to include obtaining a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed to Kathleen M. Downs, Assistant Financial Manager (Accounting), Financial Management Division, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Room 4450, Washington, DC 20226, facsimile, (202) 927-2787.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• 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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
National Institute of Corrections, Department of Justice.
Solicitation for a cooperative agreement.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), National Institute of Corrections (NIC), announces the availability of funds in FY2004 for a cooperative agreement to fund the Project “Workforce Development for Community Corrections: Defining Workforce Issues and Strategies for the 21st Century.” NIC will award this cooperative agreement to create a guidebook that will identify, analyze and address critical issues and challenges, and suggest strategies and solutions, related to recruitment, hiring, preemployment assessment, performance evaluation, job descriptions, retention of staff, and required knowledge and skills for promotion into first line supervisory positions. Up to $75,000 is available for this project.
Applications must be received by 4 p.m., eastern daylight savings time, on Thursday, June 3, 2004.
Mailed applications must be sent to: Director, National Institute of Corrections, 320 First Street, NW., Room 5007, Washington, DC 20534. Applicants are encouraged to use Federal Express, UPS, or similar service to ensure delivery by the due date as mail at NIC is still being delayed due to recent events.
Hand delivered applications can be brought to 500 First Street, NW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20534. At the front desk, call 7-3106 extension 0 for pickup. Faxed or e-mailed applications will not be accepted.
Electronic applications can be submitted at the
All technical and/or programmatic questions concerning this announcement should be directed to Drew Molloy at the above address, or by calling (202) 514-0100 or 1-800-995-6423, extension 40100 or by e-mail at
Over the past several years, community corrections professionals have been asked to take on expanded roles in the justice system and the broader community. For some staff the expected activities are new, and for others, the activities are reminiscent of what they were asked to do early in their careers. In addition, in the 21st century, the job expectations are not always clearly defined, are constantly changing to meet the needs of an agency, and may not always be targeted in recruiting and staff development efforts. Community corrections' staff are not only asked to supervise offenders, but are also asked to be change agents with offenders, develop partnerships with human services agencies, work closely with community-based organizations and advocacy groups, deliver offender services directly, and be familiar with changing technologies related to community corrections.
This project will define the critical needs and challenges for the community corrections field as it seeks to provide a professional and skilled workforce in the 21st century. The project will consist of, but not be limited to, examining expanded and changing job roles and related job descriptions, the skills and experiences required to fill these jobs, the changing workforce entering the profession, recruitment and retention strategies, developing field staff into first line supervisors, and the changing role of first line supervisors. In addition, the project will look at what staff development and organizational development issues should be addressed, how agency executives can improve staff job satisfaction and move
The project will also tie into the framework and principles of Evidence Based Practices (EBP); while recognizing that not every agency will be formally involved in EBP but will still be seeking answers to deal with the changing workforce of the 21st century.
The project will consist of two components: (1) a small advisory workgroup of community correction practitioners and human resources specialists and, (2) the cooperative agreement award. The workgroup will provide the knowledge and expertise pertaining to the community corrections workforce and human resources in general. In addition, it will work closely with the cooperative agreement recipient as the guidebook is developed and finalized. It is anticipated that the workgroup will meet on at least two occasions during the fiscal year 2004. The second meeting will be held to review outcomes from the first meeting and to meet with the cooperative agreement recipient to review the status of the guidebook. The workgroup will be convened and funded by NIC with resources independent of the cooperative agreement.
The successful applicant for this cooperative agreement will be expected to work both independently and with the workgroup, gathering information on the human services workforce in the 21st century, with a focus on community corrections. To gather information the applicant may plan focus groups meetings, conduct research, visit community corrections agencies, conduct surveys, interview community corrections professionals at all levels, attend local, state, and national community corrections conferences, seek input from professional community corrections associations, contact criminal justice departments at institutions of higher learning and/or seek material related to the project from any other resources. Funding for these activities would come from the cooperative agreement award.
Focus groups will be conducted by NIC staff (and members of the workgroup) at one regional corrections conference and one national probation and parole conference, and possibly other meetings and conferences. A NIC sponsored meeting of state executives of probation, parole and community corrections will be held in which information for this project will be gathered from those individuals.
The cooperative agreement will have the following outcomes:
• Define the critical needs and challenges facing the community corrections profession as it seeks to provide a skilled and professional workforce in the 21st century.
• Define the skills and experiences required of a community corrections workforce in the 21st century.
• Develop and recommend job descriptions for the changing workforce.
• Identify and recommend recruitment, hiring and retention strategies for the changing community corrections workforce.
• Identify and recommend strategies for developing line staff into first line supervisors within the context of the changing workforce and changing roles of community corrections staff.
• Develop, write and prepare for final NIC publication a guidebook (that would serve as a resource for agencies) which outlines the aforementioned definitions, recommendations and strategies for the community corrections workforce in the 21st century. In addition, the guidebook could serve institutions of higher learning as a resource for incorporating community corrections workforce issues into the criminal justice curriculum.
A cooperative agreement is an assistance relationship where the National Institute of Corrections is substantially involved in all aspects of the project during the performance of the award. An award is made to a recipient who will, in concert with the Institute, develop and write an issues-oriented guidebook on recruiting, retaining, evaluating and developing into leadership roles a skilled workforce in the 21st century for probation, parole and community corrections agencies.
Applicants must prepare a proposal that describes their plan to provide the project outcomes. The plan must include goals and objectives, methodology, deliverables, management plan, and an overall project budget for a 12 month period for the date of award. Applicants must identify their key project staff and the relevant expertise of each, and address the manner in which they would perform all tasks in collaboration with the NIC Project Manager and the workgroup. Proposals are limited to twenty-five double-spaced pages in length, not including resumes, other addenda, and SF-424 forms.
Applications must be submitted using OMB Standard Form 242, Application for Federal Assistance, Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs (SF424A), Assurances—Non-Construction Programs (SF424B) and Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment; Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements. It is also requested that the optional form Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants (DOJ Form 560) also be submitted. All of these forms can be found on NIC's Web site:
All applications should be concisely written, typed double spaced and referenced to the project by the “NIC Application Number” and Title referenced in this document. If submitted in hard copy, submit an original and 5 copies. The original should have the applicant's signature in blue ink. A cover letter must identify the responsible audit agency for the applicant's financial accounts.
Public Law 93-415.
This award will be limited to a maximum of $75,000 for both direct and indirect costs for 12 months. Funds may only be used for activities that are linked to the desired outcomes of the project. No funds are transferred to State or local governments.
All products from this funding effort will be in the public domain and available to interested agencies through the National Institute of Corrections.
An eligible applicant is any State or general unit of local government, private or non-profit agency, educational institution, organization, individual, or team with expertise in the described areas.
Applications received under this announcement will be subjected to a 3 to 5 person NIC Peer Review Process.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Department of Labor (DOL). To obtain documentation, contact Ira Mills on 202-693-4122 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail:
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Department of Labor (DOL). To obtain documentation, contact Ira Mills on 202-693-4122 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail:
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Employee Benefits Security Administration, DOL.
Notice.
The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) is announcing that a collection of information regarding the Employee Benefit Plan Claims Procedure under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This document announces the OMB approval number and expiration date.
Gerald B. Lindrew, U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-8414. This is not a toll-free number.
In the
Employee Benefits Security Administration, DOL.
Notice.
The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) is announcing that a collection of information regarding the Annual Report for Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements and Certain Entities Claiming Exception (Form M-1) has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This document announces the OMB approval number and expiration date.
For inquiries regarding the Form M-1 filing requirement, contact Amy J. Turner or Katina Lee, Office of Health Plan Standards and Compliance Assistance, at (202) 693-8335. For inquiries regarding electronic filing capability, contact the EBSA computer help desk at (202) 693-8600. Questions on completing the form are being directed to the EBSA Form M-1 help desk at (202) 693-8360.
In the
Employee Benefits Security Administration, DOL.
Notice.
The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) is announcing that a collection of information regarding the Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program and Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption to permit certain transactions identified in the Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This document announces the OMB approval number and expiration date.
Gerald B. Lindrew, U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202) 693-8414 (not a toll free number).
In the
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Request for State or Federal Workers' Compensation Information (CM-905). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before May 24, 2004.
Ms. Hazel M. Bell, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-0418, fax (202) 693-1451, e-mail
The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 901) and 20 CFR 725.535, directs that DOL Black Lung benefit payments to a beneficiary for any month be reduced by any other payments of State or Federal benefits for workers' compensation due to pneumoconiosis. This information collection is currently approved for use through October 31, 2004.
The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Department of Labor seeks the extension of approval to collect this information in order to gather information to determine the amounts of black lung benefits paid to beneficiaries. Black Lung amounts are reduced dollar for dollar, for other black lung related workers' compensation awards the beneficiary may be receiving from State or Federal programs.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Submit comments on or before May 24, 2004.
Send comments to Darrin A. King, Chief, Records Management Branch, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2139, Arlington, VA 22209-3939. Commenters are encouraged to send their comments on a computer disk, or via Internet E-mail to
Contact the employee listed in the
Title 30, §§ 71.400 through 71.402 and 75.1712-1 through 75.1712-3 require coal mine operators to provide bathing facilities, clothing change rooms, and sanitary flush toilet facilities in a location that is convenient for use of the miners. If the operator is unable to meet any or all of the requirements, he/she may apply for a waiver. Title 30 CFR 71.403, 71.404, 75.1712-4 and 75.1712-5 provide procedures by which an operator may apply for and be granted a waiver. Applications are filed with the District Manager for the district in which the mine is located and contain the name and address of the mine operator, name and location of the mine, and a detailed statement of the grounds upon which the waiver is requested and the period of time for which it is requested. Waivers for surface coal mines may be granted for a period not to exceed one year; requests for an annual extension may be sought by the operator. Waivers for underground coal mines may be granted for extended periods of time based on the information provided by the mine operator in the request for a waiver.
The purpose for the waiver is to assure the conditions at the mine make it impractical for the mine operator to provide the required facilities, and to document the circumstances for granting of the waiver. This gives the mine operator written documentation that the requirement(s) of the standard have been waived by MSHA and MSHA inspection personnel will not require the mine operator to comply with the part(s) of the standard included in the waiver. Without this written documentation MSHA inspection personnel can not be assured that a mine operator is not required to provide the required sanitary facilities.
MSHA is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
A copy of the proposed information collection request may be viewed on the Internet by accessing the MSHA Home Page (
Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the information collection related to the Application for Waiver of Surface Facilities Requirement.
This information is necessary in order to assure the mine operator is not required to provide the surface facilities as required by the standard. This information provides written documentation that MSHA has waived the requirements for the applicable part(s) of the standard as outlined in the waiver.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
The following parties have filed petitions to modify the application of existing safety standards under section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
The Coteau Properties Company, 204 County Road 15, Beulah, North Dakota 58523-9475 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 77.803 (Fail safe ground check circuits on high-voltage resistance grounded systems) to its Freedom Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 32-00595) located in Mercer County, North Dakota. The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to allow an alternative method of compliance when the boom/mast is raised or lowered during construction/maintenance, most likely only during disassembly or major maintenance. The petitioner proposes to use this procedure only to raise or lower the boom/mast on draglines using the on-board motor generator sets. The petitioner states that during this period of construction/maintenance, the machine will not move under its own power and will not perform mining operations. The procedure would most likely be used only in instances of disassembly or major maintenance, which require the boom to be raised or lowered, and a written procedure would be developed and implemented by the mine operator or contractor and the affected persons will be trained on the requirements of the procedure. The petitioner further states that this procedure does not replace other mechanical precautions or the requirements of 30 CFR 77.405(b) that are necessary to safely secure booms/masts during construction or maintenance procedures. The petitioner asserts that its proposed alternative method would not result in a diminution of safety to the miners.
TXU-Mining Company LP, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-3411 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 77.803 (Fail safe ground check circuits on high-voltage resistance grounded systems) to its Big Brown Strip Mine (MSHA I.D. No.41-01192) located in Freestone County, Texas; Winfield North Strip Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 41-01900) and Winfield South Strip Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 41-03658) located in Titus County, Texas; Beckville Strip Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 41-02632) and Tatum Strip Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 41-03659) located in Panola County, Texas; and Oak Hill Strip Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 41-03660) located in Rusk County, Texas. The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to allow an alternative method of compliance when the boom/mast is raised or lowered during necessary repairs. The petitioner states that during the procedure for raising and lowering the boom for construction/maintenance, the machine will not be performing mining operations. The procedure would also be applicable in instances of disassembly or major maintenance which require the boom to be raised or lowered. The petitioner further states that the procedures of raising and lowering the boom/mast during disassembly or major maintenance would be performed on an as needed basis; and training and review of the procedures would be conducted prior to each time it is needed since raising and lowering the boom is done infrequently with long intervals of time between each occurrence, and all persons involved in the process will be trained or retrained at that time. The petitioner has listed specific guidelines in this petition that would be followed to minimize the potential for electrical power loss during this critical boom procedure. The petitioner asserts that this procedure does not replace other mechanical precautions or the requirements 30 CFR 77.405(b) that are necessary to safely secure boom/masts during construction or maintenance procedures and that its proposed alternative method would not result in a diminution of safety to the miners.
Speed Mining, Inc., 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004-2595 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1700 (Oil and gas wells) to its American Eagle Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 46-05437) located in Kanawha County, West Virginia. The petitioner requests that its previously granted petition for modification, docket number M-2002-082-C, be amended to permit the mining through of certain wells located within the projected workings of the Speed Mining, Inc., American Eagle Mine. The petitioner requests an amendment to the petition, but requests that no portion of the existing modification be revoked. The petitioner is requesting the petition to be amended because the existing modification does not address certain kinds of wells and plugging conditions that it expects to encounter imminently at the American Eagle Mine. The petitioner asserts that the granting of this petition to amend would at all times guarantee no less than the same measure of protection as the existing standard or the alternative requirements in Paragraph 1 of the existing modification and will prevent a diminution of safety to the miners.
Persons interested in these petitions are encouraged to submit comments via
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by May 24, 2004, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC World Wide Web site:
Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, T-5 F52, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by Internet electronic mail to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The State of Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT&PF or Licensee) is the holder of NRC License No. 50-14102-01 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30. The license authorizes ADOT&PF to possess and use certain licensed material in portable gauging devices that have been registered either with the NRC or with an Agreement State and have been distributed in accordance with an NRC or Agreement State specific license. The license was most recently amended on February 4, 2004, and is due to expire on November 30, 2011.
On January 3, 2002, the NRC's Office of Investigations (OI) started an investigation of ADOT&PF to determine if ADOT&PF's Statewide Radiation Safety Officer (SRSO) was the subject of discrimination for raising safety and compliance concerns. In OI Report No. 4-2002-001, OI concluded that the SRSO was the subject of discrimination. By letter dated July 17, 2003, the NRC identified to ADOT&PF an apparent violation of employee protection requirements (10 CFR 30.7) and the supporting bases for the NRC's concern. A predecisional enforcement conference was conducted with ADOT&PF on November 18-19, 2003. During the conference, ADOT&PF denied that any discrimination occurred and asserted that no violation of 10 CFR 30.7 occurred.
After considering the information from the investigation and the information ADOT&PF presented during the conference, the NRC has concluded that a violation of 10 CFR 30.7 occurred. Specifically, the NRC has concluded that ADOT&PF discriminated against its SRSO for engaging in protected activities as documented in a Notice of Violation issued to ADOT&PF on this date. Further, the NRC is concerned that ADOT&PF's Safety Conscious Work Environment
By letters dated February 18 and March 4, 2004, ADOT&PF reiterated its position that discrimination did not occur. Notwithstanding ADOT&PF's disagreement with the NRC's conclusions, ADOT&PF has agreed to address its compliance with NRC's Employee Protection regulations (
By letter dated March 4, 2004, ADOT&PF has agreed to take actions to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 30.7 and to ensure it has established and will maintain a Safety Conscious Work Environment. The agreed-upon actions noted in Section IV of this Confirmatory Order focus on (1) ensuring that ADOT&PF's internal policies and procedures establish and will support a Safety Conscious Work Environment by providing for a review of these policies and procedures by individuals who are independent of ADOT&PF and who have subject-matter expertise; (2) developing a plan to conduct training of ADOT&PF employees and their supervisors and managers on NRC's Employee Protection regulations and on establishing a Safety Conscious Work Environment; and (3) developing a long-term plan for maintaining a Safety Conscious Work Environment that includes culture surveys and annual refresher training.
On March 4, 2004, ADOT&PF consented to issuing this Confirmatory Order with the commitments as described in Section IV below. ADOT&PF further agreed in its March 4, 2004 letter that this Confirmatory Order is to be effective upon issuance and that it has waived its right to a hearing on this Confirmatory Order. The NRC has concluded that its concerns can be resolved through effective implementation of ADOT&PF's commitments.
I find that ADOT&PF's commitments as set forth in Section IV are acceptable and necessary, and I conclude that with these commitments the public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that the public health and safety require that ADOT&PF's commitments be confirmed by this Order. Based on the above and Licensee's consent, this Order is immediately effective upon issuance.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR part 30,
1. Within seventy-five (75) days from the date of this Confirmatory Order, ADOT&PF shall submit for NRC approval a plan to review ADOT&PF's internal policies and procedures pertaining to assuring compliance with NRC employee protection requirements (reference 10 CFR 30.7) and to establishing and maintaining a Safety Conscious Work Environment (reference “Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation,” May 14, 1996 [61 FR 24336]). ADOT&PF shall complete the review within sixty (60) days from the date of NRC's approval of the plan.
(A) The plan shall include a discussion of the individual(s) who shall conduct the reviews. This discussion shall demonstrate that the individual(s) whom ADOT&PF selected have the expertise and capability to effectively conduct the reviews. The individuals shall meet the following criteria: (1) at least one individual shall have expertise in or prior experience in developing programs to assure compliance with NRC's Employee Protection regulations (
(B) The individual(s) above shall review and determine the adequacy of all ADOT&PF's policies and procedures regarding Safety Conscious Work Environment, including how ADOT&PF evaluates and resolves safety concerns while balancing other daily (production) duties. For any inadequacies that are identified, the individual(s) shall provide ADOT&PF with written recommendations.
2. Within seventy-five (75) days from the date of this Confirmatory Order, ADOT&PF shall submit for NRC approval a plan to conduct initial training on the NRC's Employee Protection regulations and the attributes of a Safety Conscious Work Environment. The training shall commence within ninety (90) days from the date of NRC's approval of the plan, and the training shall be completed within ninety (90) days of commencing. The plan shall specify which ADOT&PF workers, supervisors and managers shall receive the training, and shall include provisions for individuals who miss the training due to unforeseen circumstances such as illness. At a minimum, the training shall be provided to workers involved in the use of licensed material and the radiation safety program, as well as the supervisors and managers of these individuals.
(A) The plan shall include a discussion of the individual(s) who shall conduct the training. This discussion shall demonstrate that the individual(s) selected by ADOT&PF have the expertise and capability to effectively conduct the training. The individuals shall meet the criteria specified in item 1.(A) above. The plan shall include a listing of training courses conducted by the individual(s) on NRC's Employee Protection regulations and on the topic of Safety Conscious Work Environment.
(B) ADOT&PF's plan shall include a description of the topics to be covered in the training course. The training shall include discussions of: (1) 10 CFR 30.7, including a discussion of protected activities and adverse actions; (2) applicable federal and state laws pertaining to whistleblower protection; (3) enforcement actions that may be taken against licensees and individuals who violate these requirements; (4) the content of this Confirmatory Order; (5) establishing a Safety Conscious Work Environment; (6) the roles and responsibilities of the statewide and regional radiation safety officers in assuring compliance with NRC radiation safety requirements; and (7) what constitutes a hostile work environment and a “chilling effect.”
(C) The plan shall include additional training to supervisors and managers on how to effectively evaluate and resolve safety concerns, while balancing safety concerns with other daily activities, especially when dealing with conflicts in the work place. This training shall also discuss the specific responsibilities and obligations of supervisors and managers under NRC's Employee
3. Within 60 days of completing the review required by Condition 1 above, ADOT&PF shall submit for NRC approval a long-term plan for maintaining a Safety Conscious Work Environment. The plan shall include a discussion of the results of the review required by Condition 1 above, including a discussion of recommendations made by the individual(s) and ADOT&PF's plan and schedule for addressing the recommendations. The long-term plan shall describe a procedure for evaluating and approving future changes to the plan. The long-term plan shall, at a minimum, address a time period through calendar year 2005. The plan shall include the following elements.
(A) ADOT&PF shall perform an employee cultural survey which is developed by a consultant or entity that is independent of ADOT&PF. The long-term plan shall specify which ADOT&PF workers, supervisors and managers shall be included in the survey. At a minimum, the survey instrument (
(B) ADOT&PF shall conduct annual refresher training of workers, including temporary workers, involved in the use of licensed material and the radiation safety program, as well as the supervisors and managers of these individuals. The long-term plan shall specify which ADOT&PF workers, supervisors and managers shall receive refresher training. No additional training in calendar year 2004 is needed beyond that required by Condition 2 above. Subsequent annual refresher training shall include a discussion of the NRC Employee Protection regulations and other applicable federal and state laws pertaining to whistleblower protection, ADOT&PF's policies and procedures for maintaining a Safety Conscious Work Environment, and the roles and responsibilities of the statewide and regional radiation safety officers in assuring compliance with NRC radiation safety requirements.
(C) The refresher training conducted in calendar year 2005 shall be conducted by individual(s) independent of ADOT&PF who meet Condition 1.(A) above. ADOT&PF's plan shall specify the minimum qualifications for individuals (including ADOT&PF personnel) who may provide Safety Conscious Work Environment training in subsequent years.
(D) ADOT&PF shall request an amendment to its license to require that its long-term plan for maintaining a Safety Conscious Work Environment be maintained and implemented. The license amendment request shall be submitted concurrent with submitting the long-term plan.
The Director, Office of Enforcement may relax or rescind, in writing, any of the above conditions upon a showing by ADOT&PF of good cause.
Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other than the Licensee, may request a hearing within 20 days of its issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. Any request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, Texas 76011, and to the Licensee. Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-1101 or by e-mail to
If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of this Confirmatory Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. A request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this Order.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-80 issued to STP Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee) for operation of the South Texas Project (STP) Unit 2 located in Matagordo County, Texas.
The proposed amendment would allow STP Unit 2 to change modes with standby diesel generator (SDG) 22 inoperable. This is a one-time change that would expire 14 days after entering Mode 4 on restart from the STP Unit 2 Spring 2004 refueling outage.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
SDG 22 provides onsite electrical power to one of three trains of vital systems should offsite electrical power be interrupted. It is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, allowing a mode change with SDG 22 out-of-service will not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
SDG 22 acts to mitigate the consequences of design-basis accidents that assume a loss of offsite power. For that purpose, redundant standby diesel generators are provided to protect against a single failure. During the Technical Specification allowed outage time, an operating unit is allowed by the Technical Specifications to remove one of the standby diesel generators from service, thereby losing this single-failure protection. This operating condition is considered acceptable. The consequences of a design-basis accident coincident with a failure of the redundant standby diesel generator during the extended allowed outage time are the same as those during the 14-day allowed outage time. Therefore, during the changes in mode there is no significant increase in consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change will not involve [a] significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
There are no new failure modes or mechanisms created due to plant operation for changing mode with an inoperable standby diesel generator. The proposed change does not involve any modification in the operational limits or physical design of plant systems. There are no new accident precursors generated due to permitting mode changes with an inoperable standby diesel generator.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Plant mode changes with an [ ] inoperable [DG] have been shown to have a very small impact on plant risk using the criteria of RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174 and RG 1.177. During the mode change, the electrical power system maintains the ability to perform its safety function of providing an available source of power to the Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) systems as assumed in the accident analyses. During the mode change with an inoperable standby diesel generator, risk impact will be managed through the application of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) and its implementation guidance, NRC Regulatory Guide 1.182, “Assessing and Managing Risks Before Maintenance Activities at Nuclear Power Plants.” The results of the risk assessment will be considered in determining the acceptability of entering the mode or other specified condition in the Applicability, and any corresponding risk management actions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Nontimely requests and or/petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated March 4, 2004, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACNW will hold a Planning and Procedures meeting on April 20, 2004, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW activities and related matters. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Howard J. Larson (Telephone: 301/415-6805) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices will hold a meeting on April 1, 2004, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the staff's proposed approach for responding to the Commission's March 31, 2003 SRM on risk-informing 10 CFR 50.46 and development of near-term LOCA frequencies. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Michael R. Snodderly (Telephone: 301-415-6927) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted during the meeting.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Officials between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.
The ACRS Subcommittees on Materials and Metallurgy and on Plant Operations will hold a joint meeting on April 2, 2004, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittees will discuss possible generic communications regarding pressurizer dissimilar metal weld cracking issues. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Ms. Maggalean W. Weston (telephone: 301-415-3151) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted during the meeting.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Officials between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting on April 14, 2004, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The purpose of this meeting is to review the license renewal application for the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and the associated draft Safety Evaluation Report with open items prepared by the NRC staff. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, Exelon Generation Company, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Bhagwat P. Jain (telephone 301/415-7270), five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on April 14, 2004, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda.
Weeks of March 22, 29, April 5, 12, 19, 26, 2004.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of March 29, 2004.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 5, 2004.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 19, 2004.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Dave Gamberoni, (301) 415-1651.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to
Postal Service.
Notice of modifications to an existing system of records.
This document publishes notice of modifications to the Privacy Act system of records USPS 070.040, Inquiries and Complaints—Customer and Employee Complaint Records. The modifications amend the types of individuals covered, so that the system only covers Postal Service
Any interested party may submit written comments on the proposed modification. This proposal will become effective without further notice on May 3, 2004, unless comments received on or before that date result in a contrary determination.
Mail or deliver written comments on this proposal to the Records Office, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Room 5846, Washington, DC 20260-5846. Copies of all written comments will be available at the above address for public inspection and photocopying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Rowena Dufford at (202) 268-5246.
System of records USPS 070.040 contains records relating to inquiries and complaints from Postal Service customers and employees. The revisions to this system will limit the types of individuals covered to include only present or former Postal Service employees. This reflects the deletion of customer inquiries and complaints, which are no longer covered by this system. Customer inquiries and complaints are now
To reflect the correct scope, the notice proposes several changes to the system. These include changes to the categories of individuals covered by the system, categories of records in the system, the purpose of the system, the system manager, notification procedures, and records source categories. The modifications also make appropriate updates to the system, including changes to the system name, storage, and safeguards. This system does not contain records covered under 030.010, EEO Discrimination Complaint Files, or 120.036, Discipline, Grievance, and Appeals Records for Nonbargaining Unit Employees.
The Postal Service does not expect this amended notice to have any adverse effect on individual privacy rights. The amendment does not change the kinds of personal information about employees that are collected and maintained. The amendment deletes customer information, which is included in a different system of records. The amendment also ensures that information collected as part of a management investigation that is Privacy Act protected is appropriately covered in a system of records. The amendment also makes needed updates to the system, such as storage and safeguards revisions.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11), interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, or arguments on this proposal. A report of the proposed system has been sent to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget for their evaluation.
Privacy Act System of Records USPS 070.040 was last published in its entirety in the
[CHANGE TO READ:]
Employee Inquiry, Complaint, and Investigative Records, 070.040
[CHANGE TO READ:]
Employee Resource Management, Postal Service Headquarters; areas; performance clusters; districts; Post Offices; and contractor sites.
[CHANGE TO READ:]
Postal Service employees who have contacted the Postal Service with an inquiry or complaint and employees who are subject to management inquiries or investigations.
[CHANGE TO READ:]
Employee information such as name, address, title, finance number, and work location; nature of the inquiry, complaint, or investigation; assessment of concerns, findings, and recommendations; and resolution of same. Includes general correspondence about employees' complaints and inquiries and records related to management investigations of workplace issues, including but not limited to notes, statements, or statement summaries made during such investigations.
[CHANGE TO READ:]
39 U.S.C. 401, 404
[CHANGE TO READ:]
1. To enable review and response to employee inquiries and complaints.
2. To enable management to initiate, review, process, track, and resolve concerns, complaints, and inquiries relating to the workplace.
3. To support administrative or court litigation and/or arbitration proceedings.
Routine use statements a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, j, k, l, and m listed in the prefatory statement at the beginning of the Postal Service's published system notices apply to this system.
[CHANGE TO READ:]
Automated databases, computer storage media, and typed, printed, or handwritten paper.
[CHANGE TO READ:]
By alphabetic or chronological sequence within subject category as derived from correspondence; including employee identifiers, work location, or case number.
[CHANGE TO READ:]
Paper records, computers, and computer storage tapes and disks are maintained in controlled-access areas or under general supervision of Human Resources personnel. Computers are protected by a cipher lock system, card key system, or other physical access control methods. Computer systems and electronic records are also protected with security software and operating system controls, including logon and password identifications, firewalls, terminal and use identifications, and file management. Access to these records is limited to authorized personnel. Contractors must provide similar protection subject to a security compliance review by the Postal Inspection Service.
[CHANGE TO READ:]
Destroy 4 years after response to inquiry, resolution of complaint, and/or after conclusion of investigation.
[CHANGE TO READ:]
Vice President, Employee Resources Management, United States Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260-4200.
[CHANGE TO READ:]
Employees wanting to know if information about them is maintained in this system of records must submit a written request to the head of the facility to which they submitted their inquiry or complaint, or to the Human Resources representative responsible for the facility to which they are assigned. Inquiries must contain name, address, and other identifying information sufficient to identify the requestor as well as sufficient information to identify the inquiry, complaint, or investigation.
Requests for access must be made in accordance with the notification procedure above and the Postal Service Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records and verification of identity under 39 CFR 266.6.
See Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedures above.
[CHANGE TO READ:]
Postal Service employees or former employees.
Records or information in this system that have been compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding are exempt from individual access under 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5). In addition, the Postal Service has claimed exemptions from certain provisions of the Act for several of its other systems of records as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and (k). See 39 CFR 266.9. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those other systems are incorporated into this system, the exemptions applicable to the original primary system must continue to apply to the incorporated records.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order of exemption pursuant to section 17(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) from section 17(a) of the Act.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. Applicants, Charles Smith, Esq., Assistant Counsel, Glenbrook Life and Annuity Company, 3100 Sanders Road, Northbrook, Illinois 60062.
Alison White, Senior Counsel, or Lorna MacLeod, Branch Chief, Office of Insurance Products, Division of Investment Management, at (202) 942-0670.
The following is a summary of the application; the complete application is available for a fee from the Public Reference Branch of the Commission.
1. Glenbrook is a stock life insurance company organized under the laws of the State of Arizona in 1998. Previously, Glenbrook Life was organized under the laws of the State of Illinois in 1992. Glenbrook Life was originally organized under the laws of the State of Indiana in 1965. From 1965 to 1983 Glenbrook Life was known as “United Standard Life Assurance Company” and from 1983 to 1992 as “William Penn Life Assurance Company of America.” Glenbrook's home office is located at 3100 Sanders Road, Northbrook, Illinois, 60062. Glenbrook is currently licensed to operate in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all states except New York. Glenbrook is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Life Insurance Company. Allstate Life Insurance Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Company, a stock property-liability insurance company incorporated under the laws of Illinois. All of the outstanding capital stock of Allstate Insurance Company is owned by The Allstate Corporation.
2. Glenbrook established Glenbrook Multi-Manager, Glenbrook VL, Variable Annuity Account, Scudder Account, and AIM VL Account as separate account pursuant to Illinois law. Each is a “separate account,” as defined by section 2(a)(37) of the Act, and is registered with the Commission pursuant to the Act as a unit investment trust.
3. Certain variable annuity contracts sponsored by Glenbrook and issued through Glenbrook Multi-Manager, Variable Annuity Account and Scudder Account are registered with the Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).
4. Certain variable life insurance contracts sponsored by Glenbrook and issued through Glenbrook VL and AIM VL Account are registered with the Commission pursuant to the Securities Act.
5. Glenbrook Multi-Manager is divided into 88 sub-accounts, each of which invests exclusively in shares of a corresponding portfolio of an open-end, diversified management investment company registered under the Act (the “Funds”). Variable Annuity Account is divided into 39 sub-accounts, each of which invests exclusively in shares of a corresponding portfolio of the Funds. Scudder Account is divided into 10 sub-accounts, each of which invests exclusively in shares of a corresponding portfolio of the Funds.
6. Glenbrook VL is divided into 57 sub-accounts, each of which invests exclusively in shares of a corresponding portfolio of the Funds. AIM VL Account is divided into 18 sub-accounts, each of which invests exclusively in shares of a corresponding portfolio of the Funds.
7. After considering the nature and purpose of each separate account, the Boards of Directors of Glenbrook has determined that the efficiency of the operations of the separate accounts could be improved, and the overall administration enhanced, by merging: (a) Variable Annuity Account and Scudder Account into Glenbrook Multi-Manager; and (b) AIM VL Account into Glenbrook VL (together, the “Merger”).
8. The Merger provides for the transfer of Variable Annuity Account and Scudder Account assets to Glenbrook Multi-Manager and the assumption of the liabilities and contractual obligations of each of Variable Annuity Account and Scudder Account by Glenbrook Multi-Manager in return for the crediting of accumulation units of Glenbrook Multi-Manager to Variable Annuity Account and Scudder Account contract owners. Once this process has been completed, the units of Variable Annuity Account and Scudder Account would be cancelled, Variable Annuity Account and Scudder Account would each submit an application to the Commission pursuant to section 8(f) of the Act to effect its deregistration as an investment company and would cease to exist, and Glenbrook Multi-Manager would continue to exist.
9. Immediately following the Merger, each Variable Annuity Account and Scudder Account contract owner will possess a number of Glenbrook Multi-Manager units (both full and fractional) that, when multiplied by the unit value of Glenbrook Multi-Manager units, would result in an aggregate unit value equal to the aggregate unit value of the units the contract owner had in the respective Separate Account immediately before the consummation of the Merger.
10. Glenbrook will distribute to each existing Variable Annuity Account and Scudder Account contract owner: (a) A contract rider indicating that such contracts are thereafter funded by Glenbrook Multi-Manager; (b) a letter informing such contract owners of the Merger; and (c) a prospectus supplement that reflects Glenbrook Multi-Manager as the separate account funding the contracts.
11. The Merger also provides for the transfer of AIM VL Account assets to Glenbrook VL and the assumption of the liabilities and contractual obligations of AIM VL Account by Glenbrook VL in return for the crediting of accumulation units of Glenbrook VL to AIM VL Account contract owners. Once this process has been completed, the units of AIM VL Account would be cancelled, AIM VL Account would submit an application to the Commission pursuant to section 8(f) of the Act to effect its deregistration as an investment company and would cease to exist, and Glenbrook VL would continue to exist.
12. Immediately following the Merger, each AIM VL Account contract owner will possess a number of Glenbrook VL units (both full and fractional) that, when multiplied by the unit value of Glenbrook VL units, would result in an aggregate unit value equal to the aggregate unit value of the units the contract owner had in the respective Separate Account immediately before the consummation of the Merger.
13. Glenbrook will distribute to each existing AIM VL Account contract owner: (a) A contract rider indicating that such contracts are thereafter funded by Glenbrook VL; (b) a letter informing such contract owners of the Merger; and (c) a prospectus supplement that reflects Glenbrook VL as the separate account funding the contracts.
14. Except for the change in the separate account funding the variable annuity contracts and variable life contracts, all the rights and benefits of the contract owners will remain unchanged after the Merger. Further, the fees and charges under the contracts will not change as a result of the Merger.
15. Glenbrook asserts that the Merger will have no tax consequences for Glenbrook contract owners. In addition, no payments will be required or charges imposed under the Glenbrook contracts in connection with, or by virtue of, the Merger that would not otherwise be required or imposed.
1. Section 17(a) of the Act provides generally that it is unlawful for any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, acting as principal to knowingly purchase or to sell any security or other property from or to such registered company.
2. Section 17(b) of the Act provides generally that the Commission may grant an order exempting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that: (a) The terms of the proposed transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policy of each registered investment company concerned; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
3. The Merger may be subject to the provisions of section 17(a) of the Act because it could be viewed as involving an investment company (VA Account, Scudder Account, AIM VL Account) selling its assets to another investment company (Glenbrook Multi-Manager, Glenbrook VL) that is affiliated by reason of having sponsoring insurance companies that are under common control, or by reason of having common directors.
4. Applicants request an order of the Commission pursuant to section 17(b) of the Act to the extent necessary to exempt the Merger from the provisions of section 17(a) of the Act.
5. Applicants assert that the terms of the Merger are fair and reasonable. The transfer of assets held by Variable Annuity Account, Scudder Account and AIM VL Account respectively, will be made at the relative net asset values of the sub-accounts. Consequently, the interests of Glenbrook Multi-Manager and Glenbrook VL owners will not be diluted by the Merger. Each Variable Annuity Account and Scudder Account contract will be credited, immediately after the Merger, with units of Glenbrook Multi-Manager having the same aggregate value as the aggregate value of the units of Variable Annuity Account and Scudder Account credited to such contract immediately prior to the Merger. Likewise, each AIM VL Account contract will be credited, immediately after the Merger, with units of the Glenbrook VL having the same aggregate value as the aggregate value of the units of AIM VL Account credited to such contract immediately prior to the Merger. The Merger will not result in any change in charges, costs, fees or expenses borne by any Contract owner. No direct or indirect costs will be incurred by any Separate Account concerned as a result of the Merger. Therefore, the proposed transactions will not result in dilution of the economic interests of any Contract owners. In addition, the Merger will result in no change in the investment options available to Glenbrook contract owners. Each sub-account of the Separate Accounts will continue to invest in the same Fund as that sub-account invested in prior to the Merger.
6. The consolidation of any overlapping sub-accounts will take place at their respective net asset values and each Glenbrook Contract owner holding units of interest in one of the merging sub-accounts will have those units exchanged for units of equal value in the corresponding surviving sub-account. The values of the exchanged interests under the Contracts will thus be equivalent. The accumulation unit values for these sub-accounts will not change, and the Contract value of any affected Contract owner immediately after the sub-account consolidation will be the same as the value immediately before the sub-account consolidation.
7. Applicants assert that the Merger do not involve overreaching on the part of any party involved and is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
8. Applicants represent that the Merger are consistent with the policy of each Separate Account as set forth in its registration statement. The policy of each Separate Account is to invest in the Funds. As noted above, the Merger will result in no change to any Fund underlying the Glenbrook Separate Accounts. Each sub-account of the Separate Accounts will continue to invest in the same Fund as that sub-account invested in prior to the Merger. Accordingly, the assets underlying the Contracts will continue to be invested in accordance with the policies recited in the Separate Accounts' respective registration statements.
For the reasons summarized above, Applicants assert that the terms of the Merger, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, are consistent with the policies of the Glenbrook Separate Accounts as recited in their registration statements, are consistent with the general purposes of the Act, and therefore meet the conditions for exemptive relief established by section 17(b).
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Queénch, Inc. (“Queénch”) because of questions regarding the accuracy and adequacy of assertions by Queénch, and by others, in press releases to investors, concerning, among other things:
(1) Vendor contracts between Queénch and Time-Warner, Inc., 7-Eleven, Disney World Property-Grosvenor Resorts and others;
(2) The “exclusive distribution” of Queénch products through Sysco Food Service;
(3) The launching of Queénch's new distribution channel covering the 700 islands of the Bahamas; and
(4) The accuracy of Queénch's published financial information.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in securities related to the above company.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in all securities, as defined in section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, issued by the above company, is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on March 19, 2004 and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EST on April 1, 2004.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change will eliminate and amend certain of FICC's Government Securities Division (“GSD”) and Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (“MBSD”) rules that (i) require routine waivers, (ii) are inconsistent with current practice, and (iii) are impractical.
In its filing with the Commission, FICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change would eliminate and amend certain of GSD's and MBSD's rules that (i) require routine waivers, (ii) are inconsistent with current practice, and (iii) are impractical. Specifically, the proposed rule changes would:
This category of GSD membership no longer has any practical meaning and is not used. Entities that are clearing agent banks that wish to join the netting service currently become bank netting members.
Currently, GSD's rules allow the following types of entities to be eligible to apply to become a comparison-only member: (i) a registered government securities broker or dealer, (ii) a clearing agent bank, or (iii) if neither (i) nor (ii), an entity that has demonstrated to FICC
FICC believes that GSD's comparison system provides a riskless service that any entity, regardless of its legal or regulatory structure, that is an active market participant can and should take advantage of. Accordingly, FICC believes that a better approach to the eligibility criteria for comparison-only entities, which would also be consistent with the way that FICC's management views the purpose of comparison-only membership, would be to replace (i) and (ii) with the requirement that the comparison-only applicant be a legal entity that is eligible to apply to be a GSD netting member and maintain the current (iii).
The proposed change would modify the language in GSD Rule 2, section 11, to provide that: (i) A member must provide 10 days written notice of terminating its membership but GSD can accept such notice of termination within a shorter period, (ii) the requested termination of membership would not be effective until accepted by GSD, and (iii) GSD's acceptance would be evidenced by a notice to all members announcing the termination date of such member.
GSD's rules currently permit GSD to access an applicant's books and records but not a member's books and records. Extending GSD's authority to review member's books and records is consistent with other clearing agencies' rules such as those of the National Securities Clearing Corporation.
This rule change would provide appropriate comfort to applicants and would make MBSD's rules consistent with GSD's rules.
FICC believes that the current language of this MBSD rule is ambiguous and potentially burdensome for members. FICC believes that a better approach would be to provide that, if FICC is alerted to a change in circumstances or to an issue of law that brings into question the reliability of the legal opinion submitted by a non-domestic participant, FICC would have the right to require the participant to revisit its legal opinion and provide an update as to the status of FICC's rights under the relevant non-domestic law. FICC proposes to add this provision to GSD's rules as well.
FICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of section 17A of the Act
FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or impose any burden on competition.
FICC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the proposed rule change. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments it receives.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(a) By order approve such proposed rule change or
(b) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0069. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Nasdaq proposes to modify NASD Rule 4619, which will shift the administration of a limited subset of existing excused withdrawal requests from one department to another department.
Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is
(a) [A]
(b)
(1) The written request for withdrawal is received by the Association one business day in advance, and is approved by the Association
(2) The request includes a list of the securities for which withdrawal is requested; and
(3) The request is made by a market maker with three (3) or fewer Nasdaq level 3 terminals. Excused withdrawal status may be granted to a market maker that has withdrawn from an issue prior to the public announcement of a merger or acquisition and wishes to re-register in the issue pursuant to the same-day registration procedures contained in Rule 4611 above, provided the market maker has remained registered in one of the affected issues. The withdrawal of quotations because of pending news, a sudden influx of orders or price changes, or to effect transactions with competitors shall not constitute acceptable reasons for granting excused withdrawal status.
[(c)]
[(d)]
(1) A member acting as a manager (or in a similar capacity) of a distribution of a Nasdaq security that is a subject security or reference security under
(A) [t]
(B) The managing underwriter shall advise each market maker that it has been identified as a distribution participant or an affiliated purchaser to Nasdaq MarketWatch and that its quotations will be automatically withdrawn or identified as passive market maker quotations, unless a market maker that is a distribution participant (or an affiliated purchaser of a distribution participant) notifies Nasdaq MarketWatch as required by subparagraph [(d)]
(2) A market maker that has been identified to Nasdaq MarketWatch as a distribution participant (or an affiliated purchaser of a distribution participant) shall promptly notify Nasdaq MarketWatch and the manager of its intention not to participate in the prospective distribution or not to act as a passive market maker in order to avoid having its quotations withdrawn or identified as the quotations of a passive market maker.
(3) If a market maker that is a distribution participant withdraws its quotations in a Nasdaq security in order to comply with the net purchases limitation of SEC Rule 103 or with any other provision of SEC Rules 101, 103, or 104 and promptly notifies Nasdaq MarketWatch of its action, the withdrawal shall be deemed an excused withdrawal. Nothing in this subparagraph shall prohibit the Association from taking such action as is necessary under the circumstances against a member and its associated persons for failure to contact Nasdaq MarketWatch to obtain an excused withdrawal as required by subparagraphs (a) and [(d)]
(4) The quotations of a passive market maker shall be identified on Nasdaq as those of a passive market maker.
(5) A member acting as a manager (or in a similar capacity of a distribution subject to subparagraph [(d)]
[(e)]
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change seeks to reflect the administrative shift of certain responsibilities under NASD Rule 4619 from Nasdaq MarketWatch to Nasdaq Market Operations. NASD Rule 4619 identifies Nasdaq MarketWatch as the Nasdaq department responsible for administration of this rule. Nasdaq has determined that, in order to ensure continued and effective administration of NASD Rule 4619, it would be appropriate and desirable to transfer responsibility of handling excused withdrawal requests based on systemic equipment problems that prevent a market maker from meeting its obligations from Nasdaq MarketWatch to Nasdaq Market Operations. Systemic equipment problems include, but are not limited to, defects in the software or hardware of a market maker's systems or connectivity problems associated with the circuits connecting Nasdaq's systems with a market maker's systems. Nasdaq believes that excused withdrawal requests based on systemic equipment problems are more appropriately handled by Nasdaq Market Operations because of that department's particular expertise in technology and connectivity related issues. The proposed rule change does not create a new basis for excused withdrawals. Excused withdrawals based on systemic equipment problems are currently granted under existing NASD Rule 4619. The proposed rule change is only intended to separate out a limited subset of current excused withdrawal requests for administration by Nasdaq Market Operations.
The transfer of the administration of excused withdrawal requests based on systemic equipment problems from Nasdaq MarketWatch to Nasdaq Market Operations will not adversely impact Nasdaq's record keeping and surveillance efforts with respect to excused withdrawals. Both Nasdaq MarketWatch and Nasdaq Market Operations maintain detailed databases of all excused withdrawals. The databases for excused withdrawals tracks detailed information of each excused withdrawal, including the reason for the excused withdrawal, the date an excused withdrawal is requested, the name of the requester, the firm name, the security or securities involved, the date for the excused withdrawal, and the date reinstated. Nasdaq MarketWatch and Nasdaq Market Operations review the excused withdrawal databases on a periodic basis and have begun to develop procedures for inter-departmental communications and reviews of these databases, which are expected to be implemented by the end of April. All excused withdrawals granted by Nasdaq Market Operations are communicated to Nasdaq MarketWatch through same-day announcements made over Nasdaq's internal intercom system. Finally, additional surveillance is provided by the NASD, which receives a copy of the excused withdrawal databases from Nasdaq MarketWatch and Nasdaq Market Operations on a quarterly basis.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 15A of the Act,
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing proposal has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 1, 2003, the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-NYSE-2003-29 pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”).
Rule 412 of the NYSE's Rules (“Customer Account Transfer Contracts”) prescribes procedures for member organizations to transfer customer accounts. It requires use of the Automated Customer Account Transfer Service (“ACATS”), an electronic system administered by the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) to facilitate the transfer of customer account assets from one broker-dealer or bank to another broker-dealer or bank, where both the carrying and receiving broker-dealers are members of NSCC. Since ACATS inception in 1985, numerous enhancements to it and to Rule 412 have allowed for faster and more efficient transfers of customer accounts. For example, the most recent amendments to the Interpretation of Rule 412 provided for the expedited transfer of accounts containing third party or proprietary products (
Prior to this rule change, Rule 412 and its Interpretation applied only to “standard” transfers (
While ACATS could also used to process non-standard transfers, such as “partial” transfers (
As amended, Rule 412 and its Interpretation will generally apply the same procedural standards to both standard and non-standard transfers (
However, certain aspects of Rule 412 and its Interpretation will continue to be applicable to standard transfers only. The amendments to Rule 412 distinguish between the transfer of security account assets “in whole” (
For example, should a customer request the transfer of an entire account, she must authorize the liquidation of any nontransferable proprietary money market fund assets in the account and the transfer of any resulting credit balance to the receiving organization.
Another procedural distinction between the transfer of an entire account and the transfer of specifically designated asset transfers can be found in the treatment of “non-transferable assets.” Non-transferable assets are defined as either a proprietary product of a delivering organization or as an asset that is the product of a third party (
Rule 412 and its Interpretation currently make reference to “written” customer authorization requirements. The amendments to Rule 412(a) clarify the scope of such customer authorization to include electronic signatures “in a format recognized as valid under federal law to conduct interstate commerce.” This modification contemplates legal alternatives to “pen and paper” methods of customer authorization on the condition that such methods otherwise comply with Rule 412 and its Interpretation.
The interpretation of Supplementary Material .30 to Rule 412 had required members use the transfer instructions and provide the reports prescribe by the NYSE when making account transfers pursuant to Rule 412 and that such instructions and reports must be substantially similar to those required by NSCC. Since NSCC no longer requires specific formats with respect to transfer instructions or reports, the Interpretation to Supplementary Material .30 is being deleted.
In order to allow member organizations sufficient time to develop and implement necessary system changes to comply with amended Rule 412, the NYSE will set an effective date six months from the date of Commission approval of the proposed amendments.
The Commission received three comment letters, all in support of the proposed rule change.
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act that requires rules of an exchange are designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular section 6 of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
March 15, 2004.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
PCX proposes to amend PCX Rule 1.26 in order to clarify PCX's registration rule for employees of Member Organizations. The text of the proposed rule is below. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
Rule 1.26(a). [Every]
[The Exchange may waive compliance with the requirements of Rule 1.26(a) in the event a member organization is also a member organization of another national securities exchange having comparable requirements.]
(b)
(c) The Exchange may require each applicant for employment as a registered employee to [pass such]
In its filing with the Commission, the PCX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for its proposal and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified item IV below. The PCX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend PCX Rule 1.26 in order to clarify and update its registration rule for employees of Member Organizations.
The Exchange proposes to amend PCX Rule 1.26(a) so that the registration requirement applies to employees of Member Organizations irrespective of whether the Member Organization is a member of another national securities exchange. This amendment is necessary for the PCX to maintain a complete and accurate listing of PCX Member Organizations and their employees. The Exchange also proposes to clarify PCX Rule 1.26(b) to clearly outline that employees of Member Organizations must satisfy the applicable examination requirements as prescribed by the Exchange, complete any documentation, and pay the related fees. The Exchange also proposes to clarify the difference in the process depending on whether the PCX serves as the Member Organization's Designated Examining Authority. This is intended to prevent any ambiguity regarding the registration process. Lastly, the Exchange proposes to include in PCX Rule 1.26(c) an exemption for an individual from the examination requirements if such individual has successfully completed comparable examinations. The purpose of this provision is to avoid duplicative examinations.
The requirements for registration of employees of Member Organizations outlined above are existing requirements that are currently in place at the Exchange pursuant to PCX Rule 1.26. The Exchange currently mandates these requirements for registration and merely seeks to codify them in the Exchange rules.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The PCX does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) Impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes such waiver is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Because these proposed rules merely codify existing procedures, the proposed rule change does not raise any new regulatory issues, significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, or impose any significant burden on competition. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The PCX proposes to amend PCX Rule 6.37, “Obligations of Market Makers,” to permit the Options Floor Trading Committee (“OFTC”) to establish, with respect to options trading with a bid price of less than $2, bid-ask differentials that are no more than $0.50 wide (“double-width”) when the primary market for the underlying security: (1) Reports a trade outside of its disseminated quote (including any Liquidity Quote); or (2) disseminates an inverted quote. The double-width relief must terminate automatically when the condition that necessitated the double-width relief is no longer present. The text of the proposed rule change appears below. Additions are
Rule 6.37(a)—No change.
Rule 6.37(b)(1)(A)—(E)—No change.
In its filing with the Commission, the PCX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The PCX has prepared
PCX Rule 6.37 sets forth the obligation of market makers and establishes bid-ask differentials. The PCX proposes to amend PCX Rule 6.37 to codify two instances when the bid-ask differential for options trading with a bid price of less than $2 may be wider than the $0.25 interval expressly required for such options in PCX Rule 6.37(b)(1)(A). Specifically, with respect to options trading with a bid price of less than $2, the proposal would authorize the OFTC to establish bid-ask differentials that are no more than $0.50 wide when the primary market for the underlying security: (1) Reports a trade outside of its disseminated quote (including any Liquidity Quote); or (2) disseminates an inverted quote.
The proposed quote width relief will apply only to options that trade with a bid price of less than $2. Thus, options trading at a price of $2 (bid) or higher will not be eligible for the proposed quote width relief. The PCX notes that options trading at less than $2 are subject to a $0.25 bid-ask differential, which generally means that market makers have only $0.125 of pricing latitude on either side of the theoretical value to widen their quotes to take into account any pricing discrepancy in the underlying security.
Under the proposal, PCX market makers will not be permitted to widen their quotes when the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”) prints a trade at or within its Liquidity Quote. Because the NYSE disseminates Liquidity Quotes, which are quotes of substantial size outside of the regular disseminated quote, the PCX notes that PCX market makers should not be surprised if the NYSE prints a trade outside of its regular quote but at or within its Liquidity Quote. For this reason, the PCX does not propose to allow the OFTC to authorize PCX market makers to widen their quotes when the NYSE prints a trade at or within the Liquidity Quote. However, if the NYSE prints a trade outside of the Liquidity Quote, a PCX market maker would be able to widen its quotes.
A PCX market maker will be eligible for the proposed relief only if the market maker has an automated quotation system that returns the market maker's quotes to normal width upon the termination of the triggering event. Double-width relief will not be available to market makers who must rely on manual input to restore quote values to normal width. Automation of this process ensures that double-width relief will take effect only when permissible and, more importantly, will last only as long as the condition that necessitated it occurs.
The PCX believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The PCX does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The PCX neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The PCX has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The PCX has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6) because the PCX's proposal provides quote width relief similar to that provided under the rules of the CBOE. Accordingly, the PCX believes that its proposal does not raise new regulatory issues, significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest, or impose any significant burden on competition.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposed rule change is substantially similar to a rule adopted previously by the CBOE.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether it is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Comments may also be submitted electronically at the following e-mail address:
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.
PTC12 MEX-EUR 0064 dated 13 February 2004
North Atlantic Mexico-Europe Resolutions r1-15
Minutes—PTC12 MEX-EUR 0065 dated 26 February 2004
Tables—PTC12 MEX-EUR Fares 0027 dated 13 February 2004
Intended effective date: 01 May 04
PTC12 SATL-EUR 0119 dated 13 February 2004
TC12 South Atlantic-Europe Resolutions r1-r11
Minutes—PTC12 SATL-EUR 0120 dated 02 March 2004
TC12 South Atlantic-Europe Minutes
Tables—PTC12 SATL-EUR Fares 0037 dated 20 February 2004
TC12 South Atlantic-Europe Specified Fares Tables
Intended effective date: 01 April 2004
PTC12 MATL-EUR 0086 dated 13 February 2004
TC12 Mid Atlantic-Europe Resolutions r1-r15
Minutes—PTC12 MATL-EUR 0087 dated 02 March 2004
TC12 Mid Atlantic-Europe Minutes
Tables—PTC12 MATL-EUR Fares 0034 dated 20 February 2004
TC12 Mid Atlantic-Europe Specified Fares Tables
Intended effective date: 01 April 2004
Mail Vote 351
PTC12 NMS-ME 0206 dated 24 February 2004
TC12 Mid Atlantic-Middle East Resolutions r1-r9
Mail Vote 352
PTC12 NMS-ME 0207 dated 24 February 2004
TC12 South Atlantic-Middle East Resolutions r10-r17
Tables—PTC12 NMS-ME Fares 0118 dated 27 February 2004 (Mid Atlantic)
PTC12 NMS-ME Fares 0119 dated 27 February 2004 (South Atlantic)
Intended effective date: 01 April 2004
PTC12 NMS-ME 0205 dated 13 February 2004
TC12 North Atlantic-Middle East Resolutions
Mail Vote 355
PTC12 NMS-ME 0209 dated 02 March 2004
TC12 North Atlantic-Middle East Resolutions 064y r1-r25
Minutes—PTC12 NMS-ME 0208 dated 02 March 2004
Tables—PTC12 NMS-ME Fares 0117 dated 20 February 2004
Intended effective date: 01 April 2004
Mail Vote 356
PTC2 ME-AFR 0118 dated 05 March 2004
Resolution 002LL Special Amending Resolution between Middle East and Africa
Intended effective date: 01 April 2004
Mail Vote 357
PTC2 ME-AFR 0119 dated 05 March 2004
Resolutions between Middle East and Africa r1-r15
Intended effective date: 01 May 04
Mail Vote 358
PTC12 NMS-AFR 0180 dated 05 March 2004
TC12 South Atlantic-Africa Expedited Resolution 002jj r1
Intended effective date: 01 April 2004
Mail Vote 360
PTC12 NMS-AFR 0181 dated 05 March 2004
TC12 North Atlantic-Africa Resolutions except between USA and Reunion
Mail Vote 362
PTC12 NMS-AFR 0182 dated 05 March 2004
TC12 Mid Atlantic-Africa Resolutions
Mail Vote 361
PTC12 NMS-AFR 0183 dated 05 March 2004
TC12 North Atlantic-Africa Resolutions between USA and Reunion
Mail Vote 359
PTC12 NMS-AFR 0184 dated 05 March 2004
TC12 South Atlantic-Africa Resolutions r1-r44
Intended effective date: 01 May 2004
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice—Aircraft Registration Applications, AC Form 8050-1.
The Federal Aviation Administration will no longer accept Aircraft Registration Applications, AC Form 8050-1, which do not contain the printed or typed name of the signer in the signature block.
June 1, 2004.
Walter Binkley, Manager, Aircraft Registration Branch (AFS-750), Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Federal Aviation Administration (AFS-750), Post Office Box 25504, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. Telephone (405) 954-3131.
Incident to the Federal Aviation Drug Enforcement Assistance Act, Section 44111 of Title 49, United States Code, directs the Administrator to address certain deficiencies in the aircraft registration system. Subsection 44111(c)(3)(E) determines that the submission of names of individuals on applications for registration of aircraft that are not identifiable is a deficiency in the system.
Accordingly, the Administrator will address this deficiency by no longer accepting Aircraft Registration Applications, AC Form 8050-1, unless the printed or typed name of the signer is included in the signature block.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its determination that the noise exposure maps for Westover Metropolitan Airport, as submitted by the Westover Metropolitan Development Corporation under the provisions of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-193) and 14 CFR part 150, are in compliance with applicable requirements.
The effective date of the FAA's determination on the noise exposure maps is March 4, 2004.
John C. Silva, Federal Aviation Administration, New England Region, Airports Division, ANE-600, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803.
This notice announces that the FAA finds that the noise exposure maps submitted for Westover Metropolitan Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of part 150, effective March 4, 2004.
Under section 103 of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps that meet applicable regulations and that depict non-compatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport.
An airport operator who has submitted such noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) part 150, promulgated pursuant to Title I of the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval that sets forth the measures the operator has taken, or proposes, for the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure map and related descriptions submitted by the Westover Metropolitan Development Corporation. The specific maps under consideration were Figure 4-1, “2003 Noise Exposure Map”, and Figure 4-2, “2008 Noise Exposure Map” in the submission. The FAA has determined that these maps for Westover Metropolitan Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on March 4, 2004.
FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in appendix A of FAR part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program.
If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under Section 103 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of section 1077 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government.These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under part 150 or through FAA's review of a noise exposure map. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted the map
Copies of the noise exposure maps and of the FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the following locations:
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petitions for exemption received.
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 April 12, 2004.
You may submit comments (identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FAA-2003-16554) by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
John Linsenmeyer (202) 267-5174, Tim Adams (202) 267-8033, or 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.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a meeting of the Federal Aviation Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee (ATPAC) will be held to review present air traffic control procedures and practices for standardization, clarification, and upgrading of terminology and procedures.
The meeting will be held from Monday, April 5, from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, April 6 from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and if required Wednesday, April 7 from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC.
Mr. John A. Clayborn, Executive Director, ATPAC, Air Traffic Planning and Procedures, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-3725.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2) notice is hereby given of a meeting of the ATPAC to be held Monday, April 5, from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, April 6 from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and if required Wednesday, April 7 from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The agenda for this meeting will cover: a continuation of the Committee's review of present air traffic control procedures and practices for standardization, clarification, and upgrading of terminology and procedures. It will also include:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space available. With the approval of the Chairperson, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons desiring to attend and persons desiring to present oral statement should notify the person listed above no later than March 26, 2004. The next quarterly meeting of the FAA ATPAC is planned to be held from July 12-15, 2004, in Seattle, WA.
Any member of the public may present a written statement to the Committee at any time at the address given above.
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 Northern Maine Regional Airport under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2004.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, ANE-600, attn: Priscilla Scott, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Thomas Stevens, City Manager of the City of Presque Isle at the following address: 650 Airport Drive, Suite 11, Presque Isle, Maine 04769.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the City of Presque Isle under § 158.23 of part 158.
Priscilla Scott, PFC Program Manager at (781) 238-7614. The application may be reviewed in person at the FAA Airport's Division, 16 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Northern Maine Regional Airport under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
On February 27, 2004, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the City of Presque Isle 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 May 28, 2004.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Class or classes of air carriers, which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFCs: Non-schedule/on-demand air taxi commercial operators.
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 City of Presque Isle.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed guidelines for Collaborative Decisionmaking pilot program.
This notice announces proposed guidelines that would establish and implement a Collaborative Decisionmaking (CDM) pilot program to facilitate authorized communications among participating carriers at selected airports during a period of reduced capacity.
Comments must be received by April 22, 2004.
You may send comments, identified by Docket Number FAA-2004-17349, using any of the following methods:
For more information on this process, see the
Lorraine Vomacka, Manager, Procedures Branch, Air Traffic Tactical Operations Program, Air Traffic Control System Command Center, telephone number: 703 925-3112.
The FAA invites interested persons to comment by submitting written comments, data, or views. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this document. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the
Before adopting the guidelines, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it to you.
Public Law 108-176 was enacted on December 12, 2003. Section 423 of this law, codified at title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) section 40129, requires the FAA to establish a collaborative decision making (CDM) pilot program within 90 days of enactment.
Section 40129 further directs that the guidelines, at a minimum, shall: (1) Define a capacity reduction event; (2) establish the criteria and process for determining when a capacity reduction event exists that warrants the use of CDM among carriers at airports participating in the pilot program; and (3) prescribe the methods of communication among carriers during such an event.
The FAA is to select two airports to participate in the pilot program from the most capacity constrained airports identified in the FAA's Capacity Benchmark Report 2001, or based on more recent data available to the FAA. The statute also specifies that, in selecting the two airports for participation in the two-year pilot program, the FAA must determine that the use of CDM among the carriers would reduce delays at the airport and have beneficial effects on reducing delays in the national airspace system as a whole.
Upon a determination that a capacity reduction event exists, the FAA may authorize carriers operating at a participating airport to communicate for a period of time not to exceed 24 hours with each other concerning changes in their respective flight schedules in order to use air traffic capacity most effectively. The FAA is to facilitate and monitor these communications, and the Department of Justice may monitor such communications as well.
Any U.S. or foreign air carrier operating at the selected airports is eligible to participate in the pilot program upon determination by the FAA that the carrier possesses the operational and communications capabilities necessary for participation. Any carrier may be banned from participation in the pilot program if the FAA determines that the airport or the carrier does not further the purpose of the program. A carrier may also be banned from participation upon a finding by the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary), and concurred with, by the Department of Justice, that the carrier's participation has had, or is having, an adverse effect upon competition.
The Secretary may exempt a carrier's activities that are necessary to participate in the program from the antitrust laws for the purpose of participating in the pilot program, but such exemption shall not apply to any discussions, agreements, or activities beyond the scope of the pilot program.
Lastly, the statute provides for an evaluation of the pilot program and a determination as to whether the program has facilitated more effective use of air traffic capacity and whether the program has had an adverse effect on airline competition or the availability of air service to communities. The program may be extended for an additional two years with up to seven airports added to the program. The program also may be terminated prior to its expiration upon determination by the FAA and Department of Justice that it is unlikely to achieve its stated purposes.
Existing procedures followed by the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) allow for limited collaboration between the FAA and members of industry to reduce delays. Under these procedures, officials in the FAA's Air Traffic Tactical Operations Program located at the agency's David J. Hurley Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATSCC) in Herndon, Virginia, convene frequent daily telephone conferences with air carrier representative and others. During these conference calls, also known as Strategic Planning Tellcons, the FAA reviews the status of air traffic operations so as to inform the air carriers about possible delays within the National Airspace system as well as ground delay programs or other traffic management decisions that may affect the carriers' operations. The carriers, in turn, update the FAA about their planned operations. Based on the information exchanged during these calls, carriers may then unilaterally choose to adjust their flight schedules (including canceling or substituting flights) in order to minimize the impact of delays on their passengers. This program has sometimes been referred to within the FAA as “collaborative decision-making” because the agency and industry together discuss solutions to projected delays. See
The proposed CDM pilot program would expand the concept of the Strategic Planning Telcons by adding additional telecons for coordinating capacity reduction events. Although the
Significant delays at certain hub airports almost inevitably result in delays throughout the National Airspace System (NAS). Such delays translate into higher costs for the carriers serving the airport, in terms of increased fuel consumption, additional crew flight time, missed connections, lost gate access, re-positioning of aircraft, and compensation to passengers for overbooking. Delays also pose a burden on the FAA, adding to the complexity of airspace management and increasing staffing requirements. Therefore, a secondary purpose of the pilot program is to examine the impact of CDM at the demonstration airports on the overall efficiency of the NAS, as measured by the greater utilization of the available capacity at the demonstrations airport(s).
When ground delay programs are imposed, affected carriers are required by ATO procedures to obtain specific reservation times for arrivals—known as “arrival slots”
The proposed guidelines would govern CDM procedures at the two airports specified for the CDM pilot program in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 40129(e) and would provide for limited, collaborative decision making among air carriers when a Capacity Reduction Event (CRE) exists that meets the Triggering Criteria, as defined below. The FAA is proposing that one of the two airports selected for the pilot program be Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD). ORD is major hub airport, and delays there frequently ripple throughout the NAS as a whole. Therefore, the agency has concluded that the use of CDM at ORD should be beneficial in reducing delays at that airport and in the NAS as a whole.
As part of its review of the effectiveness of the CDM pilot program and its consideration of these guidelines, the FAA is preparing a computer simulation of a capacity-reducing event using ORD as a model. The purpose of the simulation is to evaluate the effectiveness of different delay-avoidance strategies that may be employed by the FAA and its customers in handling Capacity Reduction Events. The simulation will be designed to explore the complexities, costs, and benefits of allowing limited coordination over schedule adjustments in the period preceding a capacity-reduction event. By examining several different scenarios at ORD, the simulation should help produce metrics for determining participation in, and the success of, the program when implemented. Additionally, the simulation will provide insight into any new technologies, processes or software that may be required to support allowable information-sharing under the CDM pilot program.
In addition, as part of the FAA's continuing effort to anticipate growth in the system, and to provide for traffic growth without gridlock, the FAA has received input from general aviation users, the military, labor organizations, and air carriers, in developing a plan to augment existing traffic management procedures so as to better manage system flows when delays are created by over-scheduling (even in good weather). Such procedures may include rerouting of traffic and imposition of ground stops or ground delays at airports that are not experiencing delays, in order to improve traffic flows at congested airports. The FAA anticipates that these developing methodologies will contribute to reducing delays in the NAS as a whole and, consequently, at the demonstration airports in the CDM pilot program.
A CRE is an unplanned occurrence or emergency that reduces the Airport Arrival Rate (AAR) so as to cause a material increase in flight delays, including but not limited to adverse weather or wind conditions, unanticipated runway or taxiway maintenance or other airport construction or maintenance that limits the airport arrival rate, and acts constituting Force Majeure.
A CRE may warrant collaborative decision making among carriers in the CDM pilot program if the CRE is expected to, or results in, (i) a reduction in the AAR, as determined under optimal weather conditions, of 30 percent or more; and (ii) where such reduction would last for a period of three hours or longer. Based on current experience, the FAA would not expect the conditions to be met more than approximately 20 times a year. In any case, it is not necessarily the intent of the FAA to declare a CRE on every occasion where the criteria are met.
Any U.S. or foreign air carrier that operates at either or both of the specified airports has the option of participating in the pilot program, provided it possesses the operational and communications capabilities necessary for participation.
When a CRE is declared that meets the Triggering Criteria, and the FAA determines that CDM is necessary, authorized air carriers may engage in Permitted Communications during a period designated by the FAA not to exceed twenty-four hours. Permitted Communications consists of: (1) Offers to reroute or retime flights; (2) offers to reduce the total number of operations conducted during any one hour period (but without reference to specific flights or markets); and (3) offers to relinquish arrival slots obtained during ground delay programs. Such offers may be communicated to the FAA as part of the Strategic Planning Telcons concerning the demonstration airports or via the
Only communications made to the FAA as part of the Strategic Planning Telcons or to the FAA via the pilot program Web site shall qualify as Permitted Communications. Other carriers and foreign air carriers participating in the pilot program may receive such communication by participating in the Strategic Planning Telcon or by viewing the pilot program Web site.
Permitted Communications do not include: (1) Offers to cancel specifically identified flights (as opposed to a total number of operations); (2) discussions of fares; (3) discussions of passenger revenues attributable to cancelled, retimed or rerouted operations; (4) discussions of marketing strategies or passenger accommodations, including but not limited to amounts paid in compensation to, or other consideration provided to, passengers whose flights are cancelled, retimed or rerouted; and (5) any other discussions likely to result in an agreement violative of the antitrust laws, except as expressly authorized under these guidelines as Permitted Communications. However, nothing in these guidelines precludes any carrier from taking unilateral action based on information gained during conference calls or other communications permitted under the pilot program.
The Department of Justice, in addition to the FAA, may monitor all communications that occur during the telephone conferences or via the pilot program Web site. For this purpose, the telephone conferences will be recorded and an electronic record of the activity on the pilot program Web site will be preserved for 45 days.
As authorized by section 40129(h), and subject to concurrence by the Attorney General, during the period the pilot program is in effect, the Secretary intends to exempt U.S. and foreign air carriers participating in the program from the antitrust laws for activities they engage in to the extent those activities are necessary for their participation in the program. The antitrust exemption is for the sole purpose of participating in the pilot program, and shall not extend to any discussions, agreements, or activities outside the scope of the pilot program as described in these guidelines. It shall apply only to the extent that the U.S. or foreign air carrier complies with the conditions imposed by these guidelines. The FAA reserves the authority to modify or terminate the exemption prospectively, or to otherwise modify or terminate the program or a particular carrier's participation in it, if it is determined by the FAA or the Secretary, respectively, and with the concurrence of the Department of Justice, that the purpose of the program is not being furthered or that the program or the particular carrier's participation is having an adverse effect on competition. This statement shall serve as the notice required by section 40129(h) that states the Secretary's intention to use the authority created by that section to grant antitrust immunity.
The FAA will evaluate the pilot program to determine whether it has reduced total passenger delays, facilitated a more effective use of air traffic capacity through improvements in the realized airport arrival rate, or enabled a greater utilization of reservation times during ground delay programs. The FAA will also consider whether benefits from one airport's participation in the program have brought benefits to other parties of the National Airspace System.
The Department is obligated to evaluate the pilot program's effects on airline competition and service to communities. We ask for comment on what kinds of data should be obtained by us to conduct the evaluation. This data could include the following, but commenters may suggest alternatives or discuss whether the following data would be unnecessary:
We welcome other ideas as to how the program's effectiveness should be evaluated.
Additionally, while we recognize (as described above) that flight delays impose additional costs on air carriers, airports and the FAA, it would also be beneficial to obtain information about the direct effect of this program on the traveling public. Such information would allow us to evaluate the amount of delay experienced by passengers traveling on airlines participating in the program compared to the delay experienced during similar events that occurred before the program went into effect. Such information could include the number of passengers given prior notification of an impending CRE, the number of passengers who are rebooked on flights that depart in advance, during, or immediately after a CRE, reductions in the number of passengers who are offered compensation because of “overbooking” during the relevant time period, the number of passengers who are rebooked on other carriers' flights in response to notification of an impending CRE, or the speed with which carriers are able to accommodate all passengers wishing to travel during or immediately following a CRE.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Denial of petition for an investigation into the adequacy of a recall remedy.
This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a petition submitted to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. 30120(e), requesting that the agency investigate the adequacy of a remedy to address a defect in the adjustable brake and accelerator pedals on model year (MY) 2000 Mercury Sable vehicles. The petition is identified as RP03-001.
Mr. Jonathan White, Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5226.
Ms. Linda Rodman of North Hollywood, CA, submitted a petition to NHTSA by letter dated September 5, 2003, requesting NHTSA to further investigate the adjustable brake/accelerator pedal movement on MY 2000 Mercury Sable vehicles manufactured by Ford Motor Company (Ford). Ms. Rodman reported that on June 21, 2003, her mother was
NHTSA had previously conducted an investigation (PE02-035) into this issue. Consistent with facts developed in that investigation, on October 1, 2002, Ford notified NHTSA that it would recall 369,614 MY 2000 through 2002 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable vehicles (subject vehicles) to address a safety-related defect (NHTSA Recall 02V-266). Under that recall, Ford and Mercury dealers were to inspect the lateral separation distance between the brake pedal and the accelerator pedal and, if needed, adjust the pedals to obtain a minimum lateral separation of 50 mm. This would reduce the likelihood of a driver contacting both the brake and accelerator pedals, which could result in unwanted vehicle acceleration.
The petitioner stated that she brought her vehicle to her dealer in response to this recall and was told that no adjustment was needed. Subsequently, while the petitioner's mother was driving the vehicle, it allegedly suddenly accelerated and struck a light pole and a parked car. The petitioner therefore claims that the remedy identified by Ford for this recall does not sufficiently correct the brake and accelerator pedal lateral movement in the subject vehicles.
A review of the ODI complaint database revealed only one complaint regarding the adequacy of the recall remedy, that of the petitioner.
On December 10, 2003, an ODI investigator inspected Ms. Rodman's vehicle with the special tool used by Ford and Mercury dealers to perform the recall inspection. The brake/accelerator pedal lateral separation distance on Ms. Rodman's vehicle was 63 mm, well in excess of the 50 mm minimum specified under the recall. This measurement was performed as in the recall with the lash, or lateral movement, accounted for by moving the brake pedal towards the accelerator with light pressure.
The lateral movement of the pedal in the Rodman vehicle brake pedal was found to be comparable to other similarly equipped Sable and Taurus vehicles, approximately 30 mm.
Considering the fact that there were over 369,000 MY 2000-2002 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable vehicles recalled and that the only alleged remedy failure reported to ODI was by the petitioner, there is no basis to open an investigation to examine whether the recall remedy is adequate. It is unclear what caused the unwanted vehicle acceleration reported by Ms. Rodman. The brake/accelerator pedal lateral separation distance on her vehicle was significantly more than the 50 mm minimum specified under the recall and the lateral movement of the brake pedal was not excessive.
In view of the foregoing, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an order requiring Ford to provide a different remedy for this defect. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, the petition is denied.
49 U.S.C. 30120(e); delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
Request for comments.
The Surface Transportation Board is reopening the record regarding the application of the Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. (SMCRC) to expand the geographic scope of its collective ratemaking authority from regional to nationwide. The Board is taking this action to update the record for this matter by providing the opportunity for SMCRC to submit additional information in support of its application and for interested persons to file comments in reply to SMCRC's proposal. SMCRC will then be allowed to file rebuttal.
Initial statement from SMCRC is due by April 22, 2004. Replies are due by May 24, 2004. Rebuttal from SMCRC is due by June 7, 2004.
Send an original and 10 copies of pleadings, referring to STB Section 5a Application No. 46 (Sub-No. 20), to: Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. Also, send one copy to the representative of applicant SMCRC in STB Section 5a Application No. 46 (Sub-No. 20): Law Office of John R. Bagileo, No. 300, 1101 30th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007.
Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565-1609. [Federal Information Relay Service for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.]
SMCRC is one of several motor carrier rate bureaus (associations of motor carriers of property) that have antitrust immunity to set rates collectively under Board jurisdiction and oversight pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13703. SMCRC currently engages in collective ratemaking on a regional (non-nationwide) basis. In 1994, SMCRC filed an application with the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Board's predecessor agency, for authority to operate collectively on a nationwide basis,
By petition filed on November 5, 2003, SMCRC asks the Board to reopen and to reconsider its prior request for nationwide collective ratemaking authority in light of the repeal of the statutory prohibition against it. SMCRC argues that the Board previously expressed an intent to approve nationwide collective ratemaking authority and would have done so but for the prior statutory prohibition. SMCRC maintains that its request for nationwide authority can be approved on the present record.
On November 25, 2003, the National Small Shipments Traffic Conference, Inc., (NASSTRAC) filed a reply opposing SMCRC's request that the Board approve its application for nationwide authority without seeking new evidence to supplement the record. NASSTRAC states that it has expressed general support for nationwide authority in the past, to promote competition among rate bureaus. However, NASSTRAC argues that the current record is out-of-date, and it urges the Board to consider in detail how the expanded authority sought by SMCRC would affect competition among rate bureaus and collectively set rates.
On December 15, 2003, the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) filed a reply opposing SMCRC's request for nationwide authority. DOT argues that any expansion of the territorial scope of collective ratemaking would be “contrary to the public interest.” Alternatively, DOT urges that, if the Board wishes to give SMCRC's request serious consideration, the agency should develop a new record. Similar objections were raised in two other replies filed on the same date by (a) the National Industrial Transportation League and (b) two other rate bureaus (EC-MAC Motor Carriers Service Association, Inc., jointly with the Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc.). The two other rate bureaus suggest that the issue of territorial expansion be resolved in the periodic (5-year) review proceeding that the Board is required to begin again in 2004 to evaluate current bureau agreements under 49 U.S.C. 13703(c)(2).
The Board will reopen the record to seek additional information and comments. The present record is at least 6 years old. Additional information and the opportunity for public comments are needed in light of industry changes, subsequent statutory revisions, and the Board's decisions in
Board decisions, notices, and filings are available on its Web site at
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
By the Board, Chairman Nober.
The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from Michael Behe representing FRN, LLC (WB604-1-3/11/04) for permission to use certain data from the Board's 1999-2001 Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration.
The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
Mac Frampton, (202) 565-1542.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Monday, April 19, 2004, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., and Tuesday, April 20, 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., central daylight time.
Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227, or (414) 297-1604.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Monday, April 19, 2004, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., and Tuesday, April 20, 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., central daylight time, at the Embassy Suites Hotel Chicago Downtown, 600 North State Street, Chicago, IL 60610. You can submit written comments to the panel by faxing to (414) 297-1623, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop1006MIL, 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or you can contact us at
The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correction to notice.
This document corrects a notice regarding an Open Meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel that was published in the
Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227(toll-free), or 718-488-2085 (non toll-free).
This notice reflects changes made to the date of the open meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
As published, this notice contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Accordingly, this notice, which is the subject of FR Doc. 04-5411, is corrected as follows:
1. On page 11710, column 2, under the caption
2. On page 11710, column 2, under the caption
Notice is hereby given that on March 15, 2004, the Managing Director, Examinations, Supervision and Consumer Protection, Office of Thrift Supervision (“OTS”), or his designee, acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the application of St. Edmond's Federal Savings Bank, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection by appointment (phone number: 202-906-5922 or e-mail:
By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21), this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 22, 2004.
Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005E3), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8030, FAX (202) 273-5981 or e-mail:
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-7316. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0572” in any correspondence.
38 U.S.C. 1805, Spina Bifida Benefits Eligibility, authorizes payment to a spina bifida child-claimant to parent(s) who performed active military, naval, or air service during the Vietnam era during the period January 9, 1962, to May 7, 1975. The child must be the natural child of a Vietnam veteran, regardless of age or marital status, who was conceived after the date on which the veteran first entered the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. Spina Bifida benefits are payable for all types of spina bifida except spina bifida occulta. The law does not allow payment of both benefits at the same time. If entitlement exists under both laws, benefits will be paid under 38 U.S.C. 1815. VA Form 21-0304 is used to gather the necessary information to determine eligibility for a monetary allowance and appropriate level of payment.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 22, 2004.
Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005E3), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8030, FAX (202) 273-5981 or e-mail to:
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7316. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0376” in any correspondence.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 22, 2004.
Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005E3), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8030, FAX (202) 273-5981 or e-mail:
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7316. Please refer to “2900-New (NVVLS).”
a. Current prevalence of PTSD, with particular attention to changes in cases from initial assessment and to variables that might be associated with such changes;
b. Current prevalence of cardiovascular disorders and their precursors and risk factors, with particular attention to their relationship to war-zone stress exposure and PTSD;
c. Current prevalence of other psychiatric disorders and other postwar readjustment problems, with particular attention to their relationship to chronic disease outcomes; and
d. Healthcare utilization patterns, with particular attention to sociodemographic and other variables that moderate service use.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
(b) The Secretary of State, in consultation with the members of the Task Force or their representatives, shall promulgate regulations to implement section 105 of the Act.
(b) The Secretary of State shall have the authority to determine, under section 106(e)(1) of the Act, foreign destinations where sex tourism is significant. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the members of the Task Force or their representatives and appropriate officials of the Departments of Commerce and Transportation, shall carry out all other functions under subsection 106(e) of the Act, including promulgation of any appropriate regulations relating to the distribution of the materials described in subsection 106(e).
(c) The head of each executive branch agency responsible for the establishment and conduct of initiatives and programs described in subsections 106(a) through (e) of the Act shall consult with appropriate nongovernmental organizations consistent with section 106(f) of the Act.
(d) The Secretary of State shall have responsibility to initiate appropriate regulatory implementation of the requirements set out in section 106(g) of the Act with respect to contracts, including proposing appropriate amendments to the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Each affected executive branch department or agency shall implement, within that department or agency,
In notice document E4-536 beginning on page 11613 in the issue of Thursday, March 11, 2004, make the following correction:
On page 11614, in the second column, under the heading “
Civil Division, Department of Justice.
Final rule.
The Department of Justice (“the Department”) revises its existing regulations implementing the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (“the Act” or “RECA”), to reflect changes to RECA contained in two legislative enactments: the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000 (“2000 Amendments”), enacted on July 10, 2000; and the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (“Appropriations Authorization Act”), enacted on November 2, 2002.
After enactment of the 2000 Amendments, the Department published two related rulemakings in the
Effective date: April 22, 2004. This final rule will apply to all claims pending with the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Program (“Program”) as of this date.
Gerard W. Fischer (Assistant Director), (202) 616-4090, and Dianne S. Spellberg (Senior Counsel), (202) 616-4129.
On July 10, 2000, the RECA Amendments of 2000 were enacted, providing expanded coverage to individuals who developed one of the diseases specified in the Act following exposure to radiation related to the Federal Government's atmospheric nuclear weapons program or as a result of employment in the uranium production industry. Pub. L. 106-245. On August 7, 2002, the Attorney General published two related rulemakings implementing the 2000 Amendments: (1) A final rule (67 FR 51422) adopting the technical revisions contained in the 2000 Amendments by providing conforming amendments that incorporated the legislative language; and (2) a proposed rulemaking (67 FR 51440) setting forth amendments that primarily addressed compensation for two new claimant categories: uranium millers and individuals employed in the transport of uranium ore or vanadium-uranium ore. Comments were received over a period of 60 days, ending on October 7, 2002. In response to several requests from the public for additional time, the comment period was reopened on November 27, 2002, for an additional 60-day period ending on January 27, 2003.
On November 2, 2002, the President signed the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Pub. L. 107-273. Section 11007 of the Act makes additional changes to RECA that include: re-inserting a “downwinder” area; clarifying the medical eligibility criteria; providing an alternative radiation exposure standard for uranium miners; and correcting drafting errors contained in the 2000 Amendments.
Accordingly, in conjunction with the comments received on the proposed rule, this rulemaking: describes the expanded population of eligible uranium mine workers created by lowering the radiation exposure threshold for miners; identifies the new uranium worker states; includes provisions for compensation to “aboveground” miners; sets forth employment eligibility criteria for the new claimant categories (millers and ore transporters); describes the documentation required to establish proof of employment in a uranium mine or mill or as an ore transporter; describes the medical documentation necessary to establish the existence of renal cancer and chronic renal disease; and revises the provision concerning attorney representation of claimants before the Department of Justice with respect to claims brought under the Act.
Also, in order to implement the technical changes contained in the Appropriations Authorization Act, this rule incorporates the following revisions to the regulation: inserts a portion of Mohave County, Arizona, previously covered under RECA and erroneously stricken from the 2000 Amendments, as a radiation-affected area for “downwinder” claimants; clarifies the requirement that lung cancer be “primary” for all claimant categories; adds a duration of employment standard as an alternative to a minimum radiation exposure standard for uranium miners; amends the documentation required to establish lung cancer for uranium miner, miller, and ore transporter claimants; and makes other minor revisions consistent with the Appropriations Authorization Act.
Following publication of the proposed regulations, the Department received nearly 50 letters, some containing more than one comment regarding the proposed amendments. Commenters included both interested individuals and organizations. Most of the comments were positive, supporting the proposed changes, and praising what one commenter asserted was the Department's “thoughtful” approach. Other commenters suggested changes to medical provisions that were subsequently amended by enactment of the Appropriations Authorization Act. Specifically, these commenters noted that the medical criteria for establishing a diagnosis of lung cancer required the submission of documentation relevant to establishing a different type of illness, namely, a nonmalignant respiratory disease. Furthermore, some commenters requested clarification on whether a diagnosis of “lung cancer” (added by the 2000 Amendments as one of the new specified diseases for downwinders and onsite participants) must be “primary” in order to establish eligibility for compensation. Again, the Appropriations Authorization Act addressed this issue and clarified that a diagnosis of “lung cancer” must be “primary” in order to establish eligibility for compensation. Lastly, several commenters requested other technical changes that have subsequently been remedied by enactment of the Appropriations Authorization Act, or were contained in the 2000 Amendments.
The Department carefully reviewed all of the comments, several of which resulted in changes to the proposed rule. Some of the comments requested edits to the text for purposes of
In regard to other substantive changes, the Department met with two renal specialists to discuss the diagnostic criteria claimants are required to satisfy to prove chronic renal disease. The physicians reviewed the proposed criteria, made suggestions, provided guidance, and shared their specialized expertise in this area. In addition, they provided useful medical and scientific information. The final rule reflects many of the recommendations of those specialists as well as suggestions received by several commenters.
Below are summaries and discussions of the comments received related to the proposed regulations, which have been organized according to content. Minor or technical issues are not discussed.
In some cases, commenters suggested that the Department incorporate certain regulatory provisions that would alter statutory requirements relating to the criteria for compensation. For example, several commenters suggested that the regulations include additional compensable diseases and illnesses. Some argued that the covered illnesses for uranium millers and ore transporters should be identical to those illnesses specified for uranium miners. The regulations, however, cannot expand upon the list of diseases set forth in the statute. With respect to those comments requesting changes that would require legislative modification, the Department has no discretion in the matter. The implementing regulations must reflect the statutory limitations. Stated simply, the Department cannot modify a statute by regulation.
Several commenters requested that the “exploratory stage of uranium mining” be included for compensation and that the scope of the subpart therefore be broadened to include “exploratory drillers” or “core drillers.” Under the Act's uranium miner provisions, compensation is available to an “individual . . . employed in a uranium mine . . . and [who] was a miner exposed to at least 40 or more working level months of radiation or worked for at least 1 year during the [designated time] period.” 42 U.S.C. 2210 (note), Sec. 5(a)(1). The first issue to consider is whether core drillers were “employed in a uranium mine.” The Act defines a uranium mine as any “underground excavation . . . or other aboveground mines, where uranium ore or vanadium-uranium ore was mined or otherwise extracted.”
The crux of the argument to include core drillers is that they “extracted” ore by drilling core samples from a site, and while not technically “miners,” they nonetheless engaged in the same broad type of work (extraction) and should therefore be eligible for compensation.
The Act's provisions, however, require an individual to be “employed in a uranium mine” as a “miner.” While the work performed by core drillers was crucial to the success of the uranium production industry, these individuals were not employed in a uranium mine nor were they considered to be miners, and commenters did not generally claim otherwise. For example, one commenter advocating the expansion of this subpart to include core drillers implicitly recognized that core drillers were not employed in a uranium mine when he suggested changing the scope of the subpart to cover those employed “in or around a uranium mine.” The plain language of the Act clearly describes the requirements for satisfying the definition of “miner.” Extracting uranium ore from within a mine is one of the strict definitional limits that cannot be expanded by regulation.
For all of these reasons, broadening the scope of this subpart to include “exploratory” work would not be consistent with the terms of the Act. We note, however, that a core driller who is able to establish that he worked “in a uranium mine” as a “miner” may satisfy the eligibility criteria.
One commenter correctly noted that since enactment of the 2000 Amendments, individuals establishing proof of fibrosis of the lung or pulmonary fibrosis are no longer required to demonstrate evidence of “impairment.” The definition of “fibrosis of the lung or pulmonary fibrosis” in the proposed rule inadvertently required proof of impairment and this error has been corrected in the final rule.
Prior to the 2000 Amendments, the medical documentation protocol contained in the regulations required the submission of either pulmonary function tests or arterial blood gas studies—both of which demonstrated evidence of impairment. The 2000 Amendments, however, eliminated this requirement. While individuals may provide such evidence, submission of pulmonary function tests or arterial blood gas studies is no longer mandatory. The Act now provides a broader range of diagnostic evidence that individuals may submit to establish the existence of fibrosis of the lung or pulmonary fibrosis. The final rule revises the definition of “fibrosis of the lung or pulmonary fibrosis” accordingly.
One commenter asked whether compensation was available for those miners who worked aboveground doing tasks such as stock piling ore and operating loaders (dump trucks). Those activities would be considered aboveground mining activities. In the 2000 Amendments, Congress expanded the definition of a uranium mine to include “aboveground” mines. The Department has incorporated this expanded definition into these regulations. Thus, miners employed in aboveground mines may be eligible for compensation so long as they satisfy other eligibility criteria.
One commenter requested clarification regarding the requirement that a physician submitting a written diagnosis of a nonmalignant respiratory disease in the case of a living claimant under § 79.46 must be employed by the Indian Health Service, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or be certified by a state medical board. Specifically, the commenter questions what the phrase “certified by a state medical board” means. There are several tiers of credentials that physicians may acquire. As an initial requirement, physicians practicing in the United States must be licensed by one (or more) states. Licensing requirements are written into state law, and vary slightly from state to state. The Federation of State Medical Boards maintains a listing of every physician's licensure status. In addition to being a licensed physician, many physicians obtain additional training, typically called “residency,” in a specialized field. After successful completion of a residency training program, and other requirements that vary from one specialty to another, a physician may become “Board Certified” by passing the Board exam in his or her chosen specialty. The Act requires that a written diagnosis of a nonmalignant respiratory disease be made by a “board certified physician.” 42 U.S.C. 2210 (note), Sec. 5(c)(1)(B)(ii). This requirement must, therefore, be satisfied by Board certification in a relevant specialty. The Department has accordingly revised the final rule in order to clarify this requirement and ensure that the regulatory provision is consistent with the Act.
One commenter requested that language be inserted in this section to explain that in addition to any other material that may be used to substantiate the claimant's uranium mining employment history for purposes of determining working level months, an affidavit may be submitted under certain circumstances. While the limited use of affidavits is described in § 79.4, the Department concurs with the commenter and relevant language has been inserted in the regulation under this section.
One commenter noted that the term “primary” had been omitted from this section and requested that it be reinserted to avoid confusion. The Act defines “lung cancer,” for purposes of subparts E, F, and G, as “any physiological condition of the lung, trachea, or bronchus that is recognized as lung cancer by the National Cancer Institute.” 42 U.S.C. 2210 (note), Sec. 5(b)(6). The National Cancer Institute uses the term “lung cancer” to describe a cancer with a primary origin in the lung. The requested changes to this subsection and several corresponding changes in subparts E, F, and G have been made to clearly reflect the requirement that a diagnosis of primary lung cancer must be established to satisfy the eligibility criteria.
One commenter suggested inserting the words “reproducible” and “time/volume” in describing the three tracings required on a pulmonary function test. These suggestions are consistent with American Thoracic Society (ATS) standards, and accurately describe the recorded tracings that are required to demonstrate the claimant's pulmonary function.
The same commenter noticed that the word “restrictive” was added to the descriptions of lung function and pulmonary function tests (PFTs) in all relevant provisions of the regulation. The commenter argues that inclusion of this word would disqualify those claimants filing under the Act's uranium worker provisions who suffer from “obstructive” lung disease. The addition of the term “restrictive” with respect to lung function was one of the many legislative changes contained in the 2000 Amendments.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) submitted a comment suggesting that the Department discontinue the use of a fixed value (presently 80% of the predicted value) for determining evidence of restrictive or obstructive lung disease from a pulmonary function test. Instead, NIOSH recommends using the “lower limit of normal,” rather than a fixed percentage of the predicted value, as this would be consistent with the standards articulated by the ATS. Specifically, when determining the existence and severity of impairment from a pulmonary function test, the ATS recommends the use of the lowest 5% of the reference population to establish the lower limit of normal and recommends against using a fixed percentage value. Accordingly, the Department has amended the standard set forth in the regulations at Appendix A, under which a pulmonary function test is determined to be demonstrative of restrictive or obstructive lung disease. This rule, at § 79.46(d)(3)(ii)(D), provides that a forced vital capacity (FVC) or FEV-1 value will be interpreted as demonstrating evidence of restrictive or obstructive lung disease if the value shown is equal to or below the lower limit of normal. The use of the lower limit of normal rather than a fixed percentage value is in keeping with ATS standards and will ensure a more scientifically sound measurement for determining the presence and extent of lung function abnormality demonstrated by pulmonary function testing.
NIOSH also raised concerns regarding use of the specific reference values contained in the pulmonary function tables for determining whether a PFT demonstrates evidence of restrictive lung disease. The Department had been using the predicted spirometry values provided in a study conducted by Knudson,
It is noted, however, that the Hankinson study does not include reference values for Native Americans, an ethnic group that comprises a large percentage of the claimants filing under the uranium worker provisions of the Act. Consequently, the Department has determined that it would be appropriate to incorporate reference values specific to Native Americans in the pulmonary function tables. Scientifically reliable reference values specific to Native Americans may be found in the study conducted by Crapo,
One commenter asserted that the use of affidavits to establish employment as a miller (and as an ore transporter under § 79.63(c)) was included in the 2000 Amendments. The 2000 Amendments, however, only extended the use of affidavits for a limited purpose. The Act provides: “in addition to any other material that may be used to substantiate employment history for purposes of determining working level months, an individual filing a claim under those procedures may make such a substantiation by means of an affidavit described in subparagraph (B).” 42 U.S.C. 2210 (note). This provision does not pertain to millers or ore transporters because such claimants are not required to demonstrate exposure to working level months of radiation. The relevant regulatory provision concerning affidavits (§ 79.4) simply adopts the Act's language regarding the limited submission of affidavits for purposes of determining working level months and, as such, does not permit the use of affidavits by co-workers to substantiate employment as a miller or ore transporter.
One commenter, a physician from the Indian Health Service, noted specific concerns found in three identical provisions at §§ 79.46(d)(3)(ii)(A)(2); 79.55(d)(3)(ii)(A)(2); and 79.65(d)(3)(ii)(A)(2) of the proposed rule. These provisions reflected language contained in the statute at 42 U.S.C. 2210 (note), Sec. 5(c)(2)(B). The statutory provision, although under the heading entitled “Chest x-rays,” involved the conclusiveness of evidence that would be afforded to a written diagnosis made by a physician of a nonmalignant respiratory disease. The “Supplementary Information” section of the proposed rule discussed the apparent confusion concerning the Act's text: “The proposed rule does not independently address the provisions concerning conclusive evidence in section 5(c)(2)(B) of the Act, because that section is substantially identical to section 5(c)(1)(B) and appears to have been included in the 2000 Amendments in error. The Department requests public comments on whether the regulations should accord any additional, independent effect to section 5(c)(2)(B).” 67 FR 51441 (Aug. 7, 2002). After further review, the Department has decided to delete those regulatory provisions purporting to implement section 5(c)(2)(B) of the Act. The Department has concluded that section 5(c)(2)(B) of the Act does not relate to the interpretation of chest x-rays and that any attempt to link the statutory provision to chest x-rays would be contrary to the plain meaning of the Act. As described in section 5(b)(5)(B), chest x-rays must be interpreted by a maximum of two NIOSH certified B readers. As such, section 5(c)(2)(B) has no relevance to the interpretation of chest x-rays and is merely repetitive of section 5(c)(1)(B), which addresses the conclusiveness to be afforded a written diagnosis made by a physician.
Several commenters noted that the most common cause of chronic renal failure is diabetes. Diabetes occurs in approximately 10% of the entire population; it occurs in approximately 20% to 30% of the Native American population. A commenter from the Indian Health Service noted that the exclusion of diabetic individuals may dramatically affect the population of Navajo patients where the diabetes prevalence is quite high in comparison to Caucasian patients. Other commenters, including one from St. Mary's Saccomanno Research Center, suggested further study of the relationship between diabetes or diabetic nephropathy and chronic renal disease. After further review of this section, the Department has determined that diabetic claimants should not be treated differently than other claimants for purposes of establishing chronic renal disease. Rather, in evaluating all claims involving chronic renal disease, the Department will examine the relevant medical documentation and evaluate whether claimants developed chronic renal disease following employment as a miller or ore transporter. See §§ 79.52(c) and 79.62(c). Consequently, if any claimant, whether diabetic or not, suffered from chronic renal disease prior to employment as a miller or ore transporter, he or she would not be eligible for compensation.
Section 79.61(e) Employment as an Ore Transporter
One commenter argued that all aboveground miners who moved or carried uranium ore at a mine should be considered “ore transporters.” The regulations, however, may not collapse separate statutorily designated claimant categories. The statute provides that uranium miners, employed in an aboveground uranium mine, are eligible for compensation.
Several commenters asked whether mechanics, mine road maintenance workers, and other shop workers would be classified as ore transporters. While the definitions of miner, miller, and ore transporter are drafted broadly, the extension of coverage to mechanics, mine road maintenance workers, and other shop workers would not be consistent with the Act. As reviewed above, ore transporters include individuals “employed in the transport of uranium ore or vanadium-uranium ore” from a mine or mill.
One commenter expressed the view that claimants and beneficiaries should have the “option” of hiring an attorney or filing by themselves. Nothing in the Act or regulations makes attorney representation mandatory. The regulatory provision provides: “In submitting and presenting a claim to the Program, a claimant or beneficiary
Another commenter asserted that the monetary penalty of $5,000 for attorneys who charge in excess of the Act's fee limitations is too low and that such attorneys should also be disqualified from filing RECA claims. The Department notes that the penalty for attorneys who charge in excess of the Act's fee arrangement is specified in Section 9(c) of the Act. The relevant regulatory provision (§ 79.74(b)(3)) merely implements this statutory mandate.
In the event a claimant elects to retain an attorney, it is important to the Department that only duly qualified attorneys be permitted to assist RECA claimants. The attorney must be an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest court of the state, 5 U.S.C. 500(b), which provides assurance that an attorney will be subject to oversight and disciplinary rules that will best guarantee faithful, ethical, and adequate representation of claimants and beneficiaries. In addition, the final regulation requires an attorney to submit a signed representation agreement, retainer agreement, fee agreement, or contract to the Department, authorizing the attorney to represent the claimant or beneficiary and acknowledging that the Act's fee limitations are satisfied.
One commenter stated that the following language from the “Supplementary Information” section of the proposed rule was confusing: “The Department has determined generally not to permit non-attorneys to represent claimants and beneficiaries before the Program.” 67 FR 51441 (Aug. 7, 2002). Based on this language, the commenter requested whether he could, as a non-attorney, represent claimants before the Department for RECA benefits. The Department is of the view that claimants and beneficiaries would be best served by relying on the expertise and legal training of attorneys in cases where such claimants and beneficiaries determine it would be beneficial to use the services of a representative. The Department has revised this section in the final regulation in order to clarify the issue regarding non-attorney representation and the prohibition against permitting non-attorneys to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. The final regulation provides that non-attorneys (other than representatives of an Indian Tribe or tribal organization) are not permitted to represent claimants or beneficiaries before the Program.
Two commenters objected, however, to allowing representatives of an Indian Tribe or tribal organization to assist RECA claimants before the Department. One of the commenters argued that the Department is attempting to regulate non-lawyers, which would be outside the scope of the Act and constitute an inappropriate expansion of the statute. Actually, this exception to the rule prohibiting non-attorneys from representing claimants and beneficiaries before the Department is consistent with the Act's directive, contained in section 6(d)(5), which provides: “
Another commenter expressed confusion regarding the relevant fee structure when an attorney hires assistants or experts to work on a particular claim or claims. The “Supplementary Information” section at the beginning of the proposed rule explains: “An attorney representative may hire, and make use of experts, aids, paralegals, and other persons who are not attorneys. The use of such assistants and experts, however, will not affect the fee limitations specified in the Act and in this proposed rule, which establish an overall limitation on the total amount of fees that a representative, along with his or her assistants and experts, may receive.” 67 FR 51441 (Aug. 7, 2002). Accordingly, if an attorney is entitled to a 2% fee in the event of a successful claim, then the 2% fee limitation applies to the total amount paid to the attorney and any assistants, such as experts, aids, or paralegals, he or she has hired to work on the claimant's behalf.
Several commenters argued that if “costs” must be absorbed by the attorney, regardless of the claim's outcome, this will have the unintended effect of prohibiting many deserving claimants from being able to document their claims. These commenters proposed that this section be amended so that the statutory fee limitations imposed on the payment that the attorney may receive for services rendered do not apply to reimbursement for certain costs and expenses that the attorney incurs. In particular, commenters urged that certain costs, including those costs incurred to obtain necessary medical testing specified in the Act, be reimbursable to the attorney. They also argued that attorneys will not take claims that may not succeed because they cannot afford to absorb the costs associated with preparing claims that are denied. Finally, the commenters speculated that failure to reimburse costs will result in a reduced number of attorneys willing to assist claimants, which will then create a subsequent increase in the number of denied claims due to lack of proper documentation.
In regard to the issue of costs, the Department gave a great deal of consideration to the arguments asserted. Looking to the Act, section 9(a) provides: “Notwithstanding any contract, the representative of an individual may not receive, for
With respect to the argument that fewer attorneys will be willing to assist claimants given the limitation on reimbursement of costs, the Department has taken a close look at the actual statistics for claims filed by attorneys under the Act. Since enactment of the 2000 Amendments on July 10, 2000, claims filed by attorneys have decreased by less than 3%, too small an amount from which to infer a reduction in access to legal services. Moreover, the rate of approved claims during this period has increased from approximately 50% to more than 75%, reflecting the elimination of many hurdles to compensation that existed prior to the 2000 Amendments. The Department therefore is not convinced that claimants will be unable to find qualified legal assistance in filing their claims.
The Department has revised § 79.74(b)(3)(ii) of the rule by striking language applying the higher attorney fee limit (10%) to claims administratively appealed to the designated Appeals Officer pursuant to § 79.73 of these regulations. Also stricken is the application of the higher fee for actions for review filed in United States District Court. It is the Department's position that the plain meaning of a “resubmission of a denied claim” as provided in section 9(b)(2)(B) of the Act includes only those instances where a claim, previously denied by the Program, is resubmitted or re-filed with the Program. This revision is consistent with section 8(b) of the Act, permitting a claimant who has been denied compensation the opportunity to “resubmit a claim for consideration by the Attorney General in accordance with this Act not more than three times.” Considering both these sections together, the interpretation of the language contained in section 9 is clear. The “resubmission of a denied claim,” for which an attorney would be entitled (if the claim is successful) to the higher attorney fee, is limited specifically to those claims, after having been denied by the Program, that are subsequently re-filed with the Program.
Regarding the text of the rule generally, the Department received other technical or administrative comments suggesting minor edits to the text. These comments were carefully considered and in many instances, the textual edits were adopted. In some cases, however, the Department declined to make the requested edits because they were inconsistent with the terms of the Act.
This rule amends the list of compensable “downwinder” geographical areas to include a portion of Mohave County, Arizona, located north of the Grand Canyon. This geographical area, previously compensable under the original Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, was erroneously stricken as a compensable area under the 2000 Amendments and has been reinserted by the Appropriations Authorization Act.
The rule also clarifies the requirement that lung cancer be “primary” for all claimant categories. The 2000 Amendments added “lung cancer” as a covered disease for downwinder and onsite participant claimants. It was unclear whether this illness had to be diagnosed as “primary” for purposes of compensation of these claimants. The Appropriations Authorization Act clarified this issue by including “lung cancer” within the list of primary cancers for downwinders and onsite participants, the onset of which must have occurred at least five years after first exposure.
In addition, this rule allows a uranium miner to satisfy the radiation exposure requirement by demonstrating at least 12 months of employment in uranium mining as an alternative to satisfying a radiation level exposure standard. The 2000 Amendments added miller and ore transporters as new claimant categories and required that they satisfy a 12-month duration of employment standard; however, the 2000 Amendments did not extend this method of establishing exposure to uranium miners. The Appropriations Authorization Act remedies this disparity among the uranium worker claimants.
This rule also removes the statutory requirement that written medical documentation relevant to establishing a nonmalignant respiratory disease also be provided to establish lung cancer in the case of living claimants. The 2000 Amendments required identical forms of medical evidence to establish proof of a nonmalignant respiratory disease
Finally, the Appropriations Authorization Act strikes restrictive language requiring new uranium mining states to contain an “Atomic Energy Commission” uranium mine in order to be eligible for coverage; the rule incorporates this change as well.
The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: The claimant population benefited by these regulations is limited to individuals who developed a specified illness following exposure to radiation related to the Federal Government's atmospheric nuclear weapons program or as a result of employment in the uranium production industry. The regulations set forth eligibility criteria that claimants must satisfy in order to receive compensation. They will have no impact on small businesses.
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The compensation payments provided for by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, the 2000 Amendments, and the Appropriations Authorization Act and implemented by this rule will exceed $100,000,000 a year for several years. Because of the aggregate size of these payments to eligible individuals, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is “economically significant” as defined by section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has been reviewed by OMB.
This rule will not adversely affect the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. Rather, the RECA system is an administrative compensation program that serves to provide payments to individuals who meet the eligibility requirements of the Act and implementing regulations. Accordingly, qualifying individuals receive monetary compensation for certain diseases they developed following exposure to radiation under the conditions set forth in the rule.
This regulation 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The compensation payments provided for by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, the 2000 Amendments, and the Appropriations Authorization Act and implemented by this rule will exceed $100,000,000 a year for several years. Because of the aggregate size of these payments to eligible individuals, the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is a “major rule” as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804.
However, this rule will not result in a major increase in costs or prices or have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. Rather, the RECA system is an administrative compensation program that serves to provide payments to individuals who meet the eligibility requirements of the Act and implementing regulations. Accordingly, qualifying individuals receive monetary compensation for certain diseases they developed following exposure to radiation under the conditions set forth in the rule.
Further, this rule merely conforms Department regulations to the Appropriations Authorization Act, makes other technical changes, and following a period of public notice and comment, implements the 2000 Amendments with respect to the two new claimant categories. For the foregoing reasons, the Department finds that it would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest for the effectiveness of this rule to be deferred for the time specified by 5 U.S.C. 801. Accordingly, the Department invokes the exception allowed by 5 U.S.C. 808 and determines that this rule should take effect on April 22, 2004, as set forth above in the
Information collection associated with this regulation has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OMB control number for this collection is 1105-0052.
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Cancer, Claims, Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uranium, Uranium mining.
Secs. 6(a), 6(i) and 6(j), Pub. L. 101-426, 104 Stat. 920, as amended by secs. 3(c)-(h), Pub. L. 106-245, 114 Stat. 501 and sec. 11007, Pub. L. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758 (42 U.S.C. 2210 note; 5 U.S.C. 500(b)).
The purpose of the regulations in this part is to implement the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (“Act”), as amended by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000 (“2000 Amendments”) and by the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (“Appropriations Authorization Act”). The Act authorizes the Attorney General of the United States to establish procedures for making certain payments to qualifying individuals who contracted one of the diseases listed in the Act. The amount of each payment and a general statement of the qualifications are indicated in § 79.3(a). The procedures established in this part are designed to utilize existing records so that claims can be resolved in a reliable, objective, and non-adversarial manner, quickly and with little administrative cost to the United States or to the person filing the claim.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(a) In order to receive a compensation payment, each claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must establish that the claimant meets each and every criterion of eligibility for at least one of the following compensable categories designated in the Act:
(1)
(ii) For persons exposed to fallout from the atmospheric detonation of nuclear devices due to their participation onsite in a test involving the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device, the amount of compensation is $75,000. The regulations governing these claims are set forth in subpart B of this part.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(b) Any claim that does not meet all the criteria for at least one of these categories, as set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, must be denied.
(c) All claims for compensation under the Act must comply with the claims procedures and requirements set forth in subpart H of this part before any payment can be made from the Fund.
(a) The claimant, eligible surviving beneficiary, or beneficiaries bear the burden of providing evidence of the existence of each element necessary to establish eligibility under any compensable claim category set forth in § 79.3(a).
(b) In the event that reasonable doubt exists with regard to whether a claim meets the requirements of the Act, that doubt shall be resolved in favor of the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary.
(c) Written affidavits or declarations, subject to penalty for perjury, will be accepted only for the following purposes:
(1) To establish eligibility of family members as set forth in § 79.71(e), (f), (g), (h), or (i);
(2) To establish other compensation received as set forth in § 79.75(c) or (d);
(3) To establish employment in a uranium mine, mill or as an ore transporter on the standard claim form in the manner set forth in §§ 79.43(d), 79.53(d) and 79.63(d), respectively; and
(4) To substantiate the claimant's uranium mining employment history for purposes of determining working level months of radiation exposure by providing the types of information set forth in § 79.43(d), so long as the affidavit or declaration:
(i) Is provided in addition to any other material that may be used to substantiate the claimant's employment history as set forth in § 79.43;
(ii) Is made subject to penalty for perjury;
(iii) Attests to the employment history of the claimant; and
(iv) Is made by a person other than the individual filing the claim.
(a) All medical documentation, contemporaneous records, and other records or documents submitted by a claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary to prove any criterion provided for in this part must be originals, or certified copies of the originals, unless it is impossible to obtain an original or certified copy of the original. If it is impossible for a claimant to provide an original or certified copy of an original, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must provide a written statement with the uncertified copy setting forth the reason why it is impossible to provide an original or a certified copy of an original.
(b) All documents submitted by a claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must bear sufficient indicia of authenticity or a sufficient guarantee of trustworthiness. The Program shall not accept as proof of any criterion of eligibility any document that does not bear sufficient indicia of authenticity, or is in such a physical condition, or contains such information, that otherwise indicates the record or document is not reliable or trustworthy. When a record or document is not accepted by the Program under this section, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary shall be notified and afforded the opportunity to submit additional documentation in accordance with § 79.72(b) or (c).
(c) To establish eligibility the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary may be required to provide additional records to the extent they exist. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the Assistant Director's (specified in § 79.70(a)) ability to require additional documentation.
The regulations in this subpart describe the criteria for eligibility for compensation under section 4(a)(1) of the Act and the evidence that will be accepted as proof of the various eligibility criteria. Section 4(a)(1) of the Act provides for a payment of $50,000 to individuals exposed to fallout from the detonation of atmospheric nuclear devices at the Nevada Test Site due to their physical presence in an affected area during a designated time period and who later developed leukemia, and $75,000 to individuals who participated onsite in a test involving the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device and who later developed leukemia.
(a)
(1) In the State of Utah, the counties of Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Millard, Piute, San Juan, Sevier, Washington, and Wayne;
(2) In the State of Nevada, the counties of Eureka, Lander, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine, and that portion of Clark County that consists of townships 13 through 16 at ranges 63 through 71;
(3) In the State of Arizona, the counties of Coconino, Yavapai, Navajo,
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) The Nevada Test Site (NTS), Nevada;
(2) The Pacific Test Sites (Bikini Atoll, Enewetak Atoll, Johnston Island, Christmas Island, the test site for the shot during Operation Wigwam, the test site for Shot Yucca during Operation Hardtack I, and the test sites for Shot Frigate Bird and Shot Swordfish during Operation Dominic I) and the official zone around each site from which non-test affiliated ships were excluded for security and safety purposes;
(3) The Trinity Test Site (TTS), New Mexico;
(4) The South Atlantic Test Site for Operation Argus and the official zone around the site from which non-test affiliated ships were excluded for security and safety purposes;
(5) Any designated location within a Naval Shipyard, Air Force Base, or other official government installation where ships, aircraft, or other equipment used in an atmospheric nuclear detonation were decontaminated; or
(6) Any designated location used for the purpose of monitoring fallout from an atmospheric nuclear test conducted at the Nevada Test Site.
(g)
(1) Who was:
(i) A member of the armed forces;
(ii) A civilian employee or contract employee of the Manhattan Engineer District, the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, the Defense Atomic Support Agency, the Defense Nuclear Agency, or the Department of Defense or its components or agencies or predecessor components or agencies;
(iii) An employee or contract employee of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Energy Research and Development Administration, or the Department of Energy;
(iv) A member of the Federal Civil Defense Administration or the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization; or
(v) A member of the United States Public Health Service; and
(2) Who:
(i) Performed duties within the identified operational area around each atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device;
(ii) Participated in the decontamination of any ships, planes, or equipment used during the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device;
(iii) Performed duties as a cloud tracker or cloud sampler;
(iv) Served as a member of the garrison or maintenance forces on the atoll of Enewetak between June 21, 1951, and July 1, 1952; between August 7, 1956, and August 7, 1957; or between November 1, 1958, and April 30, 1959; or
(v) Performed duties as a member of a mobile radiological safety team monitoring the pattern of fallout from an atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device.
(h)
(i)
To establish eligibility for compensation under this subpart, a claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must establish each of the following:
(a)(1) That the claimant was physically present at any place within the affected area for a period of at least one year (12 consecutive or cumulative months) during the period beginning on January 21, 1951, and ending on October 31, 1958;
(2) That the claimant was physically present at any place within the affected area for the entire, continuous period beginning on June 30, 1962, and ending on July 31, 1962; or
(3) That the claimant was present onsite at any time during a period of atmospheric nuclear testing and was a participant during that period in the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device;
(b) That after such period of physical presence or onsite participation the claimant contracted leukemia;
(c) That the claimant's initial exposure occurred prior to age 21; and
(d) That the onset of the leukemia occurred more than two years after the date of the claimant's first exposure to fallout.
(a) Proof of physical presence may be made by the submission of any trustworthy contemporaneous record that, on its face or in conjunction with other such records, establishes that the claimant was present in the affected area for the requisite period during the designated time period. Examples of such records include:
(1) Records of the federal government (including verified information submitted for a security clearance), any tribal government, or any state, county, city or local governmental office, agency, department, board or other entity, or other public office or agency;
(2) Records of any accredited public or private educational institution;
(3) Records of any private utility licensed or otherwise approved by any governmental entity, including any such utility providing telephone services;
(4) Records of any public or private library;
(5) Records of any state or local historical society;
(6) Records of any religious organization;
(7) Records of any regularly conducted business activity or entity;
(8) Records of any recognized civic or fraternal association or organization; and
(9) Medical records created during the designated time period.
(b) Proof of physical presence by contemporaneous records may also be made by submission of original postcards and envelopes from letters (not copies) addressed to the claimant or an immediate family member during the designated time period that bear a postmark and a cancelled stamp(s).
(c) The Program will presume that an individual who resided or was employed on a full-time basis within the affected area was physically present during the time period of residence or full-time employment.
(d) For purposes of establishing eligibility under § 79.12(a)(1), the Program will presume that proof of a claimant's residence at one or more addresses or proof of full-time employment at one location within the affected area on any two dates less than three years apart during the period beginning on January 21, 1951, and ending on October 31, 1958, establishes the claimant's presence within the
(e) For purposes of establishing eligibility under § 79.12(a)(1), the Program will presume that proof of residence at one or more addresses or proof of full-time employment at one location within the affected area on two dates, one of which is before January 21, 1951, and another of which is within the specified time period, establishes the claimant's presence in the affected area between January 21, 1951, and the date within the specified time period, provided the dates are not more than three years apart.
(f) For purposes of establishing eligibility under § 79.12(a)(1), the Program will presume that proof of residence at one or more addresses or proof of full-time employment at one location within the affected area on two dates, one of which is after October 31, 1958, and another of which is within the specified time period, establishes the claimant's presence in the affected area between the date within the specified time period and October 31, 1958, provided the dates are not more than three years apart.
(g) For purposes of establishing eligibility under § 79.12(a)(2), the Program will presume that proof of residence or proof of full-time employment within the affected area at least one day during the period beginning June 30, 1962, and ending July 31, 1962, and proof of residence or proof of full-time employment at the same address or location within six months before June 30, 1962, and six months after July 31, 1962, establishes the claimant's physical presence for the necessary one-month-and-one-day period.
(h) For purposes of establishing eligibility under § 79.12(a)(2), the Program will presume that proof of residence or full-time employment at the same address or location on two separate dates at least 14 days apart within the time period beginning June 30, 1962, and ending July 31, 1962, establishes the claimant's physical presence for the necessary one-month-and-one-day period.
(i) For purposes of establishing eligibility under § 79.12(a)(3), the claimant must establish, in accordance with § 79.33, that he or she participated onsite in the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device.
(a) Proof of the claimant's date of birth must be established by the submission of any of the following:
(1) Birth certificate;
(2) Baptismal certificate;
(3) Tribal records; or
(4) Hospital records of birth.
(b) Absent any indication to the contrary, the Program will assume that the earliest date within the designated time period indicated on any records accepted by the Program as proof of the claimant's physical presence in the affected area or participation during a period of atmospheric nuclear testing was also the date of initial exposure.
The Program will presume that the date of onset was the date of diagnosis as indicated in the medical documentation accepted by the Program as proof of the claimant's leukemia. The date of onset must be more than two years after the date of first exposure as determined under § 79.14(b).
(a) Medical documentation is required in all cases to prove that the claimant suffered from or suffers from leukemia. Proof that the claimant contracted leukemia must be made either by using the procedure outlined in paragraph (b) of this section or by submitting the documentation required in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) If a claimant was diagnosed as having leukemia in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah or Wyoming, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary need not submit any medical documentation of disease at the time the claim is filed (although medical documentation may subsequently be required). Instead, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must submit with the claim an Authorization To Release Medical and Other Information, valid in the state of diagnosis, that authorizes the Program to contact the appropriate state cancer or tumor registry. The Program will accept as proof of medical condition verification from the state cancer or tumor registry that it possesses medical records or abstracts of medical records of the claimant that contain a verified diagnosis of one type of leukemia. If the designated state does not possess medical records or abstracts of medical records that contain a verified diagnosis of leukemia, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program will notify the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary and afford that individual the opportunity to submit the medical documentation required in paragraph (c) of this section, in accordance with the provisions of § 79.72(b).
(c)(1) Proof that the claimant contracted leukemia may be made by the submission of one or more of the following contemporaneous medical records provided that the specified document contains an explicit statement of diagnosis or such other information or data from which appropriate authorities at the National Cancer Institute can make a diagnosis of leukemia to a reasonable degree of medical certainty:
(i) Bone marrow biopsy or aspirate report;
(ii) Peripheral white blood cell differential count report;
(iii) Autopsy report;
(iv) Hospital discharge summary;
(v) Physician summary report;
(vi) History and physical report; or
(vii) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(2) If the medical record submitted does not contain sufficient information or data to make such a diagnosis, the Program will notify the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary and afford that individual the opportunity to submit additional medical records identified in this paragraph, in accordance with the provisions of § 79.72(b). Any such additional medical documentation submitted must also contain sufficient information from which appropriate authorities at the National Cancer Institute can determine the type of leukemia contracted by the claimant.
The regulations in this subpart describe the criteria for eligibility for compensation under sections 4(a)(2) (A) and (B) of the Act and the evidence that will be accepted as proof of the various eligibility criteria. Sections 4(a)(2) (A) and (B) of the Act provide for a payment of $50,000 to individuals who were exposed to fallout from the atmospheric detonation of nuclear devices at the Nevada Test Site due to their physical presence in an affected area during a designated time period and who later developed one or more specified compensable diseases.
(a) The definitions listed in § 79.11 (a) through (e) and (i) apply to this subpart.
(b)
(c)
(d)
To establish eligibility for compensation under this subpart, a claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must establish each of the following:
(a)(1) That the claimant was physically present at any place within the affected area for a period of at least two years (24 consecutive or cumulative months) during the period beginning on January 21, 1951, and ending on October 31, 1958; or
(2) That the claimant was physically present at any place within the affected area for the entire, continuous period beginning on June 30, 1962, and ending on July 31, 1962; and
(b) That after such period of physical presence the claimant contracted one of the following specified compensable diseases:
(1) Leukemia (other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia), provided that:
(i) The claimant's initial exposure occurred after the age of 20; and
(ii) The onset of the disease occurred at least two years after first exposure;
(2) Multiple myeloma, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(3) Lymphomas, other than Hodgkin's disease, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(4) Primary cancer of the thyroid, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(5) Primary cancer of the male or female breast, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(6) Primary cancer of the esophagus, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(7) Primary cancer of the stomach, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(8) Primary cancer of the pharynx, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(9) Primary cancer of the small intestine, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(10) Primary cancer of the pancreas, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(11) Primary cancer of the bile ducts, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(12) Primary cancer of the gallbladder, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(13) Primary cancer of the salivary gland, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(14) Primary cancer of the urinary bladder, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(15) Primary cancer of the brain, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(16) Primary cancer of the colon, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(17) Primary cancer of the ovary, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(18) Primary cancer of the liver, provided,
(i) Onset occurred at least five years after first exposure;
(ii) There is no indication of the presence of hepatitis B; and
(iii) There is no indication of the presence of cirrhosis; or
(19) Primary cancer of the lung, provided onset occurred at least five years after first exposure.
(a) Proof of physical presence for the requisite period may be made in accordance with the provisions of § 79.13(a) and (b). An individual who resided or was employed on a full-time basis within the affected area is presumed to have been physically present during the time period of residence or full-time employment.
(b) For purposes of establishing eligibility under § 79.22(a)(1), the Program will presume that proof of residence at one or more addresses or proof of full-time employment at one location within the affected area on any two dates less than three years apart, during the period beginning on January 21, 1951, and ending on October 31, 1958, establishes the claimant's presence within the affected area for the period between the two dates reflected in the documentation submitted as proof of presence.
(c) For purposes of establishing eligibility under § 79.22(a)(1), the Program will presume that proof of residence at one or more addresses or proof of full-time employment at one location within the affected area on two dates, one of which is before January 21, 1951, and another of which is within the specified time period, establishes the claimant's presence in the affected area between January 21, 1951, and the date within the specified time period, provided the dates are not more than three years apart.
(d) For purposes of establishing eligibility under § 79.22(a)(1), the Program will presume that proof of residence at one or more addresses or proof of full-time employment at one location within the affected area on two dates, one of which is after October 31, 1958, and another of which is within the specified time period, establishes the claimant's presence in the affected area between the date within the specified time period and October 31, 1958, provided the dates are not more than three years apart.
(e) For purposes of establishing eligibility under § 79.22(a)(2), the Program will apply the presumptions contained in § 79.13(g) and (h).
(a) Proof of the claimant's date of birth must be established in accordance with the provisions of § 79.14(a).
(b) Absent any indication to the contrary, the Program will presume that the earliest date within the designated time period indicated on any records accepted by the Program as proof of the claimant's physical presence in the
The date of onset will be the date of diagnosis as indicated in the medical documentation accepted by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program as proof of the claimant's specified compensable disease. The date of onset must be at least five years after the date of first exposure as determined under § 79.24(b). In the case of leukemia, the date of onset must be at least two years after the date of first exposure.
(a) Medical documentation is required in all cases to prove that the claimant suffered from or suffers from any specified compensable disease. Proof that the claimant contracted a specified compensable disease must be made either by using the procedure outlined in paragraph (b) of this section or by submitting the documentation required in paragraph (c) of this section. (For claims relating to primary cancer of the liver, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must also submit the additional medical documentation prescribed in § 79.27.)
(b) If a claimant was diagnosed as having one of the specified compensable diseases in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah or Wyoming, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary need not submit any medical documentation of disease at the time the claim is filed (although medical documentation subsequently may be required). Instead, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary may submit with the claim an Authorization to Release Medical and Other Information, valid in the state of diagnosis, that authorizes the Program to contact the appropriate state cancer or tumor registry. The Program will accept as proof of medical condition verification from the state cancer or tumor registry that it possesses medical records or abstracts of medical records of the claimant that contain a verified diagnosis of one of the specified compensable diseases. If the designated state does not possess medical records or abstracts of medical records that contain a verified diagnosis of one of the specified compensable diseases, the Program will notify the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary and afford that individual the opportunity to submit the written medical documentation required in paragraph (c) of this section, in accordance with the provisions of § 79.72(b).
(c) Proof that the claimant contracted a specified compensable disease may be made by the submission of one or more of the contemporaneous medical records listed in this paragraph, provided that the specified document contains an explicit statement of diagnosis and such other information or data from which the appropriate authorities with the National Cancer Institute can make a diagnosis to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. If the medical record submitted does not contain sufficient information or data to make such a diagnosis, the Program will notify the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary and afford that individual the opportunity to submit additional medical records identified in this paragraph, in accordance with the provisions of § 79.72(b). The medical documentation submitted under this section to establish that the claimant contracted leukemia or a lymphoma must also contain sufficient information from which the appropriate authorities with the National Cancer Institute can determine the type of leukemia or lymphoma contracted by the claimant. Proof of leukemia shall be made by submitting one or more of the documents listed in § 79.16(c).
(1)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) Report of serum electrophoresis;
(iv) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Hematology summary or consultation report;
(D) Medical oncology summary or consultation report; or
(E) X-ray report; or
(v) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(2)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Hematology consultation or summary report; or
(D) Medical oncology consultation or summary report; or
(iv) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(3)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy or fine needle aspirate;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Operative summary report;
(D) Medical oncology summary or consultation report; or
(iv) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(4)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy or surgical resection;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Operative report;
(D) Medical oncology summary or consultation report; or
(E) Radiotherapy summary or consultation report;
(iv) Report of mammogram;
(v) Report of bone scan; or
(vi) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(5)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy or surgical resection;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) Endoscopy report;
(iv) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Operative report;
(D) Radiotherapy report; or
(E) Medical oncology consultation or summary report;
(v) One of the following radiological studies:
(A) Esophagram;
(B) Barium swallow;
(C) Upper gastrointestinal (GI) series;
(D) Computerized tomography (CT) scan; or
(E) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); or
(vi) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(6)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy or surgical resection;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) Endoscopy or gastroscopy report;
(iv) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Operative report;
(D) Radiotherapy report; or
(E) Medical oncology summary report;
(v) One of the following radiological studies:
(A) Barium swallow;
(B) Upper gastrointestinal (GI) series;
(C) Computerized tomography (CT) series; or
(D) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); or
(vi) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(7)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy or surgical resection;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) Endoscopy report;
(iv) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Report of otolaryngology examination;
(D) Radiotherapy summary report;
(E) Medical oncology summary report; or
(F) Operative report;
(v) Report of one of the following radiological studies:
(A) Laryngograms;
(B) Tomograms of soft tissue and lateral radiographs;
(C) Computerized tomography (CT) scan; or
(D) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); or
(vi) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(8)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) Endoscopy report, provided that the examination covered the duodenum and parts of the jejunum;
(iv) Colonoscopy report, provided that the examination covered the distal ileum;
(v) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Report of gastroenterology examination;
(D) Operative report;
(E) Radiotherapy summary report; or
(F) Medical oncology summary or consultation report;
(vi) Report of one of the following radiologic studies:
(A) Upper gastrointestinal (GI) series with small bowel follow-through;
(B) Angiography;
(C) Computerized tomography (CT) scan; or
(D) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); or
(vii) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(9)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy or fine needle aspirate;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Radiotherapy summary report; or
(D) Medical oncology summary report;
(iv) Report of one of the following radiographic studies:
(A) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP);
(B) Upper gastrointestinal (GI) series;
(C) Arteriography of the pancreas;
(D) Ultrasonography;
(E) Computerized tomography (CT) scan; or
(F) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); or
(v) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(10)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy or surgical resection;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Operative report;
(D) Gastroenterology consultation report; or
(E) Medical oncology summary or consultation report;
(iv) Report of one of the following radiographic studies:
(A) Ultrasonography;
(B) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography;
(C) Percutaneous cholangiography; or
(D) Computerized tomography (CT) scan; or
(v) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(11)
(i) Pathology report of tissue from surgical resection;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) Report of one of the following radiological studies:
(A) Computerized tomography (CT) scan;
(B) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); or
(C) Ultrasonography (ultrasound);
(iv) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Operative report;
(D) Radiotherapy report; or
(E) Medical oncology summary or report; or
(v) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(12)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy or surgical resection;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Medical oncology summary report;
(D) Operative report; or
(E) Gastroenterology report;
(iv) Report of one of the following radiological studies:
(A) Computerized tomography (CT) scan;
(B) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); or
(v) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(13)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy or resection, including, but not limited to specimens obtained by any of the following methods:
(A) Surgical resection;
(B) Endoscopic endobronchial or transbronchial biopsy;
(C) Bronchial brushings and washings;
(D) Pleural fluid cytology;
(E) Fine needle aspirate;
(F) Pleural biopsy; or
(G) Sputum cytology;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) Report of bronchoscopy, with or without biopsy;
(iv) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Radiotherapy summary report;
(D) Medical oncology summary report; or
(E) Operative report;
(v) Report of one of the following radiology examinations:
(A) Computerized tomography (CT) scan;
(B) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI);
(C) X-rays of the chest; or
(D) Chest tomograms; or
(vi) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(14)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy or surgical resection;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) Report of otolaryngology or oral maxillofacial examination;
(iv) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Radiotherapy summary report;
(D) Medical oncology summary report; or
(E) Operative report;
(v) Report of one of the following radiology examinations:
(A) Computerized tomography (CT) scan; or
(B) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); or
(vi) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(15)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy or surgical resection;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) Report of cytoscopy, with or without biopsy;
(iv) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Radiotherapy summary report;
(D) Medical oncology summary report; or
(E) Operative report;
(v) Report of one of the following radiology examinations:
(A) Computerized tomography (CT) scan; or
(B) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); or
(vi) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(16)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy or surgical resection;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Radiotherapy summary report;
(D) Medical oncology summary report; or
(E) Operative report;
(iv) Report of one of the following radiology examinations:
(A) Computerized tomography (CT) scan;
(B) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); or
(C) CT or MRI with enhancement; or
(v) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(17)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) Endoscopy report, provided the examination covered the duodenum and parts of the jejunum;
(iv) Colonoscopy report, provided that the examination covered the distal ileum;
(v) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Report of gastroenterology examination;
(D) Operative report;
(E) Radiotherapy summary report; or
(F) Medical oncology summary or consultation report;
(vi) Report of one of the following radiologic studies:
(A) Upper gastrointestinal (GI) series with small bowel follow-through;
(B) Angiography;
(C) Computerized tomography (CT) scan; or
(D) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); or
(vii) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(18)
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy or surgical resection;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Radiotherapy summary report;
(D) Medical oncology summary report; or
(E) Operative report; or
(iv) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(a)(1) If the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary is claiming eligibility under this subpart for primary cancer of the liver, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must submit, in addition to proof of the disease, all medical records pertaining to the claimant listed below from any hospital, medical facility, or health care provider that were created within the period six months before and six months after the date of diagnosis of primary cancer of the liver:
(i) All history and physical examination reports;
(ii) All operative and consultation reports;
(iii) All pathology reports; and
(iv) All physician, hospital, and health care facility admission and discharge summaries.
(2) In the event that any of the records in paragraph (a)(1) of this section no longer exist, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must submit a certified statement by the custodian(s) of those records to that effect.
(b) If the medical records listed in paragraph (a) of this section, or information possessed by the state cancer or tumor registries, indicates the presence of hepatitis B or cirrhosis, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program will notify the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary and afford that individual the opportunity to submit other written medical documentation or contemporaneous records in accordance with § 79.72(b) to establish that in fact there was no presence of hepatitis B or cirrhosis.
(c) The Program may also require that the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary provide additional medical records or other contemporaneous records, or an authorization to release such additional medical and contemporaneous records, as may be needed to make a determination regarding the indication of the presence of hepatitis B or cirrhosis.
The regulations in this subpart describe the criteria for eligibility for compensation under section 4(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and the evidence that will be accepted as proof of the various eligibility criteria. Section 4(a)(2)(C) of the Act provides for a payment of $75,000 to individuals who participated onsite in the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device and later developed a specified compensable disease.
(a) The definitions listed in § 79.11(b), (e), (f), (g), and (h), and in § 79.21, apply to this subpart.
(b)
(c)
(d)
To establish eligibility for compensation under this subpart, a claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must establish each of the following:
(a) That the claimant was present onsite at any time during a period of atmospheric nuclear testing;
(b) That the claimant was a participant during that period in the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device; and
(c) That after such participation, the claimant contracted a specified compensable disease as set forth in § 79.22(b).
(a)
(i) The claimant's name;
(ii) The claimant's military service number;
(iii) The claimant's Social Security number;
(iv) The site at which the claimant participated in the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device;
(v) The name or number of the claimant's military organization or unit assignment at the time of his or her onsite participation;
(vi) The dates of the claimant's assignment onsite; and
(vii) As full and complete a description as possible of the claimant's official duties, responsibilities, and activities while participating onsite.
(2) A claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary under this section need not submit any additional documentation of onsite participation during the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device at the time the claim is filed; however, additional documentation may be required as set forth in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(3) Upon receipt under this subpart of a claim that contains the information set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program will forward the information to the DoD and request that the DoD conduct a search of its records for the purpose of gathering facts relating to the claimant's presence onsite and participation in the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device. If the facts gathered by the DoD are insufficient to establish the eligibility criteria in § 79.32, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary will be notified and afforded the opportunity to submit military, government, or business records in accordance with the procedure set forth in § 79.72(c).
(b)
(i) The claimant's name;
(ii) The claimant's Social Security number;
(iii) The site at which the claimant participated in the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device;
(iv) The name or other identifying information associated with the claimant's organization, unit, assignment, or employer at the time of the claimant's participation onsite;
(v) The dates of the claimant's assignment onsite; and
(vi) As full and complete a description as possible of the claimant's official duties, responsibilities, and activities while participating onsite.
(2) A claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary under this section need not at the time the claim is filed submit any additional documentation demonstrating the claimant's presence onsite during the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device; however, additional documentation may
(3) Upon receipt under this subpart of a claim that contains the information set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program will forward the information to the Nevada Field Office of the Department of Energy (DOE/NV) and request that the DOE/NV conduct a search of its records for the purpose of gathering facts relating to the claimant's presence onsite and participation in the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device. If the facts gathered by the DOE/NV are insufficient to establish the eligibility criteria in § 79.32, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary will be notified and afforded the opportunity to submit military, government, or business records in accordance with the procedure set forth in § 79.72(c).
Proof of medical condition under this subpart will be made in the same manner and according to the same procedures and limitations as are set forth in § 79.16 and § 79.26.
Absent any indication to the contrary, the earliest date of onsite participation indicated on any records accepted by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program as proof of the claimant's onsite participation will be presumed to be the date of first or initial exposure. The date of onset will be the date of diagnosis as indicated on the medical documentation accepted by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program as proof of the specified compensable disease. Proof of the onset of leukemia shall be established in accordance with § 79.15.
Possible indication of hepatitis B or cirrhosis will be determined in accordance with the provisions of § 79.27.
The regulations in this subpart define the eligibility criteria for compensation under section 5 of the Act pertaining to miners,
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(1) A uranium mine was operated in such state at any time during the period beginning on January 1, 1942, and ending on December 31, 1971;
(2) The state submits an application to the Assistant Director (specified in § 79.70(a)) to include such state; and
(3) The Assistant Director makes a determination to include such state.
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
To establish eligibility for compensation under this subpart, a claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must establish each of the following:
(a) The claimant was employed as a miner in a specified state;
(b) The claimant was so employed at any time during the period beginning on January 1, 1942, and ending on December 31, 1971;
(c) The claimant was exposed during the course of his or her mining employment to 40 or more working level months of radiation or worked for at least one year in a uranium mine or mines during the period identified in paragraph (b) of this section; and
(d) The claimant contracted lung cancer or a nonmalignant respiratory disease following such exposure.
(a) The Department will accept, as proof of employment for a designated time period, information contained in any of the following records:
(1) Records created by or gathered by the Public Health Service (PHS) in the course of any health studies of uranium workers during or including the period 1942-1990;
(2) Records of a uranium worker census performed by the PHS at various times during the period 1942-1990;
(3) Records of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), or any of its successor agencies; and
(4) Records of federally supported, health-related studies of uranium workers, including:
(i) Studies conducted by Geno Saccamanno, M.D., St. Mary's Hospital, Grand Junction, Colorado; and
(ii) Studies conducted by Jonathan Samet, M.D., University of New Mexico School of Medicine.
(b) The Program will presume that the employment history for the time period indicated in records listed in paragraph (a) of this section is correct. If the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary wishes to contest the accuracy of such records, then the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary may provide one or more of the records identified in paragraph (c) of this section, and the Assistant Director will determine whether the employment history indicated in the records listed in paragraph (a) is correct.
(c) If the sources in paragraph (a) of this section do not contain information regarding the claimant's uranium mine employment history, do not contain sufficient information to establish exposure to at least 40 working level months of radiation, do not contain sufficient information to establish uranium mining employment for one year during the period identified in § 79.42(b), or if a claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary wishes to contest the accuracy of such records, then the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary may submit records from any of the following sources, and the Assistant Director shall consider such records (in addition to any sources listed in paragraph (a) of this section) in order to determine whether the claimant has established the requisite employment history:
(1) Governmental records of any of the specified states, including records of state regulatory agencies, containing information on uranium mine workers and uranium mines;
(2) Records of any business entity that owned or operated a uranium mine, or its successor-in-interest;
(3) Records of the Social Security Administration reflecting the identity of the employer, the years and quarters of employment, and the wages received during each quarter;
(4) Federal or State income tax records that contain relevant statements regarding the claimant's employer and wages;
(5) Records containing factual findings by any governmental judicial body, state worker's compensation board, or any governmental administrative body adjudicating the claimant's rights to any type of benefits (which will be accepted only to prove the fact of and duration of employment in a uranium mine);
(6) Statements in medical records created during the period 1942-1971 indicating or identifying the claimant's employer and occupation;
(7) Records of an academic or scholarly study, not conducted in anticipation of or in connection with any litigation, and completed prior to 1990; and
(8) Any other contemporaneous record that indicates or identifies the claimant's occupation or employer.
(d) To the extent that the documents submitted from the sources identified in this section do not so indicate, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must set forth under oath on the standard claim form the following information, if known:
(1) The names of the mine employers for which the claimant worked during the time period identified in the documents;
(2) The names and locations of any mines in which the claimant worked;
(3) The actual time period the claimant worked in each mine;
(4) The claimant's occupation in each mine; and
(5) Whether the mining employment was conducted aboveground or underground.
(e) If the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary cannot provide the name or location of any uranium mine at which the claimant was employed as required under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, then the Program shall, if possible, determine such information from records reflecting the types of mines operated or owned by the entity for which the claimant worked.
(f) If the information provided under paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section is inadequate to determine the time period during which the claimant was employed in each uranium mine, then the Program will, where possible, calculate such employment periods in the following manner, for purposes of calculating working level months of exposure:
(1) If records of the Social Security Administration exist that indicate the claimant's work history, the Program will estimate the period of employment by dividing the gross quarterly income by the average pay rate per hour for the claimant's occupation;
(2) If such Social Security Administration records do not exist, but other records exist that indicate that the claimant was employed in a uranium mine on the date recorded in the record, but do not indicate the period of employment, then the Program will apply the following presumptions:
(i) If the records indicate that the claimant worked at the same mine or for the same uranium mining company on two different dates at least three months apart but less than 12 months apart, then the Program will presume that the claimant was employed at the mine or for the mining company for the entire 12-month period beginning on the earlier date.
(ii) If the records indicate that the claimant worked at the same mine or for the same uranium mining company on two different dates at least one month apart but less than three months apart, then the Program will presume that the claimant was employed at the mine or for the mining company for the entire six-month period beginning on the earlier date.
(iii) If the records indicate that the claimant worked at any mine or for a uranium mining company on any date within the designated time period, but the presumptions listed in this
(g) In determining whether a claimant satisfies the employment and exposure criteria of the Act, the Assistant Director shall resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. If the Assistant Director concludes that the claimant has not satisfied the employment or exposure requirements of the Act, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary will be notified and afforded the opportunity, in accordance with the provisions of § 79.72(c), to submit additional records to establish that the statutory criteria are satisfied.
(a) If one or more of the sources in § 79.43(a) contain a calculated total of working level months (WLMs) of radiation for the claimant equal to or greater than 40 WLMs, then the Program will presume that total to be correct, absent evidence to the contrary, in which case the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary need not submit additional records.
(b) If the sources in § 79.43(a) do not contain a calculated total of WLMs of radiation for the claimant, or contain a calculated total that is less than 40 WLMs, a claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary may submit the following records reflecting a calculated number of WLMs of radiation for periods of employment established under § 79.43(c):
(1) Certified copies of records of regulatory agencies of the specified states, provided that the records indicate the mines at which the claimant was employed, the time period of the claimant's employment in each mine, the exposure level in each mine during the claimant's employment, and the calculations on which the claimant's WLMs are based, unless the calculation is apparent;
(2) Certified copies of records of the owner or operator of a uranium mine in the specified states, provided that the records indicate the mines at which the claimant was employed, the time period of the claimant's employment in each mine, the exposure level in each mine during the claimant's employment, and the calculations on which the claimant's WLMs are based, unless the calculation is apparent.
(c) If the number of WLMs established under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section is equal to or greater than 40 WLMs of radiation, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary need not submit additional records. When the sources referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not establish a calculated number of at least 40 WLMs, the Program will, where possible, calculate additional WLMs in the manner set forth in paragraphs (d) through (g) of this section for the periods of employment for which the sources in paragraphs (a) and (b) do not establish calculated totals. When calculating an exposure level for a particular period of a claimant's employment history, the Program will apply aboveground exposure levels with respect to those periods in which the claimant worked principally aboveground and will apply underground exposure levels with respect to those periods in which the claimant worked principally underground.
(d) To the extent the sources referenced in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not contain a calculated number of WLMs, but do contain annual exposure levels measured in Working Levels (WLs) for mines in which the claimant was employed, the Program will calculate the claimant's exposure to radiation measured in WLMs in the manner set forth in paragraph (h) of this section.
(e) For periods of employment in a uranium mine that a claimant establishes under § 79.43(c) as to which paragraph (d) of this section is not applicable, the Program will, where possible, use any or all of the following sources in computing the annual exposure level measured in WLs in each mine for the period of the claimant's employment, in the manner set forth in paragraph (g) of this section:
(1) Records of the AEC, or its successor agencies;
(2) Records of the PHS, including radiation-level measurements taken in the course of health studies conducted of uranium miners during or including the period 1942-1971;
(3) Records of the United States Bureau of Mines;
(4) Records of regulatory agencies of the specified states; or
(5) Records of the business entity that was the owner or operator of the mine.
(f) For periods of employment in unidentified or misidentified uranium mines that a claimant establishes under § 79.43(c) through (f), the Program will determine annual exposure levels measured in WLs in the unidentified or misidentified mines by calculating an average of the annual exposure levels measured in WLs in all the uranium mines owned or operated by the entities for which the claimant worked during the appropriate time periods and in the identified states.
(g) With respect to periods of employment in a uranium mine that a claimant establishes under § 79.43(c) as to which paragraph (d) of this section is not applicable, and periods of employment in unidentified or misidentified uranium mines that a claimant establishes under § 79.43(c) through (f), the Program will use the following methodology to calculate the annual exposure level measured in WLs for each mine:
(1) If one or more radiation measurements are available for a mine in a given year, such values will be averaged to generate the WLs for the mine for that year.
(2) If radiation measurements exist for the mine, but not for the year in which the claimant was employed in the mine, the WLs for the mine for that year will be estimated if possible as follows:
(i) If annual average measurements exist within four years of the year in which the claimant was employed in the mine, the measurements for the two closest years will be averaged, and that value will be assigned to the year the claimant was employed in the mine;
(ii) If one or more annual average measurements exist for a mine, but are not more than five years from the year the claimant was employed, the annual average closest in time will be assigned either forward or backward in time for two years.
(3) If the methods described in paragraph (g)(2) of this section interpolate or project the annual exposure level measured in WLs for a mine in a year in which the claimant was employed in the mine, the Program will use an estimated average for mines of the same or similar type, ventilation, and ore composition in the same geographical area for that year. An estimated area average will be calculated as follows:
(i) If actual measurements from three or more mines of the same or similar type, ventilation, and ore composition are available from mines in the same locality as the mine in which the claimant was employed, the average of the measurements for the mines within that locality will be used.
(ii) If there are insufficient actual measurements from mines in the same locality to use the method in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this section, an average of exposure levels in mines in the same mining district will be used.
(iii) If there is no average of exposure levels from mines in the same mining district, the average of exposure levels in mines in the same state will be used.
(iv) If there are insufficient actual measurements from mines in the same state, the estimated average for the State of Colorado for the relevant year will be used.
(4) With respect to a year between 1942 and 1949, if the claimant was employed in a mine for which no exposure levels are available for that year, then the Program will estimate the annual exposure levels measured in WLs by averaging the two earliest exposure levels recorded from that mine after the year 1941. If there are not two exposure levels recorded from that mine, the Program will estimate the WLs by averaging the two earliest exposure levels after the year 1941 from the mines identified according to the methods set forth in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (iv).
(h) The Program will calculate a claimant's total exposure to radiation expressed in WLMs, for purposes of establishing eligibility under § 79.42(c), by adding together the WLMs for each period of employment that the claimant has established. For those periods of a claimant's employment for which the Program has obtained or calculated WLs pursuant to paragraphs (d) through (g) of this section, the Program shall determine WLMs by multiplying the WL by the pertinent time period, measured in months, yielding a claimant's exposure to radiation expressed in WLMs.
(i) In addition to any other material that may be used to substantiate employment history for purposes of determining WLMs, an individual filing a claim may make such a substantiation by means of an affidavit described in § 79.4(c)(4).
(a) In determining whether a claimant developed primary lung cancer following pertinent employment as a miner, the Assistant Director shall resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. A conclusion that a claimant developed primary lung cancer must be supported by medical documentation. To prove that a claimant developed primary lung cancer, the claimant or beneficiary may submit any form of medical documentation specified in paragraph (e) of this section. In all cases, the Program will review submitted medical documentation, and will, in addition and where appropriate, review any pertinent records discovered within the sources identified in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section.
(b) Where appropriate, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program will search the records of the PHS (including NIOSH), created or gathered during the course of any health study of uranium workers conducted or being conducted by these agencies, to determine whether those records contain proof of the claimant's medical condition. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of medical condition the verification of the PHS or NIOSH that it possesses medical records or abstracts of medical records of the claimant that contain a verified diagnosis of primary lung cancer.)
(c) If a claimant was diagnosed as having primary lung cancer in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, or Wyoming, and the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary submits with the claim an Authorization To Release Medical or Other Information, valid in the state of diagnosis, that authorizes the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program to contact the appropriate state cancer or tumor registry, the Program will, where appropriate, request the relevant information from that registry and will review records that it obtains from the registry. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of medical condition verification from the state cancer or tumor registry that it possesses medical records or abstracts of medical records of the claimant that contain a verified diagnosis of primary lung cancer.)
(d) If medical records regarding the claimant were gathered during the course of any federally supported, health-related study of uranium workers, and the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary submits with the claim an Authorization To Release Medical or Other Information that authorizes the Program to contact the custodian of the records of the study to determine if proof of the claimant's medical condition is contained in the records of the study, the Program will, where appropriate, request such records from that custodian and will review records that it obtains from the custodian. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of the claimant's medical condition such medical records or abstracts of medical records containing a verified diagnosis of primary lung cancer.)
(e)(1) A claimant or beneficiary may submit any of the following forms of medical documentation in support of a claim that the claimant contracted primary lung cancer. Such documentation will be most useful where it contains an explicit statement of diagnosis or such other information or data from which the appropriate authorities at the National Cancer Institute can make a diagnosis to a reasonable degree of medical certainty:
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy, including, but not limited to, specimens obtained by any of the following methods:
(A) Surgical resection;
(B) Endoscopic endobronchial or transbronchial biopsy;
(C) Bronchial brushings and washings;
(D) Pleural fluid cytology;
(E) Fine needle aspirate;
(F) Pleural biopsy; or
(G) Sputum cytology;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) Bronchoscopy report;
(iv) One of the following summary medical reports:
(A) Physician summary report;
(B) Hospital discharge summary report;
(C) Operative report;
(D) Radiation therapy summary report; or
(E) Oncology summary or consultation report;
(v) Reports of radiographic studies, including:
(A) X-rays of the chest;
(B) Chest tomograms;
(C) Computer-assisted tomography (CT); or
(D) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); or
(vi) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(a) In determining whether a claimant developed a nonmalignant respiratory disease following pertinent employment as a miner, the Assistant Director shall resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. A conclusion that a claimant developed a nonmalignant respiratory disease must be supported by medical documentation. In cases where the claimant is deceased, the claimant's beneficiary may submit any form of medical documentation specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and for proof of cor pulmonale must also submit one or more forms of documentation specified in paragraph (d)(2). A living claimant must at a minimum submit the medical documentation required in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, and for proof of cor pulmonale must also submit one or more forms of documentation specified in paragraph (d)(2). In all cases, the Program will review submitted medical documentation, and will, in addition and where appropriate, review any pertinent records discovered within the sources referred to in paragraphs (b) and
(b) Where appropriate, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program will search the records of the PHS (including NIOSH), created or gathered during the course of any health study of uranium workers conducted or being conducted by these agencies, to determine whether those records contain proof of the claimant's medical condition. In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of medical condition the verification of the PHS or NIOSH that it possesses medical records or abstracts of medical records of the claimant that contain a verified diagnosis of a nonmalignant respiratory disease.
(c) If medical records regarding the claimant were gathered during the course of any federally supported, health-related study of uranium workers and the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary submits with the claim an Authorization To Release Medical or Other Information that authorizes the Program to contact the custodian of the records of the study to determine if proof of the claimant's medical condition is contained in the records of the study, the Program will, where appropriate, request such records from that custodian and will review records that it obtains from the custodian. In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of the claimant's medical condition such medical records or abstracts of medical records containing a verified diagnosis of a nonmalignant respiratory disease.
(d) (1) A claimant or beneficiary may submit any of the following forms of medical documentation in support of a claim that the claimant contracted a nonmalignant respiratory disease, including pulmonary fibrosis, fibrosis of the lung, cor pulmonale related to fibrosis of the lung, silicosis, and pneumoconiosis:
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) If an x-ray exists, the x-ray and interpretive reports of the x-ray by a maximum of two NIOSH certified “B” readers classifying the existence of disease of category 1/0 or higher according to a 1989 report of the International Labor Office (known as the “ILO”), or subsequent revisions;
(iv) If no x-rays exist, an x-ray report;
(v) Physician summary report;
(vi) Hospital discharge summary report;
(vii) Hospital admitting report;
(viii) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death; or
(ix) Documentation specified in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (d)(3)(ii) of this section.
(2) In order to demonstrate that the claimant developed cor pulmonale related to fibrosis of the lung, the claimant or beneficiary must, at a minimum, submit one or more of the following medical records:
(i) Right heart catheterization;
(ii) Cardiology summary or consultation report;
(iii) Electrocardiogram;
(iv) Echocardiogram;
(v) Physician summary report;
(vi) Hospital discharge summary report;
(vii) Autopsy report;
(viii) Report of physical examination; or
(ix) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(3) Notwithstanding any other documentation provided, a living claimant must at a minimum provide the following medical documentation:
(i) Either:
(A) An arterial blood gas study administered at rest in a sitting position, or an exercise arterial blood gas test, reflecting values equal to or less than the values set forth in the tables in appendix B to this part; or
(B) A written diagnosis by a physician in accordance with § 79.41(p); and
(ii) One of the following:
(A) A chest x-ray administered in accordance with standard techniques accompanied by interpretive reports of the x-ray by a maximum of two NIOSH certified “B” readers, classifying the existence of disease of category 1/0 or higher according to a 1989 report of the International Labor Office (known as the “ILO”), or subsequent revisions;
(B) High-resolution computed tomography scans (commonly known as “HRCT scans”), including computer-assisted tomography scans (commonly known as “CAT scans”), magnetic resonance imaging scans (commonly known as “MRI scans”), and positron emission tomography scans (commonly known as “PET scans”), and interpretive reports of such scans;
(C) Pathology reports of tissue biopsies; or
(D) Pulmonary function tests indicating restrictive lung function and consisting of three reproducible time/volume tracings recording the results of the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and the forced vital capacity (FVC) administered and reported in accordance with the Standardization of Spirometry—1994 Update by the American Thoracic Society, and reflecting values for FEV1 or FVC that are less than or equal to the lower limit of normal for an individual of the claimant's age, sex, height, and ethnicity as set forth in the tables in appendix A to this part.
(e) The Assistant Director shall treat any documentation described in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B) or paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(A) of this section as conclusive evidence of the claimant's nonmalignant respiratory disease; provided, however, that the Program may subject such documentation to a fair and random audit to guarantee its authenticity and reliability for purposes of treating it as conclusive evidence; and provided further that, in order to be treated as conclusive evidence, a written diagnosis described in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B) must be by a physician who is employed by the Indian Health Service or the Department of Veterans Affairs or who is board certified (as described in § 79.41(p)), and who must have a documented, ongoing physician-patient relationship with the claimant. Notwithstanding the conclusive effect given to certain evidence, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as relieving a living claimant of the obligation to provide the Program with the forms of documentation required under paragraph (d)(3).
The regulations in this subpart define the eligibility criteria for compensation under section 5 of the Act pertaining to millers,
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(1) A uranium mine was operated in such state at any time during the period beginning on January 1, 1942, and ending on December 31, 1971;
(2) The state submits an application to the Assistant Director (specified in § 79.70(a)) to include such state; and
(3) The Assistant Director makes a determination to include such state.
(q)
(r)
(s)
To establish eligibility for compensation under this subpart, a claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary of a claimant must establish each of the following:
(a) The claimant was employed as a miller in a specified state;
(b) The claimant was so employed for at least one year (12 consecutive or cumulative months) during the period beginning on January 1, 1942, and ending on December 31, 1971; and
(c) The claimant contracted primary lung cancer, a nonmalignant respiratory disease, primary renal cancer, or chronic renal disease (including nephritis and kidney tubal tissue injury) following at least one year of such employment.
(a) The Department will accept, as proof of employment for the time period indicated, information contained in any of the following records:
(1) Records created by or gathered by the Public Health Service (PHS) in the course of any health studies of uranium workers during or including the period 1942-1990;
(2) Records of a uranium worker census performed by the PHS at various times during the period 1942-1990;
(3) Records of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), or any of its successor agencies; and
(4) Records of federally supported, health-related studies of uranium workers.
(b) The Program will presume that the employment history for the time period indicated in records listed in paragraph (a) of this section is correct. If the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary wishes to contest the accuracy of such records, then the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary may provide one or more of the records identified in paragraph (c) of this section, and the Assistant Director will determine whether the employment history indicated in the records listed in paragraph (a) is correct.
(c) If the sources in paragraph (a) of this section do not contain information regarding the claimant's uranium mill employment history, do not contain sufficient information to establish employment for at least one year in a uranium mill during the specified time period to qualify under § 79.52(b), or if a claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary wishes to contest the accuracy of such records, then the
(1) Records of any of the specified states, including records of state regulatory agencies, containing information on uranium mill workers and uranium mills;
(2) Records of any business entity that owned or operated a uranium mill, or its successor-in-interest;
(3) Records of the Social Security Administration reflecting the identity of the employer, the years and quarters of employment, and the wages received during each quarter;
(4) Federal or state income tax records that contain relevant statements regarding the claimant's employer and wages;
(5) Records containing factual findings by any governmental judicial body, state worker's compensation board, or any governmental administrative body adjudicating the claimant's rights to any type of benefits (which will be accepted only to prove the fact of and duration of employment in a uranium mill);
(6) Statements in medical records created during the period 1942-1971 indicating or identifying the claimant's employer and occupation;
(7) Records of an academic or scholarly study, not conducted in anticipation of or in connection with any litigation, and completed prior to 1990; or
(8) Any other contemporaneous record that indicates or identifies the claimant's occupation or employer.
(d) To the extent that the documents submitted from the sources identified in this section do not so indicate, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must set forth under oath on the standard claim form the following information, if known:
(1) The names of the mill employers for which the claimant worked during the time period identified in the documents;
(2) The names and locations of any mills in which the claimant worked;
(3) The actual time period the claimant worked in each mill; and
(4) The claimant's occupation in each mill.
(e) The Program may, for the purpose of verifying information submitted pursuant to this section, require the claimant or any eligible surviving beneficiary to provide an authorization to release any record identified in this section, in accordance with the provisions of § 79.72(c).
(f) In determining whether a claimant satisfies the employment criteria of the Act, the Assistant Director shall resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. If the Assistant Director concludes that the claimant has not satisfied the employment requirements of the Act, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary will be notified and afforded the opportunity, in accordance with the provisions of § 79.72(c), to submit additional records to establish that the statutory employment criteria are satisfied.
(a) In determining whether a claimant developed primary lung cancer following pertinent employment as a miller, the Assistant Director shall resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. A conclusion that a claimant developed primary lung cancer must be supported by medical documentation. To prove that a claimant developed primary lung cancer, the claimant or beneficiary may submit any form of medical documentation specified in paragraph (e) of this section. In all cases, the Program will review submitted medical documentation, and will, in addition and where appropriate, review any pertinent records discovered within the sources identified in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section.
(b) Where appropriate, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program will search the records of the PHS (including NIOSH), created or gathered during the course of any health study of uranium workers conducted or being conducted by these agencies, to determine whether those records contain proof of the claimant's medical condition. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of medical condition the verification of the PHS or NIOSH that it possesses medical records or abstracts of medical records of the claimant that contain a verified diagnosis of primary lung cancer.)
(c) If a claimant was diagnosed as having primary lung cancer in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, or Wyoming, and the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary submits with the claim an Authorization To Release Medical or Other Information, valid in the state of diagnosis, that authorizes the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program to contact the appropriate state cancer or tumor registry, the Program will, where appropriate, request the relevant information from that registry and will review records that it obtains from the registry. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of medical condition verification from the state cancer or tumor registry that it possesses medical records or abstracts of medical records of the claimant that contain a verified diagnosis of primary lung cancer.)
(d) If medical records regarding the claimant were gathered during the course of any federally supported, health-related study of uranium workers, and the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary submits with the claim an Authorization To Release Medical or Other Information that authorizes the Program to contact the custodian of the records of the study to determine if proof of the claimant's medical condition is contained in the records of the study, the Program will, where appropriate, request such records from that custodian and will review records that it obtains from the custodian. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of the claimant's medical condition such medical records or abstracts of medical records containing a verified diagnosis of primary lung cancer.)
(e) A claimant or beneficiary may submit any of the following forms of medical documentation in support of a claim that the claimant contracted primary lung cancer. Such documentation will be most useful where it contains an explicit statement of diagnosis or such other information or data from which the appropriate authorities at the National Cancer Institute can make a diagnosis to a reasonable degree of medical certainty:
(1) Pathology report of tissue biopsy, including, but not limited to, specimens obtained by any of the following methods:
(i) Surgical resection;
(ii) Endoscopic endobronchial or transbronchial biopsy;
(iii) Bronchial brushings and washings;
(iv) Pleural fluid cytology;
(v) Fine needle aspirate;
(vi) Pleural biopsy; or
(vii) Sputum cytology;
(2) Autopsy report;
(3) Bronchoscopy report;
(4) One of the following summary medical reports:
(i) Physician summary report;
(ii) Hospital discharge summary report;
(iii) Operative report;
(iv) Radiation therapy summary report; or
(v) Oncology summary or consultation report;
(5) Reports of radiographic studies, including:
(i) X-rays of the chest;
(ii) Chest tomograms;
(iii) Computer-assisted tomography (CT); or
(iv) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); or
(6) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(a) In determining whether a claimant developed a nonmalignant respiratory disease following pertinent employment as a miller, the Assistant Director shall resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. A conclusion that a claimant developed a nonmalignant respiratory disease must be supported by medical documentation. In cases where the claimant is deceased, the claimant's beneficiary may submit any form of medical documentation specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and for proof of cor pulmonale must also submit one or more forms of documentation specified in paragraph (d)(2). A living claimant must at a minimum submit the medical documentation required in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, and for proof of cor pulmonale must also submit one or more forms of documentation specified in paragraph (d)(2). In all cases, the Program will review submitted medical documentation, and will, in addition and where appropriate, review any pertinent records discovered within the sources referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. With respect to a deceased claimant, the Program will treat as equivalent to a diagnosis of pulmonary fibrosis any diagnosis of “restrictive lung disease” made by a physician employed by the Indian Health Service.
(b) Where appropriate, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program will search the records of the PHS (including NIOSH), created or gathered during the course of any health study of uranium workers conducted or being conducted by these agencies, to determine whether those records contain proof of the claimant's medical condition. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of medical condition the verification of the PHS or NIOSH that it possesses medical records or abstracts of medical records of the claimant that contain a verified diagnosis of a nonmalignant respiratory disease.)
(c) If medical records regarding the claimant were gathered during the course of any federally supported, health-related study of uranium workers, and the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary submits with the claim an Authorization To Release Medical or Other Information that authorizes the Program to contact the custodian of the records of the study to determine if proof of the claimant's medical condition is contained in the records of the study, the Program will, where appropriate, request such records from that custodian and will review records that it obtains from the custodian. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of the claimant's medical condition such medical records or abstracts of medical records containing a verified diagnosis of a nonmalignant respiratory disease.)
(d) (1) A claimant or beneficiary may submit any of the following forms of medical documentation in support of a claim that the claimant contracted a nonmalignant respiratory disease, including pulmonary fibrosis, fibrosis of the lung, cor pulmonale related to fibrosis of the lung, silicosis, and pneumoconiosis:
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) If an x-ray exists, the x-ray and interpretive reports of the x-ray by a maximum of two NIOSH certified “B” readers classifying the existence of disease of category 1/0 or higher according to a 1989 report of the International Labor Office (known as the “ILO”), or subsequent revisions;
(iv) If no x-rays exist, an x-ray report;
(v) Physician summary report;
(vi) Hospital discharge summary report;
(vii) Hospital admitting report;
(viii) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death; or
(ix) Documentation specified in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (d)(3)(ii) of this section.
(2) In order to demonstrate that the claimant developed cor pulmonale related to fibrosis of the lung, the claimant or beneficiary must, at a minimum, submit one or more of the following medical records:
(i) Right heart catheterization;
(ii) Cardiology summary or consultation report;
(iii) Electrocardiogram;
(iv) Echocardiogram;
(v) Physician summary report;
(vi) Hospital discharge summary report;
(vii) Autopsy report;
(viii) Report of physical examination; or
(ix) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(3) Notwithstanding any other documentation provided, a living claimant must at a minimum provide the following medical documentation:
(i) Either:
(A) An arterial blood gas study administered at rest in a sitting position, or an exercise arterial blood gas test, reflecting values equal to or less than the values set forth in the tables to appendix B of this part; or
(B) A written diagnosis by a physician in accordance with § 79.51(s); and
(ii) One of the following:
(A) A chest x-ray administered in accordance with standard techniques accompanied by interpretive reports of the x-ray by a maximum of two NIOSH certified “B” readers, classifying the existence of disease of category 1/0 or higher according to a 1989 report of the International Labor Office (known as the “ILO”) or subsequent revisions;
(B) High-resolution computed tomography scans (commonly known as “HRCT scans”), including computer-assisted tomography scans (commonly known as “CAT scans”), magnetic resonance imaging scans (commonly known as “MRI scans”), and positron emission tomography scans (commonly known as “PET scans”), and interpretive reports of such scans;
(C) Pathology reports of tissue biopsies; or
(D) Pulmonary function tests indicating restrictive lung function and consisting of three reproducible time/volume tracings recording the results of the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and the forced vital capacity (FVC) administered and reported in accordance with the Standardization of Spirometry—1994 Update by the American Thoracic Society, and reflecting values for FEV1 or FVC that are less than or equal to the lower limit of normal for an individual of the claimant's age, sex, height, and ethnicity as set forth in the tables in appendix A to this part.
(e) The Assistant Director shall treat any documentation described in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B) or paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(A) of this section as conclusive evidence of the claimant's nonmalignant respiratory disease; provided, however, that the Program may subject such documentation to a fair and random audit to guarantee its authenticity and reliability for purposes of treating it as conclusive evidence; and provided further that, in order to be treated as conclusive evidence, a written diagnosis described in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B) must be by a physician who is employed by the Indian Health Service or the Department of Veterans Affairs or who is board certified (as described in
(a) In determining whether a claimant developed primary renal cancer following pertinent employment as a miller, the Assistant Director shall resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. A conclusion that a claimant developed primary renal cancer must be supported by medical documentation. In all cases, the Program will review submitted medical documentation, and will, in addition and where appropriate, review any pertinent records discovered within the sources referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) Where appropriate, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program will search the records of the PHS (including NIOSH), created or gathered during the course of any health study of uranium workers conducted or being conducted by these agencies, to determine whether those records contain proof of the claimant's medical condition. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of medical condition the verification of the PHS or NIOSH that it possesses medical records or abstracts of medical records of the claimant that contain a verified diagnosis of primary renal cancer.)
(c) If a claimant was diagnosed as having primary renal cancer in the State of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, or Wyoming, and the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary submits with the claim an Authorization To Release Medical or Other Information, valid in the state of diagnosis, that authorizes the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program to contact the appropriate state cancer or tumor registry, the Program will, where appropriate, request the relevant information from that registry and will review records that it obtains from the registry. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of medical condition verification from the state cancer or tumor registry that it possesses medical records or abstracts of medical records of the claimant that contain a verified diagnosis of primary renal cancer.)
(d) If medical records regarding the claimant were gathered during the course of any federally supported, health-related study of uranium workers, and the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary submits with the claim an Authorization To Release Medical or Other Information that authorizes the Program to contact the custodian of the records of the study to determine if proof of the claimant's medical condition is contained in the records of the study, the Program will, where appropriate, request such records from that custodian and will review records that it obtains from the custodian. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of the claimant's medical condition such medical records or abstracts of medical records containing a verified diagnosis of primary renal cancer.)
(e) A claimant or beneficiary may submit any of the following forms of medical documentation in support of a claim that the claimant contracted primary renal cancer. Such documentation will be most useful where it contains an explicit statement of diagnosis or such other information or data from which the appropriate authorities at the National Cancer Institute can make a diagnosis to a reasonable degree of medical certainty:
(1) Pathology report of tissue biopsy or resection;
(2) Autopsy report;
(3) One of the following summary medical reports:
(i) Physician summary report;
(ii) Hospital discharge summary report;
(iii) Operative report;
(iv) Radiotherapy summary report; or
(v) Medical oncology summary or consultation report;
(4) Report of one of the following radiology examinations:
(i) Computerized tomography (CT) scan; or
(ii) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); or
(5) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(a) In determining whether a claimant developed chronic renal disease following pertinent employment as a miller, the Assistant Director shall resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. A conclusion that a claimant developed chronic renal disease must be supported by medical documentation.
(b) A claimant or beneficiary may submit any of the following forms of medical documentation in support of a claim that the claimant contracted chronic renal disease.
(1) Pathology report of tissue biopsy;
(2) If laboratory or radiographic tests exist:
(i) Abnormal plasma creatinine values; and
(ii) Abnormal glomerular filtration rate (by either measured creatinine or iothalamate clearance or calculated by MDRD equation); and
(iii) Renal tubular dysfunction as evidenced by:
(A) Glycosuria in the absence of diabetes mellitus;
(B) Proteinuria less than one gram daily without other known etiology; or
(C) Hyperphosphaturia, aminoaciduria, B-2 microglobinuria or alkaline phosphaturia or other marker of proximal tubular injury; or
(iv) Radiographic evidence of chronic renal disease;
(3) Autopsy report;
(4) Physician summary report;
(5) Hospital discharge summary report;
(6) Hospital admitting report; or
(7) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
The regulations in this subpart define the eligibility criteria for compensation under section 5 of the Act pertaining to uranium or vanadium-uranium ore transporters and the nature of evidence that will be accepted as proof that a claimant satisfies such eligibility criteria. Section 5 of the Act provides for a payment of $100,000 to persons who contracted lung cancer, one of a limited number of nonmalignant respiratory diseases, renal cancer, or chronic renal disease, following employment for at least one year as a transporter of uranium ore or vanadium-uranium ore from a uranium mine or uranium mill located in a specified state during the period beginning January 1, 1942, and ending December 31, 1971.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(o)
(p)
(1) A uranium mine was operated in such state at any time during the period beginning on January 1, 1942, and ending on December 31, 1971;
(2) The state submits an application to the Assistant Director (specified in § 79.70(a)) to include such state; and
(3) The Assistant Director makes a determination to include such state.
(q)
(r)
(s)
To establish eligibility for compensation under this subpart, a claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary of a claimant must establish each of the following:
(a) The claimant was employed as an ore transporter in a specified state;
(b) The claimant was so employed for at least one year (12 consecutive or cumulative months) during the period beginning on January 1, 1942, and ending on December 31, 1971; and
(c) The claimant contracted primary lung cancer, a nonmalignant respiratory disease, primary renal cancer, or chronic renal disease (including nephritis and kidney tubal tissue injury) following at least one year of such employment.
(a) The Department will accept, as proof of employment for the time period indicated, information contained in any of the following records:
(1) Records created by or gathered by the Public Health Service (PHS) in the course of any health studies of uranium workers during or including the period 1942-1990;
(2) Records of a uranium worker census performed by the PHS at various times during the period 1942-1990;
(3) Records of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), or any of its successor agencies; and
(4) Records of federally supported, health-related studies of uranium workers.
(b) The employment history for the time period indicated in such records will be presumed to be correct. If the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary wishes to contest the accuracy of such records, then the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary may provide one or more of the records identified in paragraph (c) of this section, and the Assistant Director will determine whether the employment history indicated in the records listed in paragraph (a) of this section is correct.
(c) If the sources in paragraph (a) of this section do not contain information regarding the claimant's ore transporting employment history, do not contain sufficient information to establish employment for at least one year as an ore transporter during the specified time period to qualify under § 79.62(b), or if a claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary wishes to contest the
(1) Records of any of the specified states, including records of state regulatory agencies, containing information on uranium ore transporters and ore-transporting companies;
(2) Records of any business entity that owned or operated an ore-transporting company, or its successor-in-interest;
(3) Records of the Social Security Administration reflecting the identity of the employer, the years and quarters of employment, and the wages received during each quarter;
(4) Federal or state income tax records that contain relevant statements regarding the claimant's employer and wages;
(5) Records containing factual findings by any governmental judicial body, state worker's compensation board, or any governmental administrative body adjudicating the claimant's rights to any type of benefits (which will be accepted only to prove the fact of and duration of employment as an ore transporter);
(6) Statements in medical records created during the period 1942-1971 indicating or identifying the claimant's employer and occupation;
(7) Records of an academic or scholarly study, not conducted in anticipation of or in connection with any litigation, and completed prior to 1990; or
(8) Any other contemporaneous record that indicates or identifies the claimant's occupation or employer.
(d) To the extent that the documents submitted from the sources identified in this section do not so indicate, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must set forth under oath on the standard claim form the following information, if known:
(1) The name or other identifying symbol of each employer for which the claimant worked during the time period identified in the documents;
(2) The name of each mine or mill from which uranium or uranium-vanadium ore was transported;
(3) The county and state in which each mine or mill was located;
(4) The actual time period the claimant worked as an ore transporter; and
(5) The method of transportation used to transport the ore.
(e) The Program may, for the purpose of verifying information submitted pursuant to this section, require the claimant or any eligible surviving beneficiary to provide an authorization to release any record identified in this section, in accordance with the provisions of § 79.72(c).
(f) In determining whether a claimant satisfies the employment criteria of the Act, the Assistant Director shall resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. If the Assistant Director concludes that the claimant has not satisfied the employment requirements of the Act, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary will be notified and afforded the opportunity, in accordance with the provisions of § 79.72(c), to submit additional records to establish that the statutory employment criteria are satisfied.
(a) In determining whether a claimant developed primary lung cancer following pertinent employment as an ore transporter, the Assistant Director shall resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. A conclusion that a claimant developed primary lung cancer must be supported by medical documentation. To prove that a claimant developed primary lung cancer, the claimant or beneficiary may submit any form of medical documentation specified in paragraph (e) of this section. In all cases, the Program will review submitted medical documentation, and will, in addition and where appropriate, review any pertinent records discovered within the sources identified in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section.
(b) Where appropriate, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program will search the records of the PHS (including NIOSH), created or gathered during the course of any health study of uranium workers conducted or being conducted by these agencies, to determine whether those records contain proof of the claimant's medical condition. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of medical condition the verification of the PHS or NIOSH that it possesses medical records or abstracts of medical records of the claimant that contain a verified diagnosis of primary lung cancer.)
(c) If a claimant was diagnosed as having primary lung cancer in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah or Wyoming, and the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary submits with the claim an Authorization To Release Medical or Other Information, valid in the state of diagnosis, that authorizes the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program to contact the appropriate state cancer or tumor registry, the Program will, where appropriate, request the relevant information from that registry and will review records that it obtains from the registry. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of medical condition verification from the state cancer or tumor registry that it possesses medical records or abstracts of medical records of the claimant that contain a verified diagnosis of primary lung cancer.)
(d) If medical records regarding the claimant were gathered during the course of any federally supported, health-related study of uranium workers, and the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary submits with the claim an Authorization To Release Medical or Other Information that authorizes the Program to contact the custodian of the records of the study to determine if proof of the claimant's medical condition is contained in the records of the study, the Program will, where appropriate, request such records from that custodian and will review records that it obtains from the custodian. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of the claimant's medical condition such medical records or abstracts of medical records containing a verified diagnosis of primary lung cancer.)
(e) A claimant or beneficiary may submit any of the following forms of medical documentation in support of a claim that the claimant contracted lung cancer. Such documentation will be most useful where it contains an explicit statement of diagnosis or such other information or data from which the appropriate authorities at the National Cancer Institute can make a diagnosis to a reasonable degree of medical certainty:
(1) Pathology report of tissue biopsy, including, but not limited to, specimens obtained by any of the following methods:
(i) Surgical resection;
(ii) Endoscopic endobronchial or transbronchial biopsy;
(iii) Bronchial brushings and washings;
(iv) Pleural fluid cytology;
(v) Fine needle aspirate;
(vi) Pleural biopsy; or
(vii) Sputum cytology;
(2) Autopsy report;
(3) Bronchoscopy report;
(4) One of the following summary medical reports:
(i) Physician summary report;
(ii) Hospital discharge summary report;
(iii) Operative report;
(iv) Radiation therapy summary report; or
(v) Oncology summary or consultation report;
(5) Reports of radiographic studies, including:
(i) X-rays of the chest;
(ii) Chest tomograms;
(iii) Computer-assisted tomography (CT); or
(iv) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); or
(6) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(a) In determining whether a claimant developed a nonmalignant respiratory disease following pertinent employment as an ore transporter, the Assistant Director shall resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. A conclusion that a claimant developed a nonmalignant respiratory disease must be supported by medical documentation. In cases where the claimant is deceased, the claimant's beneficiary may submit any form of medical documentation specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and for proof of cor pulmonale must also submit one or more forms of documentation specified in paragraph (d)(2). A living claimant must at a minimum submit the medical documentation required in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, and for proof of cor pulmonale must also submit one or more forms of documentation specified in paragraph (d)(2). In all cases, the Program will review submitted medical documentation, and will, in addition and where appropriate, review any pertinent records discovered within the sources referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. With respect to a deceased claimant, the Program will treat as equivalent to a diagnosis of pulmonary fibrosis any diagnosis of “restrictive lung disease” made by a physician employed by the Indian Health Service.
(b) Where appropriate, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program will search the records of the PHS (including NIOSH), created or gathered during the course of any health study of uranium workers conducted or being conducted by these agencies, to determine whether those records contain proof of the claimant's medical condition. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of medical condition the verification of the PHS or NIOSH that it possesses medical records or abstracts of medical records of the claimant that contain a verified diagnosis of a nonmalignant respiratory disease.)
(c) If medical records regarding the claimant were gathered during the course of any federally supported, health-related study of uranium workers, and the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary submits with the claim an Authorization To Release Medical or Other Information that authorizes the Program to contact the custodian of the records of the study to determine if proof of the claimant's medical condition is contained in the records of the study, the Program will, where appropriate, request such records from that custodian and will review records that it obtains from the custodian. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of the claimant's medical condition such medical records or abstracts of medical records containing a verified diagnosis of a nonmalignant respiratory disease.)
(d)(1) A claimant or beneficiary may submit any of the following forms of medical documentation in support of a claim that the claimant contracted a nonmalignant respiratory disease, including pulmonary fibrosis, fibrosis of the lung, cor pulmonale related to fibrosis of the lung, silicosis and pneumoconiosis:
(i) Pathology report of tissue biopsy;
(ii) Autopsy report;
(iii) If an x-ray exists, the x-ray and interpretive reports of the x-ray by a maximum of two NIOSH certified “B” readers classifying the existence of disease of category 1/0 or higher according to a 1989 report of the International Labor Office (known as the “ILO”), or subsequent revisions;
(iv) If no x-rays exist, an x-ray report;
(v) Physician summary report;
(vi) Hospital discharge summary report;
(vii) Hospital admitting report;
(viii) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death; or
(ix) Documentation specified in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (d)(3)(ii) of this section.
(2) In order to demonstrate that the claimant developed cor pulmonale related to fibrosis of the lung, the claimant or beneficiary must, at a minimum, submit one or more of the following medical records:
(i) Right heart catheterization;
(ii) Cardiology summary or consultation report;
(iii) Electrocardiogram;
(iv) Echocardiogram;
(v) Physician summary report;
(vi) Hospital discharge summary report;
(vii) Autopsy report;
(viii) Report of physical examination; or
(ix) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(3) Notwithstanding any other documentation provided, a living claimant must at a minimum provide the following medical documentation:
(i) Either:
(A) An arterial blood gas study administered at rest in a sitting position, or an exercise arterial blood gas test, reflecting values equal to or less than the values set forth in the tables in appendix B to this part; or
(B) A written diagnosis by a physician in accordance with § 79.61(s); and
(ii) One of the following:
(A) A chest x-ray administered in accordance with standard techniques accompanied by interpretive reports of the x-ray by a maximum of two NIOSH certified “B” readers, classifying the existence of disease of category 1/0 or higher according to a 1989 report of the International Labor Office (known as the “ILO”), or subsequent revisions;
(B) High-resolution computed tomography scans (commonly known as “HRCT scans”), including computer-assisted tomography scans (commonly known as “CAT scans”), magnetic resonance imaging scans (commonly known as “MRI scans”), and positron emission tomography scans (commonly known as “PET scans”), and interpretive reports of such scans;
(C) Pathology reports of tissue biopsies; or
(D) Pulmonary function tests indicating restrictive lung function and consisting of three reproducible time/volume tracings recording the results of the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and the forced vital capacity (FVC) administered and reported in accordance with the Standardization of Spirometry—1994 Update by the American Thoracic Society, and reflecting values for FEV1 or FVC that are less than or equal to the lower limit of normal for an individual of the claimant's age, sex, height, and ethnicity as set forth in the tables in appendix A to this part.
(e) The Assistant Director shall treat any documentation described in paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B) or paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(A) of this section as conclusive evidence of the claimant's nonmalignant respiratory disease; provided, however, that the Program may subject such documentation to a fair and random audit to guarantee its authenticity and reliability for purposes of treating it as conclusive evidence; and provided further that, in order to be treated as
(a) In determining whether a claimant developed primary renal cancer following pertinent employment as an ore transporter, the Assistant Director shall resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. A conclusion that a claimant developed primary renal cancer must be supported by medical documentation. In all cases, the Program will review submitted medical documentation, and, in addition and where appropriate, will review any pertinent records discovered within the sources referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b) Where appropriate, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program will search the records of the PHS (including NIOSH), created or gathered during the course of any health study of uranium workers conducted or being conducted by these agencies, to determine whether those records contain proof of the claimant's medical condition. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of medical condition the verification of the PHS or NIOSH that it possesses medical records or abstracts of medical records of the claimant that contain a verified diagnosis of primary renal cancer.)
(c) If a claimant was diagnosed as having primary renal cancer in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah or Wyoming, and the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary submits with the claim an Authorization To Release Medical or Other Information, valid in the state of diagnosis, that authorizes the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program to contact the appropriate state cancer or tumor registry, the Program will, where appropriate, request the relevant information from that registry and will review records that it obtains from the registry. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of medical condition verification from the state cancer or tumor registry that it possesses medical records or abstracts of medical records of the claimant that contain a verified diagnosis of primary renal cancer.)
(d) If medical records regarding the claimant were gathered during the course of any federally supported, health-related study of uranium workers, and the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary submits with the claim an Authorization To Release Medical or Other Information that authorizes the Program to contact the custodian of the records of the study to determine if proof of the claimant's medical condition is contained in the records of the study, the Program will, where appropriate, request such records from that custodian and will review records that it obtains from the custodian. (In cases where the claimant is deceased, the Program will accept as proof of the claimant's medical condition such medical records or abstracts of medical records containing a verified diagnosis of primary renal cancer.)
(e) A claimant or beneficiary may submit any of the following forms of medical documentation in support of a claim that the claimant contracted primary renal cancer. Such documentation will be most useful where it contains an explicit statement of diagnosis or such other information or data from which the appropriate authorities at the National Cancer Institute can make a diagnosis to a reasonable degree of medical certainty:
(1) Pathology report of tissue biopsy or resection;
(2) Autopsy report;
(3) One of the following summary medical reports:
(i) Physician summary report;
(ii) Hospital discharge summary report;
(iii) Operative report;
(iv) Radiotherapy summary report; or
(v) Medical oncology summary or consultation report;
(4) Report of one of the following radiology examinations:
(i) Computerized tomography (CT) scan;
(ii) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); or
(5) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(a) In determining whether a claimant developed chronic renal disease following pertinent employment as an ore transporter, the Assistant Director shall resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. A conclusion that a claimant developed chronic renal disease must be supported by medical documentation.
(b) A claimant or beneficiary may submit any of the following forms of medical documentation in support of a claim that the claimant contracted chronic renal disease.
(1) Pathology report of tissue biopsy;
(2) If laboratory or radiographic tests exist:
(i) Abnormal plasma creatinine values;
(ii) Abnormal glomerular filtration rate (by either measured creatinine or iothalamate clearance or calculated by MDRD equation); and
(iii) Renal tubular dysfunction as evidenced by:
(A) Glycosuria in the absence of diabetes mellitus;
(B) Proteinuria less than one gram daily without other known etiology; or
(C) Hyperphosphaturia, aminoaciduria, B-2 microglobinuria or alkaline phosphaturia or other marker of proximal tubular injury; or
(iv) Radiographic evidence of chronic renal disease;
(3) Autopsy report;
(4) Physician summary report;
(5) Hospital discharge summary report;
(6) Hospital admitting report; or
(7) Death certificate, provided that it is signed by a physician at the time of death.
(a) An Assistant Director within the Constitutional and Specialized Torts Staff, Torts Branch, Civil Division, shall be assigned to manage the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program and issue a decision on each claim filed under the Act, and otherwise act on behalf of the Attorney General in all other matters relating to the administration of the Program, except for rulemaking authority. The Assistant Director may delegate any of his or her responsibilities under the regulations in this part to an attorney working under the supervision of the Assistant Director.
(b) The Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, shall designate an Appeals Officer to act on appeals from the Assistant Director's decisions.
(a) All claims for compensation under the Act must be in writing and submitted on a standard claim form designated by the Assistant Director for the filing of compensation claims. Except as specifically provided in this part, the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must furnish the medical
(b) The Assistant Director will file a claim after receipt of the standard form with supporting documentation and examination for substantial compliance with this part. The date of filing shall be recorded by a stamp on the face of the standard form. The Assistant Director shall file only claims that substantially comply with paragraph (a) of this section. If a claim substantially fails to comply with paragraph (a), the Assistant Director shall promptly return the claim unfiled to the sender with a statement identifying the reason(s) why the claim does not comply with this part. The sender may return the claim to the Assistant Director after correcting the deficiencies. For those cases that are filed, the Assistant Director shall promptly acknowledge receipt of the claim with a letter identifying the number assigned to the claim, the date the claim was filed, and the period within which the Assistant Director must act on the claim.
(c) The following persons or their legal guardians are eligible to file claims for compensation under the Act in the following order:
(1) The claimant;
(2) If the claimant is deceased, the spouse of the claimant, provided that he or she was married to the claimant for at least one year immediately prior to the claimant's death;
(3) If there is no surviving spouse or if the spouse is ineligible because he or she was not married to the claimant for at least one year immediately prior to the claimant's death, a child of the claimant;
(4) If there is no eligible surviving spouse and no child, a parent of the claimant;
(5) If there is no eligible surviving spouse and no child or parent, a grandchild of the claimant; or
(6) If there is no eligible surviving spouse and no child, parent or grandchild, a grandparent of the claimant.
(7) Only the beneficiaries listed in this paragraph (c) are eligible to file a claim on behalf of the claimant.
(d) The identity of the claimant must be established by submitting a birth certificate or one of the other documents identified in § 79.14(a) when the person has no birth certificate. Additionally, documentation demonstrating any and all name changes must be provided.
(e)(1) The spouse of a claimant must establish his or her eligibility to file a claim by furnishing:
(i) His or her birth certificate and, if applicable, documentation demonstrating any and all name changes;
(ii) The birth and death certificates of the claimant;
(iii) One of the following documents to establish a marriage to the claimant:
(A) The public record of marriage;
(B) A certificate of marriage;
(C) The religious record of marriage; or
(D) A judicial or other governmental determination that a valid marriage existed, such as the final opinion or order of a probate court or a determination of the Social Security Administration that the person filing the claim is the spouse of the decedent;
(iv) A death certificate or divorce decree for each spouse of the claimant (if applicable); and
(v) An affidavit (or declaration under oath on the standard claim form) stating that the spouse was married to the claimant for at least one year immediately prior to the claimant's death.
(2) If the spouse is a member of an Indian Tribe, he or she need not provide any of the documents listed in paragraph (e)(1) of this section at the time the claim is filed (although these records may later be required), but should instead furnish a signed release of private information that the Assistant Director will use to obtain a statement of verification of all of the information listed in paragraph (e)(1) directly from the tribal records custodian. In identifying those individuals eligible to receive compensation by virtue of marriage, relationship, or survivorship, the Assistant Director shall, to the maximum extent practicable, take into consideration and give effect to established law, tradition, and custom of the particular affected Indian Tribe.
(f)(1) A child of a claimant must establish his or her eligibility to file a claim by furnishing:
(i) His or her birth certificate and, if applicable, documentation demonstrating any and all name changes;
(ii) The birth and death certificates of the claimant;
(iii) One of the documents listed in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section to establish each marriage of the claimant (if applicable);
(iv) A death certificate or divorce decree for each spouse of the claimant (if applicable);
(v) A death certificate for each of the other children of the claimant (if applicable);
(vi) An affidavit (or declaration under oath on the standard claim form) stating the following:
(A) That the claimant was never married, or, if the claimant was ever married, the name of each spouse, the date each marriage began and ended, and the date and place of divorce or death of the last spouse of the claimant; and
(B) That the claimant had no other children, or, if the claimant did have other children, the name of each child, the date and place of birth of each child, and the date and place of death or current address of each child; and
(vii) One of the following:
(A) In the case of a natural child, a birth certificate showing that the claimant was the child's parent, or a judicial decree identifying the claimant as the child's parent;
(B) In the case of an adopted child, the judicial decree of adoption; or
(C) In the case of a stepchild, evidence of birth to the spouse of the claimant as outlined in paragraph (f)(1)(vii) of this section, and records reflecting that the stepchild lived with the claimant in a regular parent-child relationship.
(2) If the child is a member of an Indian Tribe, he or she need not provide any of the documents listed in paragraph (f)(1) of this section at the time the claim is filed (although these records may later be required), but should instead furnish a signed release of private information that the Assistant Director will use to obtain a statement of verification of all of the information listed in paragraph (f)(1) directly from the tribal records custodian. In identifying those individuals eligible to receive compensation by virtue of survivorship, the Assistant Director shall, to the maximum extent practicable, take into consideration and give effect to established law, tradition,
(g)(1) A parent of a claimant must establish his or her eligibility to file a claim by furnishing:
(i) His or her birth certificate and, if applicable, documentation demonstrating any and all name changes;
(ii) The birth and death certificates of the claimant;
(iii) One of the documents listed in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section to establish each marriage of the claimant (if applicable);
(iv) A death certificate or divorce decree for each spouse of the claimant (if applicable);
(v) A death certificate for each child of the claimant (if applicable);
(vi) A death certificate for the other parent(s) (if applicable);
(vii) An affidavit (or declaration under oath on the standard claim form) stating the following:
(A) That the claimant was never married, or, if the claimant was ever married, the name of each spouse, the date each marriage began and ended, and the date and place of divorce or death of the last spouse of the claimant;
(B) That the claimant had no children, or, if the claimant did have children, the name of each child, the date and place of birth of each child, and the date and place of death of each child; and
(C) The name and address, or date and place of death, of the other parent(s) of the claimant; and
(viii) One of the following:
(A) In the case of a natural parent, a birth certificate showing that the claimant was the parent's child, or a judicial decree identifying the claimant as the parent's child; or
(B) In the case of an adoptive parent, the judicial decree of adoption.
(2) If the parent is a member of an Indian Tribe, he or she need not provide any of the documents listed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section at the time the claim is filed (although these records may later be required), but should instead furnish a signed release of private information that the Assistant Director will use to obtain a statement of verification of all of the information listed in paragraph (g)(1) directly from the tribal records custodian. In identifying those individuals eligible to receive compensation by virtue of survivorship, the Assistant Director shall, to the maximum extent practicable, take into consideration and give effect to established law, tradition, and custom of the particular affected Indian Tribe.
(h)(1) A grandchild of a claimant must establish his or her eligibility to file a claim by furnishing:
(i) His or her birth certificate and, if applicable, documentation demonstrating any and all name changes;
(ii) The birth and death certificates of the claimant;
(iii) One of the documents listed in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section to establish each marriage of the claimant (if applicable);
(iv) A death certificate or divorce decree for each spouse of the claimant (if applicable);
(v) A death certificate for each child of the claimant;
(vi) A death certificate for each parent of the claimant;
(vii) A death certificate for each of the other grandchildren of the claimant (if applicable);
(viii) An affidavit (or declaration under oath on the standard claim form) stating the following:
(A) That the claimant was never married, or, if the claimant was ever married, the name of each spouse, the date each marriage began and ended, and the date and place of divorce or death of the last spouse of the claimant;
(B) The name of each child, the date and place of birth of each child, and the date and place of death of each child;
(C) The names of each parent of the claimant together with the dates and places of death of each parent; and
(D) That the claimant had no other grandchildren, or, if the claimant did have other grandchildren, the name of each grandchild, the date and place of birth of each grandchild, and the date and place of death or current address of each grandchild; and
(ix) One of the following:
(A) In the case of a natural grandchild, a combination of birth certificates showing that the claimant was the grandchild's grandparent;
(B) In the case of an adopted grandchild, a combination of judicial records and birth certificates showing that the claimant was the grandchild's grandparent; or
(C) In the case of a stepgrandchild, evidence of birth to the spouse of the child of the claimant, as outlined in this paragraph (h)(1), and records reflecting that the stepchild lived with a child of the claimant in a regular parent-child relationship; or evidence of birth to the spouse of the stepchild of the claimant or the stepchild of the claimant, as outlined in this paragraph (h)(1), and records reflecting that the stepchild of the claimant lived with the claimant in a regular parent-child relationship.
(2) If the grandchild is a member of an Indian Tribe, he or she need not provide any of the documents listed in paragraph (h)(1) of this section at the time the claim is filed (although these records may later be required), but should instead furnish a signed release of private information that the Assistant Director will use to obtain a statement of verification of all of the information listed in paragraph (h)(1) directly from the tribal records custodian. In identifying those individuals eligible to receive compensation by virtue of survivorship, the Assistant Director shall, to the maximum extent practicable, take into consideration and give effect to established law, tradition, and custom of the particular affected Indian Tribe.
(i)(1) A grandparent of the claimant must establish his or her eligibility to file a claim by furnishing:
(i) His or her birth certificate and, if applicable, documentation demonstrating any and all name changes;
(ii) The birth and death certificates of the claimant;
(iii) One of the documents listed in paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section to establish each marriage of the claimant (if applicable);
(iv) A death certificate or divorce decree for each spouse of the claimant (if applicable);
(v) A death certificate for each child of the claimant (if applicable);
(vi) A death certificate for each parent of the claimant;
(vii) A death certificate for each grandchild of the claimant (if applicable);
(viii) A death certificate for each of the other grandparents of the claimant (if applicable);
(ix) An affidavit stating the following:
(A) That the claimant was never married, or if the claimant was ever married, the name of each spouse, the date each marriage began and ended, and the date and place of divorce or death of the last spouse of the claimant;
(B) That the claimant had no children, or, if the claimant did have children, the name of each child, the date and place of birth of each child, and the date and place of death of each child;
(C) The names of each parent of the claimant together with the dates and places of death of each parent;
(D) That the claimant had no grandchildren, or, if the claimant did have grandchildren, the name of each grandchild, the date and place of birth of each grandchild, and the date and place of death of each grandchild; and
(E) The names of all other grandparents of the claimant together with the dates and places of birth of each grandparent, and the dates and places of death of each other
(x) One of the following:
(A) In the case of a natural grandparent, a combination of birth certificates showing that the claimant was the grandparent's grandchild;
(B) In the case of an adoptive grandparent, a combination of judicial records and birth certificates showing that the claimant was the grandparent's grandchild.
(2) If the grandparent is a member of an Indian Tribe, he or she need not provide any of the documents listed in paragraph (i)(1) of this section at the time the claim is filed (although these records may later be required), but should instead furnish a signed release of private information that the Assistant Director will use to obtain a statement of verification of all of the information listed in paragraph (i)(1) directly from the tribal records custodian. In identifying those individuals eligible to receive compensation by virtue of survivorship, the Assistant Director shall, to the maximum extent practicable, take into consideration and give effect to established law, tradition, and custom of the particular affected Indian Tribe.
(j) A claim that was filed and denied may be filed again in those cases where the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary obtains documentation that he or she did not possess when the claim was filed previously and that redresses the deficiency for which the claim was denied, including, where applicable, documentation addressing:
(1) An injury specified in the Act;
(2) Residency in the affected area;
(3) Onsite participation in a nuclear test;
(4) Exposure to 40 WLMs of radiation while employed in a uranium mine or mines during the designated time period;
(5) Employment for one year (12 consecutive or cumulative months) as a miner, miller or ore transporter; or
(6) The identity of the claimant and/or the eligible surviving beneficiary.
(k) A claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary may not refile a claim more than three times. Claims filed prior to July 10, 2000, will not be included in determining the number of claims filed.
(a)
(1) The person submitting the claim represents that he or she is an eligible surviving beneficiary in those cases where the claimant is deceased;
(2) The medical condition identified in the claim is a disease specified in the Act for which the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary could recover compensation;
(3) For claims submitted under subparts B and C of this part, as relevant, the period and place of physical presence set forth in the claim falls within the designated time period and affected areas identified in § 79.11;
(4) For claims submitted under subparts B and D of this part, as relevant, the place and period of onsite participation set forth in the claim falls within the places and times set forth in § 79.11 and § 79.31; and
(5) For claims submitted under subparts E, F, and G of this part, the period and place of uranium mining, mill working or ore transporting set forth in the claim falls within the designated time period and specified states identified in §§ 79.41, 79.51, and 79.61. If the Assistant Director determines from the initial review that any one of the applicable criteria is not met, or that any other criterion of this part is not met, the Assistant Director shall so advise the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary in writing, setting forth the reasons for the determination, and allow the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary 60-days from the date of such notification to correct any deficiency in the claim. If the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary fails adequately to correct the deficiencies within the 60-day period, the Assistant Director shall, without further review, issue a Decision denying the claim.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) An appeal must be in writing and must be received by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program within 60 days of the date of the Decision denying the claim, unless a greater period has been permitted. Appeals must be sent to the following address: Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, Appeal of Decision, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044-0146.
(b) The claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary must set forth in the appeal the reason(s) why he or she believes that the Decision of the Assistant Director is incorrect.
(c) Upon receipt of an appeal, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program shall forward the appeal, the Decision, the claim, and all supporting documentation to the Appeals Officer for action on the appeal. If the appeal is not received within the 60-day period, or such greater period as may be permitted, the appeal may be denied without further review.
(d) The Appeals Officer shall review any appeal and other information forwarded by the Program. Within 90 days after the receipt of an appeal, the Appeals Officer shall issue a Memorandum either affirming or reversing the Assistant Director's Decision or, when appropriate, remanding the claim to the Assistant Director for further action. The Memorandum shall include a statement of the reason(s) for such reversal, affirmance, or remand. The Memorandum and all papers relating to the claim shall be returned to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, which shall promptly inform the claimant or eligible surviving beneficiary of the action of the Appeals Officer. A Memorandum affirming or reversing the Assistant Director's Decision shall be deemed to be the final action of the Department of Justice on the claim.
(e) Before seeking judicial review of a decision denying a claim under the Act, an individual must first seek review by the designated Appeals Officer. Once the appeals procedures are completed, an individual whose claim for compensation under the Act is affirmed on appeal may seek judicial review in a district court of the United States.
(a)
(b)
(2) Notwithstanding any contract and except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the attorney of a claimant or beneficiary, along with any assistants or experts retained by the attorney on behalf of the claimant or beneficiary, may receive from a claimant or beneficiary no more than 2% of the total award for all services rendered, including costs incurred, in connection with a successful claim.
(3)(i) If an attorney entered into a contract with the claimant or beneficiary for services before July 10, 2000, with respect to a particular claim, then that attorney may receive up to 10% of the total award for services rendered, including costs incurred, in connection with a successful claim.
(ii) If an attorney resubmits a previously denied claim, then that attorney may receive up to 10% of the total award to the claimant or beneficiary for services rendered, including costs incurred, in connection with that subsequently successful claim. Resubmission of a previously denied claim includes only those claims that were previously denied and refiled under the Act.
(4) Any violation of paragraph (b) of this section shall result in a fine of not more than $5,000.
(c)
(1) A statement of the attorney's active membership in good standing of the bar of the highest court of a state; and
(2) A signed representation agreement, retainer agreement, fee agreement, or contract, documenting the attorney's authorization to represent the claimant or beneficiary. The document must acknowledge that the Act's fee limitations are satisfied.
(a) All awards for compensation are made in the form of one time lump sum payments and shall be made to the claimant or to the legal guardian of the claimant, unless the claimant is deceased at the time of the payment. In cases involving a claimant who is deceased, payment shall be made to each eligible surviving beneficiary or to the legal guardian acting on his or her behalf, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the Act. Once the Program has received the claimant's or eligible surviving beneficiary's election to accept the payment, the Assistant Director shall ensure that the claim is paid within six weeks. All time frames for processing claims under the Act are suspended during periods when the Radiation Trust Fund is not funded.
(b) In cases involving the approval of a claim, the Assistant Director shall take all necessary and appropriate steps to determine the correct amount of any offset to be made to the amount awarded under the Act and to verify the identity of the claimant or, in the case of a deceased claimant, the existence of eligible surviving beneficiaries who are entitled by the Act to receive the payment the claimant would have
(c) Prior to authorizing payment, the Assistant Director shall require the claimant or each eligible surviving beneficiary to execute and provide an affidavit (or declaration under oath on the standard claim form) setting forth the amount of any payment made pursuant to a final award or settlement on a claim (other than a claim for worker's compensation), against any person, that is based on injuries incurred by the claimant on account of:
(1) Exposure to radiation from an atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device while present in an affected area (as defined in § 79.11(a)) at any time during the periods described in § 79.11(c) or § 79.11(h);
(2) Exposure to radiation while participating onsite in an atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device (as defined in § 79.11(b)) at any time during the periods described in § 79.11(h) (This paragraph (c) only applies to claims filed under section 4(a)(1)(A)(i)(III) of the Act); or
(3) Exposure to radiation during employment in a uranium mine at any time during the period described in section 5 of the Act. For purposes of this paragraph, a “claim” includes, but is not limited to, any request or demand for money made or sought in a civil action or made or sought in anticipation of the filing of a civil action, but shall not include requests or demands made pursuant to a life insurance or health insurance contract. If any such award or settlement payment was made, the Assistant Director shall subtract the sum of such award or settlement payments from the payment to be made under the Act.
(d) In the case of a claim filed under section 4(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Assistant Director shall require the claimant or each eligible surviving beneficiary to execute and provide an affidavit (or declaration under oath on the standard claim form) setting forth the amount of any payment made pursuant to a final award or settlement on a claim (other than a claim for worker's compensation) against any person or any payment made by the Department of Veterans Affairs, that is based on injuries incurred by the claimant on account of exposure to radiation as a result of onsite participation in a test involving the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device. For purposes of this paragraph, a “claim” includes, but is not limited to, any request or demand for money made or sought in a civil action or made or sought in anticipation of a civil action, but shall not include requests or demands made pursuant to a life-or health-insurance contract.
(1) Payments by the Department of Veterans Affairs shall include:
(i) Any disability payments or compensation benefits paid to the claimant and his or her dependents while the claimant is alive; and
(ii) Any Dependency and Indemnity Compensation payments made to survivors due to death related to the illness for which the claim under the Act is submitted.
(2) Payments by the Department of Veterans Affairs shall not include:
(i) Active duty pay, retired pay, retainer pay, or payments under the Survivor Benefits Plan;
(ii) Death gratuities;
(iii) SGLI, VGLI, or mortgage, life, or health insurance payments;
(iv) Burial benefits or reimbursement for burial expenses;
(v) Loans or loan guarantees;
(vi) Education benefits and payments;
(vii) Vocational rehabilitation benefits and payments;
(viii) Medical, hospital, and dental benefits; or
(ix) Commissary and PX privileges.
(e) If any such award, settlement, or payment was made as described in paragraphs (c) or (d) of this section, the Assistant Director shall calculate the actuarial present value of such payment(s), and subtract the actuarial present value from the payment to be made under the Act. The actuarial present value shall be calculated using the worksheet in appendix C to this part in the following manner:
(1) Step 1. The sums of the past payments received in each year are entered in the appropriate rows in column (2). Additional rows will be added as needed to calculate the present value of payments received in the years prior to 1960 and after 1990.
(2) Step 2. The present CPI-U (to be obtained monthly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor) is entered in column (3).
(3) Step 3. The CPI (Major Expenditure Classes—All Items) for each year in which payments were received is entered in the appropriate row in column (4). (This measure is provided for 1960 through 1990. The measure for subsequent years will be obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)
(4) Step 4. For each row, the amount in column (2) is multiplied by the corresponding inflator (column (3) divided by column (4)) and the product is entered in column (5).
(5) Step 5. The products in column (5) are added together and the sum is entered on the line labeled “Total of column (5) equals actuarial present value of past payments.”
(6) Step 6. The sum in Step 5 is subtracted from the statutory payment of $75,000 and the remainder is entered on the line labeled “Net Claim Owed To Claimant.”
(f) When the Assistant Director has verified the identity of the claimant or each eligible surviving beneficiary who is entitled to the compensation payment or to a share of the compensation payment, and has determined the correct amount of the payment or the share of the payment, he or she shall notify the claimant or each eligible surviving beneficiary, or his or her legal guardian, and require such person(s) to sign an Acceptance of Payment Form. Such form shall be signed and returned within 60 days of the date of the form or such greater period as may be allowed by the Assistant Director. Failure to return the signed form within the required time may be deemed to be a rejection of the payment. Signing and returning the form within the required time shall constitute acceptance of the payment, unless the individual who has signed the form dies prior to receiving the actual payment, in which case the person who possesses the payment shall return it to the Assistant Director for redetermination of the correct disbursement of the payment.
(g) Rejected compensation payments or shares of compensation payments shall not be distributed to other eligible surviving beneficiaries, but shall be returned to the Trust Fund for use in paying other claims.
(h) Upon receipt of the Acceptance of Payment Form, the Assistant Director or the Constitutional and Specialized Torts Staff Director or Deputy Director, or their designee, shall authorize the appropriate authorities to issue a check to the claimant or to each eligible
(i)
(2) An eligible surviving beneficiary who is not also a claimant may receive one payment for each claimant for whom he or she qualifies as an eligible surviving beneficiary.
For arterial blood-gas studies performed at test locations between sea level and 2,999 feet above sea level:
For arterial blood-gas studies performed at test locations above 3,000 feet above sea level:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of request for proposals; final policy, and implementation guidelines.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are soliciting project proposals for Federal assistance under the Tribal Landowner Incentive Program (TLIP). This document describes how you can apply for funding under the TLIP and how we will determine which project proposals will be funded. The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 allocated $29,630,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for conservation grants to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Tribes under a Landowner Incentive Program. This notice sets forth guidance for the allocation of $2,963,000 for TLIP.
Project proposals must be postmarked by May 24, 2004, and submited to the appropriate Regional Office (
For information regarding collection requirements, applicants should contact the Native American Liaison in the Service's Regional Office for the State in which the proposed project would occur. The contact information for each Regional Office is listed in Table 1 below. Information on the TLIP is also available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of the Native American Liaison, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 3251, Washington, DC 20240, and electronically at
Project proposals should be submitted to the Service's Regional Office for the State in which the proposed project would occur (see Table 1 under this section). You must submit one original and two copies of the complete proposal. We will not accept facsimile project proposals.
For further information, contact the Native American Liaison in the appropriate Regional Office (
The Service invites submission of grant proposals from federally recognized Indian tribal governments (including Alaska Native Villages) for the protection and management of habitat to benefit federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, or other at-risk species. This program supports the efforts of tribal governments in programs that develop or augment the capacity to manage, conserve, or protect fish wildlife species of concern through the provision of funding and technical support.
The following definitions apply:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2004 allocated $29,630,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for conservation grants to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Tribes under the Landowner Incentive Program. The Service herein provides the implementation guidance for the tribal component of the program.
In recent years, natural resource managers have increasingly recognized that private lands play a pivotal role in inking or providing important habits for fish, wildlife, and plant species. To protect and enhance these habitats through incentives for private landowners, Congress appropriated $29,630,000 for the Service to administer a new Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) for States and Tribes. The Service will award grants for actions and activities that protected and restore habitats that benefit federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, or other at-risk species on private lands. A primary objective of LIP is to establish, or supplement existing, landowner incentive programs that provide technical and financial assistance, including habitat protection and restoration, to private landowners for the protection and management of habitat to benefit federally-listed, proposed, or candidate species, or other at-risk species on private lands as stated in the appropriations language. LIP complements other Federal private lands conservation programs that focus on conservation of habitat.
The Service is providing guidance to the public and, particularly, to federally recognized Tribes, in the administration of the $2,963,000 allocated for TLIP. This program will provide conservation monies to federally recognized Tribes for actions and activities that protect and restore habitats that benefit federally-listed, proposed, or candidate species, or other at-risk species on tribal lands. TLIP was created because of the unique relationship between the Federal Government and Tribes and because tribal lands are not private lands and would not be eligible for funding under a State-administered LIP with a private lands grant distribution system. Because the Tribes directly administer the funds rather than distribute them further to individual landowners, the criteria used in evaluating program proposals differ to some extent from those used in the LIP. The results of both the LIP and TLIP would be similar in effect, because both encourage voluntary conservation of natural resources. A series of questions and answers follows and describes the guidance in some detail.
Federally recognized Tribes in all parts of the United States, including: federally recognized Tribes, pueblos, rancherias, and Alaska native village or traditional councils as defined by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act may participate.
No. Only federally recognized Tribes are eligible to receive grants under this program. Federally recognized Tribes are listed in the
No. However, organizations or entities may participate as subgrantees or contractors to federally recognized Tribes.
The Service will request proposals through a
The Regional Native American Liaisons of the Service will coordinate the process to screen proposals to ensure that they are complete and to score them according to nationally uniform criteria. Tribes are encouraged to contact the Native American Liaison in the appropriate Regional Office identified in Table 1 under
A national panel will review regionally ranked proposals for recommendations to the Director of the Service (Director).
Service and other Federal agency personnel, as appropriate, and as may be identified by the Director will serve on the panel.
No, only Federal employees will review and rank proposals.
The Director will make the final determination for grant awards.
Applicants will be notified by the Director or Regional Directors as to whether or not they have been awarded grants. Regional Native American Liaisons will contact the tribal representatives that signed the grant applications.
No, the TLIP program must comply with all Federal grant program compliance requirements as specified in 43 CFR part 12, OMB Circulars A-133, A-102, and A-87; and Service Manual Chapters 522 FW1 and 523 FW1, except where specifically exempted. Tribal grantees are responsible for ensuring that subgrantees and contractors adhere to these requirements.
Proposals must include a cover letter, program summary, program narrative, budget narrative, and a completed Standard Form 424 Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424), and tribal resolution of support as described herein.
—
—
—
—
—
—
Applicants can obtain a grant proposal package from the Native American Liaison in the appropriate Regional Office (
Yes, the Service requires a minimum of 25 percent non-Federal matching funds for participation in this program. No more than 75 percent of the project cost may be Federal funds.
Yes, in-kind contributions provided by the Tribe or a third party may be counted towards the required 25 percent non-federal matchng requirement. Any in-king contributions in excess of the required 25 percent may be used as a match to improve the potential ranking of a proposal. The Federal Government has defined “in-kind” as non-cash contributions made by the Tribe. In-kind contributions must be necessary and reasonable for carrying out the project, and must represent the same value that the Service would have paid for similar services or property if purchased on the open market. Allowable in-kind contributions are defined in 43 CFR 12.64. Additional information can be found at
Tribes are encouraged to submit a single comprehensive grant proposal but multiple proposals are allowable.
The Service will award grants up to a maximum of $150,000. If more than one proposal is submitted by any one Tribe, no more than $150,000 total can be awarded to that Tribe. This amount is approximately 5 percent of the annual appropriation, and it allows for grants that are large enough to make a significant impact and be widely distributed. No proposal shall be accepted that requests more than $150,000, in federal funds.
There is no proposal or grant award minimum.
The Service will score proposals based on the following criteria:
Yes, the TLIP funds can cover these activities, provided they are directly related to the TLIP project or program being funded and are included in the budget and discussed in the program and budget narratives.
Eligible programs include those that improve, restore, preserve, or maintain habitat for endangered, threatened, candidate, or other at-risk species. Examples of the types of projects within identified tribal programs that the Service may fund include using prescribed burning to restore grasslands that support imperiled species, fencing to exclude animals from sensitive habitats, or planting native vegetation to restore degraded habitat. Tribes may implement TLIP projects on a variety of lands, including reservations, individual allotments, fee-lands, and village corporation and regional corporation lands in Alaska. Activities that result in the protect and management of listed, proposed, candidate, or other at-risk species and their habitat are eligible for funding.
Those species federally listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, or species proposed or candidates for such listing, or at-risk species (
A proposal cannot include activities required to comply with a Biological Opinion under the Endangered Species Act or include activities required to comply with a permit (
No, tribal trust lands are not “public lands.” For the purposes of inclusion under TLIP, federally recognized Tribes are considered landowners and are eligible.
No, there is no authorization for appropriation of funds beyond FY 2004. Funds appropriated in FY 2004 are available until spent.
Funds can be held in an interest-bearing account, although any interest earned in excess of $100 must be returned to the fiscally responsible Federal agency (43 CFR 12.64).
Yes, the Service must receive assurances that acquired lands shall be for purposes of conservation and protection of federally listed, proposed, candidate or at-risk species.
Once the Director notifies grantees that their proposal has been selected for funding, the recipient must submit a grant agreement and attachments as required by Federal regulations. As with our other Federal programs, TLIP agreements must comply with 43 CFR part 12, the National Environmental Policy Act, section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and all other applicable Federal laws and regulations. This grant program is also subject to provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circulars No. A-87, A-102, and A-133 (see
Once grants have been awarded, the grantee should consider the appropriate Regional Native American Liaison as the lead contact person for all matters pertaining to the particular award. Financial matters will be delegated to the Division of Federal Assistance through the Native American Liaison.
Subsequent to funding approval, grant funds are electronically provided through the Department of Health and Human Services' SMARTLINK payment management system. Through this electronic funds transfer (EFT), grantees will be able to receive funds as needed. Some of the tribal grantees may not be EFT complaint. In order for us to ensure optimal service to potential grantees within the current Federal Assistance process, grantees will need to obtain EFT capabilities compatible with the SMARTLINK payment management system. Grantees may request an advance of no more than 25 percent of the total grant if the advance is documented in the grant agreement.
Quarterly Financial Status Reports (SF-272) which can be found at
Yes. These costs can be included as long as they follow the OMB guidelines for administrative costs, which can be obtained through our Federal Assistance office in each Region. However, applicants are encouraged to keep these costs to a minimum of those expenses that are essential to the success of the proposed project. An applicant may include administrative overhead as an in-kind contribution that may improve the overall benefit of the project proposal. Please note that full-time equivalents costs must be tied to a specific project and should be included in proposals sparingly.
This policy document identifies proposed eligibility criteria and selection factors that may be used to award grants under TLIP. The Service developed this policy to ensure consistent and adequate evaluation of grant proposals that are voluntarily submitted and to help prospective applicants understand how the Service will award grants. According to Executive Order 12866, this policy document is significant and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the four criteria discussed below.
1. TLIP will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State or local communities. The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 allowed the Secretary to create TLIP. In addition, grants that are funded will generate other, secondary benefits, including benefits to natural systems (
2. We do not believe the TLIP would create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. Congress has given the Service the responsibility to administer this program.
3. TLIP would not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. This policy document addresses a grant program, authorized by Public Law 107-63, which should make greater resources available to applicants. The submission of grant proposals is completely voluntary, but necessary to receive benefits. When an applicant decides to submit a grant proposal, the proposed eligibility criteria and selection factors identified in this policy can be construed as requirements placed on the awarding of the grants. Additionally, we will place further requirements on grantees who are selected to receive funding under the TLIP program in order to obtain and retain and benefit they are seeking. These requirements include specific Federal financial management and reporting requirements as well as specific habitat improvements or other management activities described in the applicant's grant proposal.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This implementation guidance is not considered a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 804(2)) because it does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The amount of TLIP program funds provided this year is limited to $2,963,000.
This implementation guidance will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. Actions under this implementation guidance will distribute Federal funds to Indian tribal governments and tribal entities for purposes consistent with activities similar to other Service programs designed to enable landowners to protect and conserve species as may be protected under the Endangered Species Act and the habitat that supports such species.
This implementation guidance does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This implementation guidance would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This guidance will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532).
This implementation guidance does not have significant “takings” implications. This implementation guidance does not pertain to “taking” of private property interests, and its impact on private property would be an incentive that is totally landowner driven.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211, which speaks to regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. The Executive Order requires agencies
This implementation guidance does not have significant Federalism effects because it pertains solely to Federal-tribal relations and will not interfere with the roles, rights, and responsibilities of States.
This implementation guidance does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order 12988.
This implementation guidance does not constitute a Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The Service has determined that the issuance of the implementation guidance is categorically excluded under the Department of the Interior's NEPA procedures in 516 DM 2, appendix 1, and 516 DM 6, appendix 1. The Service will be responsible for ensuring that grants funded through TLIP are in compliance with NEPA.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” we have committed to consulting with tribal representatives in the finalization of the implementation guidance for the TLIP. We have evaluated any potential effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no potential adverse effects. This guidance expands tribal participation in Service programs and allows for opportunities for tribal wildlife management and conservation initiatives across Indian Country. We will continue to consult with tribal governments and tribal entities as a part of the policymaking process, and beyond in furthering our mutual goals for the TLIP.
The information collection requirements of this program will be largely met through the Federal Assistance Grants Application Booklet. Federal Assistance has OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1018-1019. This approval applies to grants managed by the Division of Federal Assistance, even if these grants are for other Divisions of the Service. We are collecting this information relevant to the eligibility, substantiality, relative value, and budget information from applicants in order to make awards of grants under these programs. We are collecting financial and performance information to track costs and accomplishments of these grant programs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of request for proposals; final policy, and implementation guidelines.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) are soliciting project proposals for Federal assistance under the Tribal Wildlife Grants program (TWG). This document describes how you can apply for funding under the TWG and how we will determine which project proposals will be funded. The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal year (FY) 2004 authorized an appropriation of $69,137,000 for wildlife conservation grants to States and to the District of Columbia, U.S. Territories, and Tribes under provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, for the development and implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife and their habitat, including species that are not hunted or fished. The Act further specified that the Service use $5,926,000 of the funds for a competitive grant program available to federally recognized Indian Tribes. this allows the Secretary, through the Director of the Service, to manage a separate Tribal grant program not subject to the provisions of the formula-based State Wildlife Grants program, or other requirements of the State Wildlife Grants portion of Pub. L. 107-63. The Service is providing implementation guidance for this $5,926,000 TWG program.
Project proposals must be postmarked by May 24,2004, and submitted to the appropriate Regional Office (
For information regarding collection requirements, applicants should contact the Native American Liaison in the Service's Regional office for the State in which the proposed project would occur. The contact information for each Regional Office is listed in Table 1 below. Information on the TWG is also available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of the Native American Liaison, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 3251, Washington, DC 20240, fax (202) 501-3524 and electronically at
Send your project proposal to the Service's Regional office for the State in which the proposed project would occur (
For further information, contact the Native American Liaison in the appropriate Regional Office (
The Service invites submission of grant proposals from federally recognized Indian tribal governments (including Alaska Native Villages) for the development and implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife and their habitat, including species that are not hunted or fished. This program supports the efforts of federally recognized Tribal governments in projects that develop or augment the capacity to manage, conserve, or protect fish and wildlife resources through the provision of funding and technical support.
The following definitions apply:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 authorized an appropriation of $69,137,000 for wildlife conservation grants to States and to the District of Columbia, U.S. Territories, and Tribes under provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, for the development and implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife and their habitat, including species that are not hunted or fished. The Act further specified that the Service use $5,926,000 of the funds to establish a competitive grant program available to federally recognized Tribes. This language allows the Secretary, through the Director of the Service, to establish a separate Tribal grant program that would not be subject to the provisions of the formula-based State Wildlife Grant program, or other requirements of the State Wildlife Grants portion of these funds. The Service is providing guidance in administration of this $5,926,000 Tribal Wildlife Grant program.
Federally recognized Tribes in all parts of the United States, including federally recognized Tribes, pueblos, rancherias, and Alaska native villages or traditional councils as defined by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
No, only federally recognized Tribes are eligible to receive grants under this program. Federally recognized Tribes are listed in the
No. However, organizations or entities may participate as subgrantees or contractors to federally recognized Tribes.
The Service will request proposals through a
The Regional Native American Liaisons of the Service will coordinate the process to screen proposals to ensure that they are complete and to score them according to nationally uniform criteria. Tribes are encouraged to contact the Native American Liaison in the appropriate Regional Office identified in Table 1 under
A national panel will review regionally ranked proposals for recommendations to the Director of the Service (Director).
Service and other Federal agency personnel, as appropriate, and as may be identified by the Director will serve on the panel.
No, only Federal employees will review and rank proposals.
The Director will make the final determination for grant awards.
Applicants will be notified by the Director or Regional Directors as to whether or not they have been awarded grants. Regional Native American Liaisons will contact tribal representatives who signed the grant applications.
No, the TWG program must comply with all Federal grant program compliance requirements as specified in 43 CFR part 12: OMB Circulars A-133, A-102, and A-87; and Service Manual Chapters 522 FW1 and 523 FW1, except where specifically exempted. Tribal grantees are responsible for ensuring that subgrantees and contractors adhere to these requirements.
Proposals must include a cover letter, program summary, program narrative, budget narrative, a completed Standard Form 424 Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424), and tribal resolution of support as described herein.
Applicants can obtain a grant proposal package from the Native American Liaison in the appropriate Regional Office (
No, Congress did not require matching funds for this appropriation. However, the Service will consider matching funds as an indication of tribal commitment to the program and to encourage partnerships.
Yes, in-kind contributions provided by the Tribe or a third party may be used as a match to improve the potential ranking of a proposal. The Service has defined “in-kind” as noncash contributions made by the Tribe. In-kind contributions must be necessary and reasonable for carrying out the program, and must represent the same value that the Service would have paid for similar services or property if purchased on the open market. Allowable in-kind contributions are defined in 43 CFR 12.64. Additional information can be found at
Tribes are encouraged to submit a single comprehensive grant proposal, but multiple proposals are allowable.
The Service will award grants up to a maximum of $250,000. If more than one proposal is submitted by any one Tribe, no more than $250,000 total can be awarded to that Tribe. No proposal shall be accepted that requests more than $250,000, in Federal funds.
There is no proposal or grant award minimum.
The Service will score proposals based on the following criteria:
Yes, if the law enforcement or education component is considered critical to the success of a project which directly contributes to the conservation of wildlife species and their habitats with the greatest conservation need.
Activities may include, but are not limited to, planning for wildlife and habitat conservation, ongoing and/or new fish and wildlife management actions, fish and wildlife related laboratory and field research; natural history studies, habitat mapping, field surveys and population monitoring, habitat preservation, land acquisition, conservation easements, and outreach efforts. Priority for funding from the TWG Program shall be for those projects with the greatest conservation benefit identified by the Tribe.
Yes, realizing that fish, wildlife and plant resources are important to the traditions and cultures of Tribes these types of projects are eligible.
Yes, they can fund these activities provided they are directly related to the TWG program or project being funded and are included in the budget and discussed in the program and budget narratives.
A proposal cannot include activities required to comply with a Biological Opinion under the Endangered Species Act or include activities required to comply with a permit (
No, there is no authorization for appropriation of funds beyond FY 2004. Appropriated funds are available until spent.
Funds can be held in an interest-bearing account, although any interest earned in excess of $100 must be returned to the fiscally responsible Federal agency (43 CFR 12.64).
Yes, the Service must receive assurances that acquired lands shall be for purposes of conservation consistent with the TWG program.
Once the Director notifies a grantee that their proposal was selected for funding, the recipient must submit a grant agreement and attachments as required by Federal regulations. As with our other Federal programs, TWG
Once grants have been awarded, the grantee should consider the Regional Native American Liaison (
Subsequent to funding approval, grant funds are electronically provided through the Health and Human Services' SMARTLINK payment management system. Through this electronic funds transfer (EFT), grantees will be able to receive funds as needed. Some of the tribal grantees may not be EFT compliant. In order to ensure optimal service to potential grantees within the current Federal Assistance process, grantees will need to obtain EFT capabilities compatible with the SMARTLINK payment management system. Grantees may request an advance of no more than 25 percent of the total grant if the advance is documented in the grant agreement.
Quarterly Financial Status Reports (SF-272), which can be found at
Yes. These costs can be included as long as they follow the OMB guidelines for administrative costs, which can be obtained through our Federal Assistance office in each Region. However, applicants are encouraged to keep these costs to a minimum of those expenses that are essential to the success of the proposed project. An applicant may include administrative overhead as an in-kind contribution that may improve the overall benefit of the project proposal. Please note that full-time equivalents costs must be tied to a specific project and should be included in proposals sparingly.
This policy document identifies eligibility criteria and selection factors that may be used to award grants under the TWG program. The Service developed this policy to ensure consistent and adequate evaluation of grant proposals that are voluntarily submitted and to help prospective applicants understand how the Service will award grants. According to Executive Order 12866, this policy document is significant and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the four criteria discussed below.
1. The TWG will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State or local communities. The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 allowed the Secretary to create the TWG program. In addition, grants that are funded will generate other, secondary benefits, including benefits to natural systems (
2. We do not believe the TWG program would create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. Congress has given the Service the responsibility to administer this program.
3. The TWG program would not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. This policy document addresses a grant program, authorized by Pub. L. 107-63, which should make greater resources available to applicants. The submission of grant proposals is completely voluntary, but necessary to receive benefits. When an applicant decides to submit a grant proposal, the proposed eligibility criteria and selection factors identified in this policy can be construed as requirements placed on the awarding of the grants. Additionally, we will place further requirements on grantees that are selected to receive funding under the TWG program in order to obtain and retain the benefit they are seeking. These requirements include specific Federal financial management and reporting requirements as well as specific habitat improvements or other management activities described in the applicant's grant proposal.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This implementation guidance is not considered a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 802(2)) because it does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The yearly amount of TWG program funds is limited to $5,926,000 in FY 2004.
This implementation guidance will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. Actions under this implementation guidance will distribute Federal funds to Indian tribal governments and tribal entities for
This implementation guidance does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This implementation guidance would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This guidance will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532).
This implementation guidance does not have significant “takings” implications. This implementation guidance does not pertain to “taking” of private property interests, nor does it impact private property.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which speaks to regulations that significantly affect enerty supply, distribution, and use. The Executive Order requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This implementation guidance is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, no Statement of Energy Effects has been prepared.
This implementation guidance does not have significant Federalism effects because it pertains solely to Federal-tribal relations and will not interfere with the roles, rights, and responsibilities of States.
This implementation guidance does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order 12988.
This implementation guidance does not constitute a Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. This Service has determined that the issuance of the implementation guidance is categorically excluded under the Department of the Interior's NEPA procedures in 516 DM 2, Appendix 1, and 516 DM 6, Appendix 1. The Service will be responsible for ensuring that grants funded through the TWG program are in compliance with NEPA.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” we have committed to consulting with tribal representatives in the finalization of the implementation guidance for the TWG program. We have evaluated any potential effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no potential adverse effects. This guidance expands tribal participation in Service programs and allows for opportunities for tribal wildlife management and conservation initiatives across Indian Country. We will continue to consult with tribal governments and tribal entities as a part of the policymaking process and beyond in furthering our mutual goals for the TWG program.
This information collection requirements of this program will be largely met through the Federal Assistance Grants Application Booklet. Federal Assistance has OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1018-1019. This approval applies to grants managed by the Division of Federal Assistance, even if these grants are for other Divisions of the Service. We are collecting this information relevant to the eligibility, substantiality, relative value, and budget information from applicants in order to make awards of grants under these programs. We are collecting financial and performance information to track costs and accomplishments of these grant programs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Proposed rules.
We propose to expand the information that we require certain investment company filers to submit to us electronically through our Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system and to make certain technical changes to that system. Specifically, we propose that certain open-end management investment companies and insurance company separate accounts identify in their EDGAR submissions information relating to their series and classes (or contracts, in the case of separate accounts). In addition, we are proposing to add several investment company filings to the list of those that must be filed electronically and to make several minor and technical amendments to our rules governing the electronic submission of filings through EDGAR. These proposed amendments are intended to keep EDGAR current technologically and to make it more useful to the investing public and Commission staff.
Comments should be submitted on or before May 24, 2004.
Comments may be submitted electronically or by paper. Electronic comments may be submitted by: (1) electronic form on the SEC Web site (
If you have questions about the proposed rules, please contact one of the following members of our staff: in the Division of Investment Management, Ruth Armfield Sanders, Senior Special Counsel; or Carolyn A. Miller, Senior Financial Analyst, at (202) 942-0978; for technical questions relating to the EDGAR system, in the Office of Information Technology, Richard D. Heroux, EDGAR Program Manager, at (202) 942-8800.
Today we propose amendments to the following rules relating to electronic filing on the EDGAR system: Rules 11, 102, 201, and 311 of Regulation S-T
Recently, we have initiated a series of amendments to keep EDGAR current technologically and to make it more useful to the investing public and Commission staff. In April 2000, we adopted rule and form amendments in connection with the modernization of EDGAR.
Today, we propose to require that open-end investment companies and insurance company separate accounts electronically identify in their filings to which of their series and classes (or contracts) the filing relates. We make this proposal, in light of the primary goals of the EDGAR system since its inception, to facilitate the rapid dissemination of financial and business information in connection with filings by investment companies. Requiring these entities to identify the series and classes (or contracts) to which filings relate would benefit members of the investing public and the financial community by making information contained in Commission filings more easily searchable and readily available to them. We also propose to add several investment company filings to the list of filings that must be made electronically and to make a number of technical amendments to rules and forms in connection with filing on the EDGAR system.
In the modernization adopting and proposing releases, we requested comment on the use of eXtensible Markup Language (XML) for EDGAR tagging in EDGAR submissions. We requested comment on the impact of our requiring, where applicable, that filers provide XML tagging concerning fee-related data; for investment companies, identification of individual series (portfolios) and classes; and for variable insurance products, identification of separate accounts. Commenters agreed that XML tagging would be useful and potentially a very powerful tool.
We have moved toward XML tagging of submission header information beginning with EDGAR modernization. Our first step was to provide for XML
In this age of information, we believe that filings made with us are of much greater use to investors if they are readily available in electronic form. We now, therefore, propose rules to allow the investing public and our staff to track filings made on behalf of series and classes of mutual funds and individual contracts of insurance company separate accounts Our proposals would accomplish this technologically through expanded use of XML tagging.
Many open-end investment companies (mutual funds) registering on Form N-1A
Insurance company separate accounts register and issue multiple contracts.
Any particular filing for a single registrant may be filed for only some of its series and classes (or contracts, in the case of separate accounts). A single registrant may make multiple filings of the same type (or example, post-effective amendment filings), each covering different series and/or classes (or contracts) of that registrant. We keep records of filings on an investment company registrant basis, but we do not have in place the programming capability needed to keep records on a series, class or contract basis. Funds must currently provide information in the text of their filings identifying for which series or classes (or contracts) their filings are being made, but currently they do not provide this information as part of the electronic identifying data they enter in the EDGAR submission template. We propose to require that open-end management investment companies and separate accounts who register on Forms N-1A, N-3, N-4, and N-6 (collectively, “S/C Funds”) obtain identifiers for their series and classes (or contracts, in the case of separate accounts) and electronically identify for which series and classes (or contracts) of the S/C Fund a particular filing is made.
We propose to begin implementation of this requirement by having all S/C Funds enter their existing series and class (and contract) identification onto a special section of the EDGAR Filing Web site (the “Series and Classes (Contracts) Information Page.”)
A S/C Fund that is not organized as a series company and that has no separate classes would be deemed to have one series and class. See footnote 45 and related text.
We propose to keep the Series and Classes (Contracts) Information Page on the EDGAR Filing Web site open for entry of information for existing series and classes for a period of approximately six months before requiring specified filings to include series and class (contract) identifiers. We propose to set a date at the end of the six-month period by which S/C Funds would be required to have entered information for their existing series and classes (contracts) and received their series and class (or contract) identifiers, and after which EDGAR would not accept specified filings without required series and class
If a S/C Fund adds a new series or class (contract) on or after the Mandatory Series/Class (Contract) Identification Date, the S/C Fund would not enter information concerning the new series or class (contract) on the Series and Classes (Contracts) Information Page on the EDGAR Filing Web site.
We propose to require that funds receive their series and class (contract) identifiers for existing series and classes before the Mandatory Series/Class (Contract) Identification Date. However, we plan to leave the Series and Classes (Contracts) Information Page open for entry of information for existing series and classes for several weeks following the Mandatory Series/Class (Contract) Identification Date, so that S/C Funds which, despite good faith efforts, fail to previously enter the information for all their series and classes (contracts) in existence prior to the Mandatory Series/Class (Contract) Identification Date would still have the opportunity to enter that information. However, since third party filers, including parties to mergers, would need to use this information in filings, all S/C Funds would need to ensure that the information concerning their existing series and classes (contracts) was entered prior to the closing of the Series and Classes (Contracts) Information Page for entry of information.
After the Mandatory Series/Class (Contract) Identification Date, we would give notice as to the date on which we would close the Series and Classes (Contracts) Information Page for entry of information concerning existing series and classes. On and after that date, the Series and Classes (Contracts) Information Page would be used only for retrieving and editing series and class (contract) information. After the closing of the Series and Classes (Contracts) Information Page for entry of data for existing series and classes (contracts), if a S/C Fund fails to enter its information in a timely manner and receive its identifiers, the staff may require the S/C Fund to file a post-effective amendment to generate the identifiers via the submission template. Until the S/C Fund provides the information concerning its series and classes (contracts) and is issued identifiers, it would be unable to make other filings that require series and class (contract) identifiers.
We believe that this method for S/C Funds to obtain identifiers for their existing series and classes (contracts) would provide the most flexibility for S/C Funds. This method would allow S/C Funds an extended period of time in which to provide the information and obtain the identifiers. A S/C Fund may choose to obtain its identifiers for all its existing series and classes at one time via the Series and Classes (Contracts) Information Page. Or, a S/C Fund may choose to spread out its entering of information and receipt of identifiers through the six-month period during which the Page would be open for entry of information. Each S/C Fund would need to make sure, however, that it has obtained its identifiers for all its series and classes (contracts) in existence prior to the Mandatory Series/Class (Contract) Identification Date before that date.
We propose that, on and after the Mandatory Series/Class (Contract) Identification Date, S/C Funds be required to use series and class (contract) identifiers in certain EDGAR submissions specified in the EDGAR Filer Manual. We propose to add the series and class (or contract) identification requirement to the EDGARLink header templates of certain investment company EDGAR submissions.
By requiring that the S/C Fund electronically identify the series and classes (or contracts) for which a filing is made, we would facilitate the ability of the investing public and our staff to search easily for EDGAR filings made on behalf of specified series and classes (contracts). The electronic identification of series and classes (contracts) would enable the investing public to search our Web site for filings covering the series and classes (contracts) they need. We believe that our proposals today recognize that disclosures in filings are only as useful as they are available; we believe our proposals would facilitate substantially the investing public's access to investment company information needed for their investment decisions. To this end, it is critical that S/C Funds obtain and include the correct identifying information in their filings.
S/C Funds would also have a duty to update and keep current their series and class (or contract) information. For example, filers would be required to update their information via the Series and Classes (Contracts) Information Page for series and class (or contract) name changes or deactivation (if a series is never offered or no longer makes filings because of merger, liquidation or other means of elimination or if the S/C Fund has merged out of existence or deregistered).
In conjunction with our rules to require the identification of series and classes (contracts), we are also adding to the submission templates of selected filings used by investment companies an additional field for identification of the type of investment company making the filing.
We also propose to require non-registrant third parties making proxy filings with respect to investment companies to designate “type” of investment company and to include series and/or class (or contract) identifiers in designated proxy submission types. After the Mandatory Series/Class (Contract) Identification Date, when filings are made with series and class (contract) identifiers and specification of investment company type, this information would be available on the EDGAR page of our public Web site (sec.gov), as is currently each entity's CIK. Until our public Web site is populated with series and class information from filings, filers may obtain this information from our public company database site at
With respect to these proposed requirements, including the updating requirements, we emphasize that it is the investment company's responsibility to ensure the correctness of this information and its use in each of its filings on the EDGAR system. Each S/C Fund must ensure that it receives all of its series and class (or contract) identifiers for series and classes (contracts) in existence before the Mandatory Series/Class (Contract) Identification Date; that it enters correctly information concerning series and classes coming into existence on or after the Mandatory Series/Class (Contract) Identification Date; and that its filings are made using the correct EDGAR codes, including series and class (or contract) identifiers. A S/C Fund may verify the codes and identifiers under which its filing was made and accepted by reading its electronic notice of acceptance, which would contain the CIK, file number(s) and, where applicable, series and class (or contract) names and identifiers.
We propose to add new Rule 312 under Regulation S-T in connection with identification of series and classes. New Rule 312 would provide that all S/C Funds (
Under Rule 312 as proposed, each such investment company or series that has multiple classes under Investment Company Act Rule 18f-3
Rule 312 as proposed would require that S/C Funds or series provide identifying information when they file certain merger documents (Form N-14,
Under Rule 312 as proposed, S/C Funds would have a duty to keep the information regarding their series and classes up to date. S/C Funds would update their information via the Series and Classes (Contracts) Information Page if the name of a series or class (or contract) changed. S/C Funds also would deactivate the identifiers for a series and/or class (or contract) via the Series and Classes (Contracts) Information Page if it was no longer offered by the S/C Fund or the S/C Fund deregistered.
Currently, Rule 11 of Regulation S-T defines the phrase “official filing” to mean any filing that is received and accepted by us, regardless of filing medium and exclusive of header information, tags and any other technical information required in an electronic filing. We propose to amend this definition to provide that the electronic identification of investment company type and inclusion of identifiers for series and class (or contract, in the case of separate accounts of insurance companies), as we propose to require under Rule 312 of Regulation S-T, would be deemed part of the official filing. Failure of an investment company to include correctly the required identifiers would mean that a filing for that series and/or class (or contract) has not been made.
Form TH
We request comment on the impact and feasibility of our proposal to require certain open-end management investment companies and insurance company separate accounts to identify in their EDGAR submissions information relating to their series and classes (or contracts, in the case of separate accounts). We ask commenters to provide detailed information on any difficulties and considerations unique to these proposed requirements. We ask commenters to address the issues of the general approach of the proposed requirements, the length of time it may take for investment companies to prepare for the proposed requirements, and the language of the new and amended rules. In the event commenters believe that any aspect of the proposed requirements would be burdensome, we ask for specific details and alternative approaches.
Currently, investment companies must submit in paper filings of fidelity bonds under section 17(g),
Currently, the electronic filing rules do not permit filers to submit electronically on the EDGAR system sales literature filed with us
We still require investment companies to submit in paper format filings under section 17(g)
We take this opportunity to remind investment companies of their section 33 filing obligations in light recent private law suits brought against certain fund groups in connection with allegations regarding late trading, abusive market timing, and related matters. In connection with staff concerns in this area in the past, see Letters from Kathryn B. McGrath, Director, Division of Investment Management, to Matthew P. Fink, General Counsel, Investment Company Institute, and to Gary Hughes, Chief Counsel, American Council of Life Insurance, each dated October 11, 1985.
We request comment on the impact and feasibility of our making these filings under Sections 17(g), 24(b) and 33 mandatory electronic submissions.
We propose to make technical corrections to our rules relating to paper exhibits for EDGAR filings and incorporation by reference by investment companies into documents filed on EDGAR, as discussed below.
Currently, paragraph (d) of Rule 102 provides that each electronic filing requiring exhibits must contain an exhibit index. It further requires that, whenever an exhibit is filed in paper pursuant to a temporary or continuing hardship exemption, the filer must place the letter “P” next to the listed exhibit in the exhibit index to reflect that the exhibit was filed in paper pursuant to such exemption. However, the rule does not require the designation “P” for an exhibit filed in paper other than pursuant to a hardship exemption. Nor does the rule require designation of the authority under which a filer was submitting an exhibit in paper. We propose to amend paragraph (d) to require the designation “P” for all exhibits filed in paper, the designation “Rule 311” next to the letter “P” in the exhibit index for exhibits filed pursuant to Rule 311 of Regulation S-T, and the letters “TH” or “CH,” respectively, next to the letter “P” in the exhibit index for exhibits filed pursuant to temporary or continuing hardship exemptions.
The rule also currently requires that, whenever a confirming electronic copy of an exhibit is filed pursuant to a hardship exemption, the exhibit index must specify where the confirming electronic copy can be located and the filer must place the designation “CE” (confirming electronic) next to the listed exhibit in the exhibit index. We request comment on the usefulness of the rule's requirement that the exhibit index must specify where the confirming electronic copy can be located. For example, where an exhibit filed in paper under a temporary hardship exemption is later incorporated by reference into a filing, is the provision useful in locating the electronic confirming copy of the paper exhibit? If commenters find that the provision is not useful, we encourage commenters to provide suggested revisions to make the rule more helpful to users of the information.
Paragraph (e) of Rule 102 provides that any incorporation by reference by a registered investment company or a business development company must relate only to documents that have been filed in electronic format. We propose to amend this rule to codify staff interpretation that incorporation by reference in an EDGAR filing by a registered investment company or a business development company must relate only to documents that have been filed in electronic format on the EDGAR system. A filer may not incorporate by reference electronic filings made with us but not made via the EDGAR system.
Rule 201(a)(1) of Regulation S-T currently provides that, where a filer makes a paper submission pursuant to a temporary hardship exemption, a microfiche copy of the paper document is the official filing of the registrant. Microfiche is no longer the official format for filings made in paper under the temporary hardship exemption; paper filings are now electronically imaged. Accordingly, we propose to amend Rule 201(a)(1) to reflect this change. We are also removing the phrase “of the registrant,” since an official filing may be made by a non-registrant third party.
Rule 311 sets forth the requirements for filers submitting documents in paper under cover of Form SE. Paragraph
We propose to make an additional amendment to Form SE that parallels the changes to the exhibit index requirement discussed above. Currently, Form SE does not require the filer to specify under which of these rules the filer is submitting the paper format exhibit. We propose to amend the form to require filers to indicate under which rule they are submitting the paper exhibit,
You are invited to submit written comments relating to the rule proposals set forth in this release. Comments may be submitted electronically or by paper. Electronic comments may be submitted by: (1) electronic form on the SEC Web site (
We request comment not only on the specific issues we discuss in this release, but on any other approaches or issues that we should consider in connection with filing on the EDGAR system, particularly filings by investment companies. We seek comment from any interested persons, including those required to file information with us on the EDGAR system, as well as investors, disseminators of EDGAR data, EDGAR filing agents, and other members of the public who have access to and use information from the EDGAR system.
We are sensitive to the costs and burdens of our rules. The rules we are proposing today reflect certain changes to the information currently provided in certain investment company submissions and technical amendments to our EDGAR filing rules. Specifically, the proposals would require certain open-end management investment companies and insurance company separate accounts to identify in their EDGAR submissions information relating to their series and classes (or contracts, in the case of separate accounts). This information is already required in the text of the filing itself; the proposals would require this information to be included in an electronically tagged form. In addition, the proposals would add several investment company filings to the list of those that must be filed electronically and make several minor and technical amendments to our rules governing the electronic submission of filings through EDGAR.
We expect that the addition of series and class (contract) identifiers ultimately would result in considerable benefits to the securities markets, investors, and other members of the public, by expanding the accessibility of information, and increasing the types of information, filed and made available for public review through the EDGAR system. The primary goal of the EDGAR system since its inception has been to facilitate the rapid dissemination of financial and business information in connection with filings, including filings by investment companies. Requiring these entities to identify the series and classes (or contracts) to which filings relate would benefit members of the investing public and the financial community by making information contained in Commission filings more easily searchable and readily available to them.
We believe that currently EDGAR can be difficult to use to find filings related to specific series and classes of funds, discouraging both the public and Commission staff from using it. We believe the improvements that would result from the series and class project would induce a substantial amount of new demand for the services provided by the EDGAR system and our public Web site. The proposals would result in the benefit to the public of the EDGAR page of our Web site being a comprehensive source from which to find series and class filings.
We also expect that our proposals for mandatory electronic filing of documents that previously could be filed only in paper format would result in economic benefits to current electronic filers. Investment companies should benefit from the increased efficiencies in the filing process for these filings resulting from the proposed amendments. By electronically transmitting theses documents directly to the Commission, investment companies will avoid the uncertainties and delays that can occur with the manual delivery of paper filings. Filers also will benefit from no longer having to submit multiple copies of paper documents to the Commission.
The proposed amendments should benefit investors, financial analysts and others by increasing the efficiency of retrieving and disseminating fidelity bonds, litigation materials, and sales literature (for non-NASD) filed with the Commission. The mandated electronic transmission of these documents will enable investors to access them more quickly. Instead of having to come in person or through an agent to the Commission's public reference room to conduct a search for a particular filing that is in paper or microfiche, an investor will be able to find and review the filing on any computer with an Internet connection by accessing the EDGAR system through the Commission's Web site or through a third party Web site that links to EDGAR. The proposed amendments will also enable financial analysts and others to retrieve, analyze and disseminate more rapidly this information. An investor should be able to form more
We believe that the rules we propose today for identification of series and classes (contracts) impose few or no costs related to substantive disclosure. Rather, the proposals may result in initial costs in connection with entering information onto the EDGAR filing Web site to obtain identifiers. Filers may experience some minimal costs in initially keying in data on their series and classes (contracts) when they obtain their identifiers. Additionally, they may experience minimal programming costs in including the identifying data in specified filings and, when necessary, obtaining identifiers for new series and classes (contracts). Disseminators of EDGAR data and EDGAR filing agents may incur some transitional costs as they revise their software and, in some instances, hardware to accommodate the proposed tagging changes to keep track of series and class identifiers for certain investment company filings. Disseminators may choose to reprogram their systems to take advantage of the new tagging scheme for identifying series and classes of mutual funds and contracts of insurance company separate accounts. As a result, disseminators may incur additional costs for processing.
We expect that the proposed amendments to make certain filings mandatory electronic submissions will result in some costs to issuers. However, for the following reasons, we also expect that filers should not bear the full range of costs resulting from adoption of the proposed amendments. The expected costs consist of ongoing costs, but not initial costs. Initial costs are those associated with the purchase of compatible computer equipment and software, including EDGAR software if obtained from a third-party vendor and not from the Commission's Web site. Initial costs also include those resulting from the training of existing employees to be EDGAR proficient or the hiring of additional employees or agents that are already skilled in EDGAR processing. Initial costs further include those associated with the formatting and transmission of a foreign issuer's first document filed on EDGAR. These transmission costs may include those related to subscribing to an Internet service provider. All filers who would be affected by these proposals are current EDGAR filers who will experience no additional initial costs. Ongoing costs are those associated with the electronic formatting and transmission of subsequent EDGAR filings. Filers may also incur future costs resulting from the training or hiring of employees regarding updated EDGAR filing requirements. The magnitude of these costs will depend on filers' levels of technological proficiency and their previous familiarity with EDGAR filing requirements. They will incur the costs associated with formatting and transmitting their documents on EDGAR. These filers have already incurred initial costs associated with the preparation of most of their filings in an electronic format. They have already trained their employees or hired an in-house information technology team or a third party agent, such as an Internet services company or financial printer, to format electronically their financial statements and other documents of interest to investors. These filers should be capable of electronically processing these documents for the EDGAR system. Consequently, the mandated EDGAR requirements should result only in costs related primarily to the electronic formatting of these documents in a format compatible with EDGAR, and transmission of the EDGAR formatted documents to the Commission.
We expect the technical corrections to the Regulation S-T provisions should be beneficial to filers inasmuch as they, as have previous technical corrections, would clarify existing rules and make the filing community at large more aware of current practices and interpretations.
We solicit comment on the costs and benefits of the proposed amendments. We request your views on the costs and benefits described above as well as on any other costs and benefits that could result from adoption of these proposals. Please identify any costs or benefits associated with the rule proposals relating to series and class (contract) identifiers, proposed categories of additional mandatory electronic filings, and technical corrections to our electronic filing rules governing the EDGAR system and any impact that the rule proposals may have on the ease of locating and using EDGAR data. In particular, what are the benefits that investors, financial analysts, other members of the financial community, and foreign issuers should realize from these proposals? Will the proposed amendments help an investor to form more efficient investment decisions about investment companies? What are the expected initial and ongoing costs of series and class (contract) identification and the added categories of mandated EDGAR filing? Will the magnitude of these costs depend on filers' levels of technological proficiency and their previous familiarity with EDGAR filing requirements? Are there costs in addition to those discussed above? Are there unidentified costs associated with the proposed technical amendments and, if so, what are they?
We encourage commenters to identify any costs or benefits associated with the rule proposals. We also request data to quantify the costs and value of the benefits identified.
Section 23(a)(2) of the Exchange Act requires us, in adopting rules under the Exchange Act, to consider the anti-competitive effects of any rules that we adopt thereunder. Furthermore, section 2(b) of the Securities Act,
In compliance with our responsibilities under the previously mentioned provisions, we considered preliminarily whether the amendments would promote efficiency, competition and capital formation. We ask for
Preliminarily, we believe it is likely that the proposed rules if adopted would not have any adverse effect on capital formation. We believe they would promote efficiency by making the information investors can receive electronically easier to find. The proposed rules would apply equally to all entities of the same types currently required to file on EDGAR. Because the proposed rules and amendments are designed to require filers to provide information in a format that would be more useful to investors, we believe, as a preliminary matter, that the amendments are appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors.
This Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) has been prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603 and relates to our proposed rule and form amendments under the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the Investment Company Act, the Trust Indenture Act, and the Public Utility Holding Company Act to require that open-end investment companies and insurance company separate accounts electronically identify in their filings to which of their series and classes (or contracts) the filing relates; to add several investment company filings to the list of filings that must be made electronically; and to make a number of technical amendments to rules and forms in connection with filing on the EDGAR system. Specifically, the proposals would require certain open-end management investment companies and insurance company separate accounts to identify in their EDGAR submissions information relating to their series and classes (or contracts, in the case of separate accounts). In addition, they would add several investment company filings to the list of those that must be filed electronically and make several minor and technical amendments to our rules governing the electronic submission of filings through EDGAR.
Many open-end investment companies (mutual funds) registering on Form N-1A are organized as single registrants with several portfolios (series) under sections 18(f)(1) and (2) of the Investment Company Act and Rule 18f-2 thereunder. Each series may also issue more than one class of securities under Rule 18f-3 of the Investment Company Act. Series and classes of a registrant are often marketed separately, without reference to other series or classes or to the registrant's name. The same is true for insurance company separate accounts organized as management investment companies registering on Form N-3.
Insurance company separate accounts register and issue multiple contracts. The individual contracts of insurance company separate accounts registering on Forms N-4 (funded by separate accounts organized as unit investment trusts) and N-6 (funded by separate accounts organized as unit investment trust that offer variable life insurance policies)
Any particular filing for a single registrant may be filed for only some of its series and classes (or contracts, in the case of separate accounts). A single registrant may make multiple filings of the same type (or example, post-effective amendment filings), each covering different series and/or classes (or contracts) of that registrant. We keep records of filings on an investment company registrant basis, but we do not keep records on a series, class or contract basis. Our objective is to be able to track filings on a series and class (contract) basis by requiring that open-end management investment companies and separate accounts who register on Forms N-1A, N-3, N-4, and N-6 (collectively, “S/C Funds”) obtain identifiers for their series and classes (or contracts, in the case of separate accounts) and electronically identify for which series and classes (or contracts) of the S/C Fund a particular filing is made.
On and after the Mandatory Series/Class (Contract) Identification Date, S/C Funds would have to use series and class (contract) identifiers in certain EDGAR submissions specified in the EDGAR Filer Manual. The series and class (or contract) identification would be added as a requirement to the EDGARLink header templates of certain investment company EDGAR submissions.
The proposals would also require certain current paper filings to be submitted electronically. Currently, investment companies must submit in paper filings under section 17(g),
Finally, the proposals would modify Rule 102(d) of Regulation S-T regarding references to paper filings in the electronic filings' exhibit indices to require references to all exhibits filed in paper and make changes to Form SE to make it more useful (
We are proposing amendments to Rules 11, 102, 201, and 311 of Regulation S-T and Forms SE and TH under the Securities Act, the Securities Exchange Act, the Public Utility Holding Company Act, the Trust Indenture Act, and the Investment Company Act, and are proposing new Rule 312 under Regulation S-T, pursuant to authority set forth in sections 6, 7, 8, 10 and 19(a) of the Securities Act (15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, and 77s(a)), sections 3, 12, 13, 14, 15(d), 23(a) and 35A of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C.78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a) and 7878ll), sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 20 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (15 U.S.C. 79c, 79e, 79f, 79g, 79j, 79l, 79m, 79n, 79q, and79t), section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act (15 U.S.C. 77sss), and sections 8, 30, 31 and 38 of the Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37).
For purposed of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an investment company is a small entity if it, together with other investment companies in the same group of related investment companies, has net assets of $50 million of less as of the end of its most recent fiscal year.
The proposed amendments would require S/C funds to include in their EDGAR filings identification of their series and classes (contracts). It would also require them to provide information concerning the type of investment company and information about the other party to a merger filing.
The Commission estimates some one-time formatting and on-going burdens that would be imposed on all funds, including funds that are small entities. We note, however, that funds currently must keep track of their series and classes (or contracts) and that the addition of a number assigned to each should create only a de minimus burden. We solicit comment on the effect the proposed amendments would have on small entities.
There are no rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed amendments.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs us to consider significant alternatives that would accomplish our stated objectives, while minimizing any significant adverse impact on small issuers. In connection with the proposed rules and rule and form amendments, the Commission considered the following alternatives: (i) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements that take into account the resources available to small entities; (ii) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the proposed amendments for small entities; (iii) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (iv) an exemption from coverage of the proposed amendments, or any part thereof, for small entities. The proposals would require S/C funds to include in their EDGAR filings identification of their series and classes (contracts). They would also require them to provide information concerning the type of investment company and information about the other party to a merger filing.
The Commission believes at the present time that special compliance or reporting requirements for small entities, or an exemption from coverage for small entities, would not be appropriate or consistent with investor protection. Different requirements for funds that are small entities may create the risk that the shareholders in these funds would not be as able as investors in larger funds to locate Commission filings and disclosure documents. We believe it is important that the benefits resulting from the be provided to investors in all investment companies, not just investors in investment companies that are not considered small entities.
We have endeavored through the proposed amendments to minimize the regulatory burden on all funds, including small entities, while meeting our regulatory objectives. Small entities should benefit form the Commission's reasoned approach to the proposed amendments to the same degree as other investment companies. Further clarification, consolidation, or simplification of the proposals for funds that are small entities would be inconsistent with the Commission's concern for investor protection. Finally, we do not consider using performance rather than design standards to be consistent with our statutory mandate of investor protection.
The Commission encourages the submission of written comments with respect to any aspect of this analysis. Comment is specifically requested on the number of small entities that would be affected by the proposed rules and rule and form amendments and the likely impact of the proposals on small entities. Commenters are asked to describe the nature of any impact and provide empirical data supporting the extent of the impact. These comments will be considered in the preparation of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if the proposed rules and rule and form amendments are adopted, and will be placed in the same public file as comments on the proposed amendments themselves. Comments may be submitted electronically or by paper. Electronic comments may be submitted by: (1) Electronic form on the SEC Web site
The proposed rule amendments would affect two forms that contains “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Form SE (OMB Control Number 3235-0327) is used by electronic filers to submit exhibits in paper to the extent permitted under Rules 201, 202 and 311 of Regulation S-T; Form TH (Control Number 3235-0425) is used by electronic filers to submit paper filings pursuant to a temporary hardship exemption to the extent permitted under Rule 201 under Regulation S-T.
Compliance with the proposed amendments would be mandatory. The information required by the proposed amendments would not be kept confidential. The above forms would not impose a retention period for any recordkeeping requirements.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. We expect that, if adopted, the proposed amendments would obligate applicants to disclose on Forms SE and TH essentially the same information that they are required to disclose today. We therefore believe that the overall information collection burden of Forms SE and TH would remain approximately the same. As a result, we have not submitted the revisions to the collections of information to the Office of Management and Budget for review
We are soliciting comment on the expected Paperwork Reduction Act effects of the proposed rule amendments. In particular, we solicit comment on the accuracy of our estimate that no additional burden would result from the proposed amendments. We further request comment on whether the proposed changes to the collection of information are necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the additional information garnered would have practical utility. In addition, we solicit comment on whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. We further solicit comment on whether there are ways to minimize the burden of information collection on those applicants who file Forms SE and TH, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Finally, we solicit comment on whether the proposed amendments would have any effects on any other collection of information not previously identified in this section.
For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
We request comment on and information regarding the potential impact of the proposed amendments on the economy on an annual basis. In particular, comments should address whether the proposed changes, if adopted, would have a $100,000,000 annual effect on the economy, cause a major increase in costs or prices, or have a significant adverse effect on competition, investment, or innovation. We request commenters to empirical data to support their views.
We propose the rule amendments outlined above under sections 6, 7, 8, 10 and 19(a) of the Securities Act, sections 3, 12, 13, 14, 15(d), 23(a) and 35A of the Exchange Act, sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 20 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act, section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act, and sections 8, 30, 31 and 38 of the Investment Company Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Brokers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Electric utilities, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Securities, Trusts and trustees.
Confidential business information, Investment companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Investment companies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
In accordance with the foregoing, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows.
1. The authority citation for Part 232 continues to read in part as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll(d), 79t(a), 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30 and 80a-37.
2. Amend § 232.11 by revising the definition of “official filing” to read as follows:
3. Amend § 232.101 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (c)(7) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Documents filed with the Commission pursuant to sections 8, 17, 20, 23(c), 24(b), 24(e), 24(f), 30, and 33 of the Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-17, 80a-20, 80a-23(c), 80a-24(b), 80a-24(e), 80a-24(f), 80a-29, and 80a-32);
(c) * * *
(7) Promotional and sales material submitted pursuant to Securities Act Industry Guide 5 (§ 229.801(e) of this chapter) or otherwise supplementally furnished for review by the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance;
4. Amend § 232.102 by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
(d) Each electronic filing requiring exhibits must include an exhibit index which must immediately precede the exhibits filed with the document. The index must list each exhibit filed, whether filed electronically or in paper. Whenever a filer files an exhibit in paper pursuant to a temporary or continuing hardship exemption (§ 232.201 or § 232.202) or pursuant to rule 311 (§ 232.311), the filer must place the letter “P” next to the listed exhibit in the exhibit index of the electronic filing to reflect the fact that the filer filed the exhibit in paper. In addition, if the exhibit is filed in paper pursuant to rule 311 (§ 232.311), the filer must place the designation “Rule 311” next to the letter “P” in the exhibit index. If the exhibit is filed in paper pursuant to a temporary or continuing hardship exemption, the filer must place the letters “TH” or “CH,” respectively, next to the letter “P” in the exhibit index. Whenever an electronic confirming copy of an exhibit is filed pursuant to a hardship exemption (§ 232.201 or
(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, any incorporation by reference by a registered investment company or a business development company must relate only to documents that have been filed in electronic format on the EDGAR system, unless the document has been filed in paper under a hardship exemption (§ 232.201 or § 232.202) and any required confirming electronic copy has been submitted.
5. Amend § 232.201 by revising paragraph (a)(1), revising the note heading following paragraph (a)(4), and revising Note 1 to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) An electronic imaged copy of the paper format document shall be the official filing for purposes of the federal securities laws.
1. Where a temporary hardship exemption relates to an exhibit only, the filer must file the paper format exhibit and a Form TH (§§ 239.65, 249.447, 259.604, 269.10 and 274.404 of this chapter) under cover of Form SE (§§ 239.64, 249.444, 259.603, 269.8, and 274.403 of this chapter).
6. Amend § 232.311 by revising paragraph (h)(1) to read as follows:
(h) * * *
(1) If the subject of a temporary hardship exemption is an exhibit only, the filer must file the exhibit and a Form TH (§§ 239.65, 249.447, 259.604, 269.10 and 274.404 of this chapter) under cover of Form SE (§§ 239.64, 249.444, 259.603, 269.8, and 274.403 of this chapter) no later than one business day after the date the exhibit was to be filed electronically.
7. Section 232.312 is added to read as follows:
(a) Registered investment companies and business development companies must indicate their investment company type, based on whether the registrant's last effective registration statement or amendment was filed on Form N-1A (§§ 239.15A and 274.11A of this chapter), Form N-2 (§§ 239.14 and 274.11a-1 of this chapter), Form N-3 (§§ 239.17A and 274.11b of this chapter), Form N-4 (§§ 239.17b and 274.11c of this chapter), Form N-5(§§ 239.24 and 274.5 of this chapter), Form N-6 (§§ 239.17c and 274.11d of this chapter), Form S-1 (§ 239.11 of this chapter), Form S-3 (§ 239.13 of this chapter), or Form S-6 (§ 239.16 of this chapter) in those EDGAR submissions identified in the EDGAR Filer Manual.
(b) Registered investment companies whose last effective registration statement or amendment was filed on Form N-1A (§§ 239.15A and 274.11A of this chapter), Form N-3 (§§ 239.17A and 274.11b of this chapter), Form N-4 (§§ 239.17b and 274.11c of this chapter), or Form N-6 (§§ 239.17c and 274.11d of this chapter) must, under the procedures set forth in the EDGAR Filer Manual:
(1) Provide electronically, and keep current, information concerning their existing and new series and/or classes (or contracts, in the case of separate accounts), including series and/or class name and ticker symbol, if any, and be issued series and/or class (or contract) identification numbers;
(2) Deactivate for EDGAR purposes any series and/or class (or contract, in the case of separate accounts) that are no longer offered, go out of existence, or deregister following the last filing for that series and/or class (or contract, in the case of separate accounts), but the registrant must not deactivate the last remaining series unless the registrant deregisters; and
(3) For those EDGAR submissions identified in the EDGAR Filer Manual, include all series and/or class (or contract) identifiers of each series and/or class (or contract) on behalf of which the filing is made.
(c) Registered investment companies whose last effective registration statement or amendment was filed on Form N-1A (§§ 239.15A and 274.11A of this chapter), Form N-3 (§§ 239.17A and 274.11b of this chapter), Form N-4 (§§ 239.17b and 274.11c of this chapter), or Form N-6 (§§ 239.17c and 274.11d of this chapter) must provide electronically, as specified in the EDGAR Filer Manual, in the EDGAR submission identifying information concerning the acquiring fund and the target fund (and the series and/or classes(es), if any, of each if in existence at the time of the filing) in connection with merger filings on Form N-14 (§ 239.23 of this chapter), under Securities Act rule 425 (§ 230.425 of this chapter), and in compliance with Regulation 14A (§ 240.14a-1 of this chapter), Schedule 14A (§ 240.14a-101 of this chapter), and all other applicable rules and regulations adopted pursuant to section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, as referenced in Investment Company Act rule 20a-1 (§ 270.20a-1 of this chapter).
(d) Non-registrant third party filers making proxy filings with respect to investment companies must designate in the EDGAR submission the type of investment company (as referenced in paragraph (a) of this section) and include series and/or class (or contract) identifiers in designated EDGAR proxy submission types, in accordance with the EDGAR Filer Manual.
8. The authority citation for Part 239 continues to read in part as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77sss, 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78u-5, 78w(a), 78ll(d), 79e, 79f, 79g, 79j, 79l, 79m, 79n, 79q, 79t, 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-26, 80a-29, 80a-30 and 80a-37, unless otherwise noted.
9. The authority citation for Part 249 continues to read in part as follows:
15 U.S.C. 78a
10. The authority citation for Part 259 continues to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 79e, 79f, 79g, 79j, 79l, 79m, 79n, 79q, 79t.
11. The authority citation for Part 269 continues to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77ddd(c), 77eee, 77ggg, 77hhh, 77iii, 77jjj, 77sss, 78ll(d), unless otherwise noted.
12. The authority citation for Part 270 continues to read in part as follows:
15 U.S.C. 80a-1
13. Section 270.24b-2 is revised to read as follows:
Copies of material filed with the Commission for the sole purpose of complying with section 24(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-24(b)) either shall be accompanied by a letter of transmittal which makes appropriate references to said section or shall make such appropriate reference on the face of the material.
14. The authority citation for Part 274 continues to read in part as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-26, and 80a-29, unless otherwise noted.
15. Revise Form SE (referenced in §§ 239.64, 249.444, 259.603, 269.8 and 274.403) to read as follows:
of which the documents are a part
if available
S-
C-
Identify the provision of Regulation S-T (§ 232 of this chapter) under which this exhibit is being filed in paper (check only one):
Rule 201 (Temporary Hardship Exemption)
Rule 202 (Continuing Hardship Exemption)
Rule 311 (Permitted Paper Exhibit)
Filings Made by the Registrant:
The registrant has duly caused this form to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, duly authorized, in the City of ________, State of ______, on ____ 20 ____.
By:
A. Electronic filers must use this form to submit any paper format exhibit under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, or the Investment Company Act of 1940,
B. Electronic filers are subject to Regulation S-T (Part 232 of this chapter) and the EDGAR Filer Manual. We direct your attention to the General Rules and Regulations under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the Investment Company Act of 1940, and the electronic filing rules and regulations under these Acts.
Submit in paper format four complete copies of both the Form SE and the exhibit filed under cover of the Form SE.
A. If you are filing the exhibit under a temporary hardship exemption, submit the exhibit and a Form TH (§§ 239.65, 249.447, 259.604, 269.10 and 274.404 of this chapter) under cover of this Form SE no later than one business day after the date on which the exhibit was to have been filed electronically. See Rule 201 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.201 of this chapter).
B. If you are filing the exhibit under a continuing hardship exemption under Rule 202 of Regulation S-T, or as allowed by Rule 311 of Regulation S-T, you may file the exhibit in paper under cover of Form SE up to six business days before or on the date of filing of the electronic format document to which it relates; you may not file the exhibit after the filing date of the electronic document to which it relates. Exhibits filed under a continuing hardship exemption must include the legend required by Rule 202(c). If you submit the paper exhibit in this manner, you will have satisfied any requirements that you file the exhibit with, provide the document with, or have the document accompany the electronic filing. This instruction does not affect any requirement that you deliver or furnish the information in the exhibit to persons other than the Commission.
C. Identify the exhibit being filed. Attach to the Form SE the paper format exhibit and an exhibit index if required by Item 601 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.601 of this chapter).
A. Submit one copy signed by each person on whose behalf you are submitting the form or by that person's authorized representative. If the form is signed by the authorized representative of a person (other than an executive officer or general partner), file with the form the evidence of the authority of the representative to sign on behalf of such person, except that you may incorporate by reference a power of attorney for this purpose that is already on file with the Commission.
B. Signatures may be in typed form rather than manual format.
16. Revise Form TH (referenced in §§ 239.65, 249.447, 259.604, 269.10 and 274.404 of this chapter) to read as follows:
S-
C-
Furnish the following information:
1. A description of the nature and extent of the temporary technical difficulties experienced by the electronic filer in attempting to submit the document in electronic format.
2. A description of the extent to which the electronic filer has successfully submitted documents previously in electronic format with the same hardware and software, in test of required filings.
3. A description of the burden and expense involved to employ alternative means to submit the electronic submission in a timely manner.
Any other reasons an exemption is warranted.
The filer shall include a representation that it shall cause to be filed a confirming electronic copy of the document file in paper under cover of the Form TH and that its filing will be in accordance with Rule 201(b) of Regulation S-T ( 232.201(b)) and appropriately designated as a “confirming electronic copy” in accordance with the requirements of the EDGAR Filer Manual.
Name, telephone number, and e-mail address of person to contact in regard to this filing under Form TH:
1. Rule 201(a) of Regulation S-T requires an electronic filer relying on a temporary hardship exemption to file this Form TH in addition to filing a paper copy of a document otherwise required to be filed in electronic format.
2. Four signed copies of this Form TH must accompany the paper format document being filed pursuant to Rule 201; filers must file under Form TH within one business day after the date upon which the filer was originally to file the document electronically.
3. Signatures to the paper format document being filed with Form TH may be in typed form rather than in manual format. See Rule 302 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.302 of this chapter). Filers must satisfy all other requirements relating to paper format filings, including number of copies to be filed.
By the Commission.