Forest Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Customs and Border Protection Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for Raytheon Aircraft Company Model MU-300 airplanes modified by ARINC, Inc. These airplanes will have novel and unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The modification incorporates the installation of a Thommen AD32 Air Data Display Unit (ADDU) which incorporates a Digital Air Data Computer and Altimeter. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the protection of these systems from the effects of high-intensity-radiated fields (HIRF). 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 October 1, 2004. Comments must be received on or before November 12, 2004.
Comments on these special conditions may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM290, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98055-4056; or delivered in duplicate to the Transport Airplane Directorate at the above address. Comments must be marked: Docket No. NM290. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Greg Dunn, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2799; facsimile (425) 227-1149.
The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon is unnecessary as 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; however, we invite interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. 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 these special conditions. 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
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. We may change these special conditions in light of the comments received.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on these special conditions, 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 back to you.
On March 1, 2004, ARINC Inc., 1632 South Murray Blvd. Colorado Springs, CO 80916 applied for a supplemental type certificate (STC) to modify Raytheon Aircraft Company Models MU-300 (Diamond I and IA) airplanes. The Raytheon MU-300 airplanes are small transport category airplanes powered by two turbojet engines, with maximum takeoff weights of up to 14,630 pounds. These airplanes operate with a 2-pilot crew and can seat up to 9 passengers. The proposed modification incorporates the installation of a Dual Thommen AD-32 Air Data Display Units. The information this equipment presents is flight critical. The avionics/electronics and electrical systems to be installed on these airplanes have the potential to be vulnerable to high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF) external to the airplane.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, ARINC Inc. must show that the Raytheon Aircraft Company Model MU-300 airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A14SW, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.”
The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A14SW include 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-40; §§ 25.1351(d), 25.1353(c)(5), and 25.1450, as amended by Amendment 25-41; §§ 25.1353(c)(6), and 25.255, as amended by Amendment 25-42; § 25.361(b) as amended by Amendment 25-46; and 14 CFR part 36 as amended by Amendment 36-1 through 36-12.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Raytheon Model MU-300 airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
Special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38, and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should ARINC Inc. apply at a later date for supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101.
The modified Model MU-300 airplanes will incorporate avionics/electrical systems that will perform critical functions. These systems may be vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane.
There is no specific regulation that addresses protection requirements for electrical and electronic systems from HIRF. Increased power levels from ground-based radio transmitters and the growing use of sensitive avionics/electrical and electronic systems to command and control airplanes have made it necessary to provide adequate protection.
To ensure that a level of safety is achieved equivalent to that intended by the regulations incorporated by reference, special conditions are needed for the Model MU-300 airplanes. These special conditions require that new avionics/electronics and electrical systems that perform critical functions be designed and installed to preclude component damage and interruption of function due to both the direct and indirect effects of HIRF.
With the trend toward increased power levels from ground-based transmitters, plus the advent of space and satellite communications, coupled with electronic command and control of the airplane, the immunity of critical digital avionics/electronics and electrical systems to HIRF must be established.
It is not possible to precisely define the HIRF to which the airplane will be exposed in service. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling of electromagnetic energy to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined. Based on surveys and analysis of existing HIRF emitters, an adequate level of protection exists when compliance is shown with either HIRF protection special condition paragraph 1 or 2 below:
1. A minimum threat of 100 volts rms (root-mean-square) per meter electric field strength from 10 KHz to 18 GHz.
a. The threat must be applied to the system elements and their associated wiring harnesses without the benefit of airframe shielding.
b. Demonstration of this level of protection is established through system tests and analysis.
2. A threat external to the airframe of the field strengths indicated in the following table for the frequency ranges indicated. Both peak and average field strength components from the table are to be demonstrated.
The threat levels identified above are the result of an FAA review of existing studies on the subject of HIRF, in light of the ongoing work of the Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization Working Group of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Raytheon Aircraft Company Model MU-300 airplanes. Should ARINC, Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Raytheon Aircraft Company Model MU-300 airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplanes.
The substance of the special conditions for these airplanes has been subjected to the notice and comment procedure in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. Because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions immediately. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the supplemental type certification basis for Raytheon Aircraft Company Model MU-300 airplanes modified ARINC Inc.
1.
2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for Raytheon Aircraft Company Model MU-300-10 and 400 airplanes modified by ARINC Inc. These airplanes will have novel and unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The proposed modification incorporates the installation of a Dual Thommen AD-32 Air Data Display Units. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the protection of these systems from the effects of high-intensity-radiated fields (HIRF). 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 November 12, 2004. Comments must be received on or before November 12, 2004.
Comments on these special conditions may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM291, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98055-4056; or delivered in duplicate to the Transport Airplane Directorate at the above address. Comments must be marked: Docket No. NM291. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Greg Dunn, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2799; facsimile (425) 227-1149.
The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon is unnecessary as 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; however, we invite interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. 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 these special conditions. 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
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. We may change these special conditions in light of the comments received.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on these special conditions, 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 back to you.
On March 1, 2004, ARINC Inc., 1632 South Murray Blvd. Colorado Springs, CO 80916, applied for a supplemental type certificate (STC) to modify Raytheon Aircraft Company Models MU-300-10 (Diamond II) and 400 (Beechjet) airplanes. The Raytheon airplanes are small transport category airplanes powered by two turbojet engines, with maximum takeoff weights of up to 15,780 pounds. These airplanes operate with a 2-pilot crew and can seat up to 9 passengers. The proposed modification incorporates the installation of a Dual Thommen AD-32 Air Data Display Units. The information this equipment presents is flight critical. The avionics/electronics and electrical systems to be installed on these airplanes have the potential to be vulnerable to high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF) external to the airplane.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, ARINC Inc. must show that the Raytheon Aircraft Company Model MU-300-10 and 400 airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A16SW, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.”
The regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A16SW include 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-40; § 25.1351(d), 25.1353(c)(5), and 25.1450 as amended by Amendment 25-41; §§ 25.29, 25.255, and 25.1353(c)(6) as amended by Amendment 25-42; § 25.361(b) as amended by Amendment 25-46; and 14 CFR part 36 as amended by Amendment 36-1 through 36-12.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., part 25, as amended) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for modified Model MU-300-10 and 400 airplanes, because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Raytheon Model MU-300-10 and 400 airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
Special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38, and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should ARINC Inc. apply at a later date for supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101.
The modified Model MU-300-10 and 400 airplanes will incorporate avionics/electrical systems that will perform critical functions. These systems may be vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane.
There is no specific regulation that addresses protection requirements for electrical and electronic systems from HIRF. Increased power levels from ground-based radio transmitters and the growing use of sensitive avionics/electrical and electronic systems to command and control airplanes have made it necessary to provide adequate protection.
To ensure that a level of safety is achieved equivalent to that intended by the regulations incorporated by reference, special conditions are needed for the Model MU-300-10 and 400 airplanes. These special conditions require that new avionics/electronics and electrical systems that perform critical functions be designed and installed to preclude component damage and interruption of function due to both the direct and indirect effects of HIRF.
With the trend toward increased power levels from ground-based transmitters, plus the advent of space and satellite communications, coupled with electronic command and control of the airplane, the immunity of critical digital avionics/electronics and electrical systems to HIRF must be established.
It is not possible to precisely define the HIRF to which the airplane will be exposed in service. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling of electromagnetic energy to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined. Based on surveys and analysis of existing HIRF emitters, an adequate level of protection exists when compliance is shown with either HIRF protection special condition paragraph 1 or 2 below:
1. A minimum threat of 100 volts rms (root-mean-square) per meter electric field strength from 10 KHz to 18 GHz.
a. The threat must be applied to the system elements and their associated wiring harnesses without the benefit of airframe shielding.
b. Demonstration of this level of protection is established through system tests and analysis.
2. A threat external to the airframe of the field strengths indicated in the following table for the frequency ranges indicated. Both peak and average field strength components from the table are to be demonstrated.
The threat levels identified above are the result of an FAA review of existing studies on the subject of HIRF, in light of the ongoing work of the Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization Working Group of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Raytheon Aircraft Company Model MU-300-10 and 400 airplanes. Should ARINC Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Raytheon Aircraft Company Model MU-300-10 and 400 airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplanes.
The substance of the special conditions for these airplanes has been subjected to the notice and comment procedure in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. Because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions immediately. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the supplemental type certification basis for Raytheon Aircraft Company Model MU-300-10 and 400 airplanes modified by ARINC Inc.
1.
2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies:
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, A300 B4-600R, A300 F4-600R series airplanes, and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600); and Model A310 series airplanes. This amendment requires a detailed inspection of certain pulleys and control cables in the rear fuselage for corrosion and damage; and corrective action, if necessary. This action is necessary to detect and correct frayed or corroded control cables for the elevator and rudder, which could result in a ruptured control cable, and possible reduced controllability of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective November 17, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 17, 2004.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Airbus Model A300 B2 and A300 B4; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, C4-605R Variant F, and F4-600R (collectively called A300-600); and Model A310 series airplanes; was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the single comment received.
One commenter requests that we revise the proposed AD to give credit for actions done previously according to the original issue of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27A0197, including Appendix 01, dated August 8, 2002. (The proposed AD refers to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27A0197, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated February 26, 2003; as the appropriate source of service information for doing the proposed actions on Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes.) The commenter notes that the Accomplishment Instructions in Revision 01 of the service bulletin are unchanged from those in the original issue of the service bulletin.
We concur. We have reviewed the original issue of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27A0197 and concur that the Accomplishment Instructions are the same as those in Revision 01. We have added a new paragraph (c) to this final rule (and re-identified subsequent paragraphs accordingly) to give credit for actions done per the original issue of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27A0197.
We have revised the applicability statement of this final rule to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models.
After careful review of the available data, including the comment noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes described previously. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
We consider this AD interim action. If final action is later identified, we may consider further rulemaking then.
We estimate that 174 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, and that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection. The average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $11,310, or $65 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
To detect and correct frayed or corroded control cables for the elevator and rudder, which could result in a ruptured control cable, and possible reduced controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of the following service bulletins, as applicable:
(1) For Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27A0197, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated February 26, 2003;
(2) For Model A300 B4-600, A300 B4-600R, A300 F4-600R series airplanes; and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600): Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27A6051, including Appendix 01, dated August 8, 2002; and
(3) For Model A310 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A310-27A2098, including Appendix 01, dated August 8, 2002.
(b) In this AD, the phrase “date of airworthiness certification” means the date of issuance of the original Airworthiness Certificate or the original Export Certificate of Airworthiness, whichever occurs first.
(c) For Model A300 B2 and A300 B4 series airplanes: Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD according to Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27A0197, including Appendix 01, dated August 8, 2002; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by this AD.
(d) At the applicable time in paragraph (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), or (d)(4) of this AD, do a detailed inspection for corrosion and damage (
(1) For airplanes that have accumulated, as of the effective date of this AD, less than 20,000 total flight hours and less than 10 years since the date of airworthiness certification: Inspect at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight hours, or within 10 years since the date of airworthiness certification, whichever occurs earliest.
(ii) Within 1,800 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes that have accumulated, as of the effective date of this AD, either 20,000 or more total flight hours or more than 10 years since the date of airworthiness certification, but less than 25,000 total flight hours and 13 years since the date of airworthiness certification: Inspect at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 25,000 total flight hours, or within 13 years since the date of airworthiness certification, whichever occurs earliest.
(ii) Within 1,800 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.
(3) For airplanes that have accumulated, as of the effective date of this AD, either 25,000 or more total flight hours or more than 13 years since the date of airworthiness certification, but less than 30,000 total flight hours and 16 years since the date of airworthiness certification: Inspect at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (d)(3)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 total flight hours, or within 16 years since the date of airworthiness certification, whichever occurs earliest.
(ii) Within 1,200 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.
(4) For airplanes that have accumulated, as of the effective date of this AD, either 30,000 or more total flight hours or more than 16 years since the date of airworthiness certification: Inspect within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”
(e) Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspection required by paragraph (d) of this AD to Airbus, Customer Services Directorate, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; Attn: AI/SE-D32 Technical Data and Documentation Services, or fax: (+33) 5 61 93 28 06. Send the report at the applicable time specified in paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD. The Inspection Record Sheet in Appendix 01 of the applicable service bulletin may be used. Include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancy found, the airplane serial number, the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane, the service bulletin number, and the date of inspection. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) If the inspection is done after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done prior to the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the effective date of this AD.
(f) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
(g) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions must be done in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27A0197, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated February 26, 2003; Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27A6051, including Appendix 01, dated August 8, 2002; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-27A2098, including Appendix 01, dated August 8, 2002; as applicable. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
The subject of this AD is addressed in French airworthiness directive 2002-608(B) R1, dated January 8, 2003.
(h) This amendment becomes effective on November 17, 2004.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes; and certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes; and Model C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called A300-600). This AD requires an inspection of the skin panels of the wing slats for damage and certain repairs, and applicable related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. This AD is prompted by the results of an engineering evaluation that revealed that several repairs and some allowable damage limits specified in the structural repair manuals do not provide adequate static and/or fatigue strength for repaired wing slats. We are issuing this AD to find and fix previously done repairs of the wing slats that have inadequate static and/or fatigue strength, which, if not corrected, could result in loss of the slats and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
This AD becomes effective November 17, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 17, 2004.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. You can examine this information at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
You can examine the contents of this AD docket on the Internet at
The AD docket contains the proposed AD, comments, and any final disposition. You can examine the AD docket on the Internet at
The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an AD for all Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes; and certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, C4-605R Variant F, and F4-600R (collectively called A300-600) series airplanes. The proposed AD was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been submitted on the proposed AD or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
We have revised the applicability of the existing AD to identify model designations as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models.
This AD will affect about 120 airplanes of U.S. registry. The actions will take about 3 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $23,400, or $195 per airplane.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November 17, 2004.
(b) None.
(c) This AD applies to all airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in in Table 1 of this AD.
(d) This AD was prompted by the results of an engineering evaluation that revealed that several repairs and some allowable damage limits specified in the structural repair manuals do not provide adequate static and/or fatigue strength for repaired wing slats. We are issuing this AD to find and fix previously done repairs of the wing slats that have inadequate static and/or fatigue strength, which, if not corrected, could result in loss of the slats and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
(e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done.
(f) The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service bulletin listed in Table 2 of this AD.
(g) Within 18 months or 1,500 flight cycles from the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a detailed inspection of the skin panels of the wing slats for damage and certain repairs, and do all applicable related investigative/corrective actions, by accomplishing all the actions in the applicable service bulletin. Do the actions in accordance with the service bulletin, except as required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD. Do any related investigative/corrective action before further flight.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is “an intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”
(h) If any damage is detected during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, and the service bulletin recommends contacting Airbus for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; or the Direction Ge
(i) If any repair that has a specific Airbus approval other than a Repair Approval Sheet signed by the DGAC (or its delegated agent) is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, and the service bulletin specifies that the related investigative action is not necessary: Before further flight, do the applicable related investigative/corrective actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(j) Where there are differences between this AD and the service bulletin, the AD prevails.
(k) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(l) French airworthiness directive 2003-086(B), effective March 15, 2003, also addresses the subject of this AD.
(m) You must use Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0238, Revision 02, dated November 21, 2002; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6092, Revision 02, dated November 21, 2002; as applicable; unless the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. For copies of the service information, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. For information on the availability of this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), call (202) 741-6030, or go to
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and EMB-145 series airplanes, that requires inspection of the housings of the main landing gear (MLG) leg strut bushings, and related investigative and corrective actions, and other specified actions. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent corrosion of the housings of the MLG leg strut bushings and consequent failure of the MLG. This action is
Effective November 17, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 17, 2004.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer; International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 and EMB-145 series airplanes was published as a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
We estimate that 75 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this proposed AD.
It will take approximately 14 work hours per airplane to accomplish the inspection of the bushing housings for corrosion, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $68,250, or $910 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
To prevent corrosion of the housings of the main landing gear (MLG) leg strut bushings and consequent failure of the MLG, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 5,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, perform a detailed inspection of the housings of the MLG leg strut bushings for corrosion per the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0066, Change 03, dated April 19, 2004.
(1) If no corrosion is found, before further flight, do all applicable actions in and per the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(2) If any corrosion is found, before further flight, do all applicable investigative and corrective actions in and per the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”
EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0066, Change 03, dated April 19, 2004, refers to Embraer Liebherr Equipamentos do Brasil S.A. (ELEB) Service Bulletin 2309-2006-32-01, Revision 03, dated April 19, 2004, as an additional source of service information for the inspection and repair of the MLG leg strut bushings. The ELEB service bulletin is included within the EMBRAER service bulletin.
(b) Inspections and related investigative and corrective actions, accomplished before the effective date of this AD per EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0066, dated January 8, 2002; Change 01, dated August 15, 2002;
(c) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
(d) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions must be done in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-32-0066, Change 03, dated April 19, 2004. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
(e) This amendment becomes effective on November 17, 2004.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all Dornier Model 328-100 series airplanes, that currently requires certain revisions to the airplane flight manual, replacement of certain de-icing boots in the air intake duct assemblies of the engine with re-designed units, repetitive inspections of the boots to find discrepancies, and corrective action if necessary. This amendment also requires modification of the engine air inlet de-icing system. This action extends the repetitive inspection interval required by the existing AD, and adds repetitive debonding/delamination and leakage inspections of the de-icing boots, and corrective action if necessary. Initiation of the extended repetitive inspections and new repetitive inspections ends the repetitive inspections required by the existing AD. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent engine malfunction due to failure of the engine air inlet de-icing system, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective November 17, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications, as listed in the regulations, is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 17, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of certain other publications, as listed in the regulations, was approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 6, 1995 (60 FR 15037, March 22, 1995).
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from AvCraft Aerospace GmbH, P.O. Box 1103, D-82230 Wessling, Germany. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Tom Groves, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1503; fax (425) 227-1149.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 95-04-51, amendment 39-9179 (60 FR 15037, March 22, 1995), which is applicable to all Dornier Model 328-100 series airplanes, was published in the
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. No comments have been submitted in response to the proposed AD or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the AD as proposed.
We have updated the definition of the detailed inspection in Note 1 of the AD to reflect our current definition.
There are about 53 airplanes of U.S. registry that will be affected by this AD.
The AFM revision currently required by AD 95-04-51 takes about 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required AFM revision is estimated to be $65 per airplane.
The inspections currently required by AD 95-04-51 take about 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required inspections is estimated to be $65 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The replacement currently required by AD 95-04-51 takes about 5 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $55,000 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required replacement is estimated to be $55,325 per airplane.
The modification required in this AD action will take about 10 work hours per
The inspection/debonding/delamination and leakage inspection required in this AD action will take about 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,445, or $65 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption “
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
To prevent engine malfunction due to failure of the engine air inlet de-icing system, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) For all airplanes: Within 24 hours after April 6, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95-04-51, amendment 39-9179), accomplish paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this AD.
(1) Revise the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) by inserting the following limitation in the AFM. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.
“During flight, if the ‘ENG DEICE FAIL’ electronic indication and caution advisory system (EICAS) annunciation activates for either engine, flight into known or forecast icing conditions is prohibited.”
(2) Revise the Abnormal Procedures Section of the FAA-approved AFM by removing page 4, dated September 1, 1994, of section 04-12-00, and replacing it with the following. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.
“1. Icing Conditions—Exit immediately. If unable, land at nearest suitable airport.”
(3) Revise the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved AFM to include the following functional test. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM. Continue to do the functional test until the AFM revision required by paragraph (e) of this AD is done.
“Accomplish the following test at the applicable time specified as follows:
For airplanes equipped with air intake duct assemblies having de-icing boots with part numbers (P/Ns) 29S-5D5240-21, -23, and -25: As of 24 hours after the effective date of AD 95-04-51, accomplish the functional test prior to each flight.
For airplanes equipped with air intake duct assemblies having de-icing boots with P/Ns 29S-5D5240-211 (inlet lip), -231 (bypass duct), and -251 (aft ramp duct): Accomplish the functional test within 24 hours after the effective date of AD 95-04-51, and thereafter at daily intervals.
Perform a functional test of the de-icing system of the air intake ducts of the left and right engines to determine the condition of the system, in accordance with the procedures specified below. Flight crew or maintenance personnel shall perform this test.
With engines running at idle power, display and monitor the ‘ICE PROTECT’ system page of the electronic indication and caution advisory system (EICAS), select left and right ‘ENGINE INTAKE’ pushbuttons in (‘ON’), for a minimum of 60 seconds. Monitor system page for normal indications of one complete boot inflation and deflation cycle. Monitor EICAS for normal messages, and absence of ‘ENG DEICE FAIL’ caution.
After 60 seconds and observation of one complete inflation/deflation cycle, release ‘ENGINE INTAKE’ pushbuttons to out (‘OFF’) position, confirm absence of system page and EICAS cautions, and deselect ‘ICE PROTECT’ system page. At completion of check, ‘ENGINE INTAKE’ pushbuttons may be turned back on if required for departure.
If any EICAS ‘ENG DEICE FAIL’ annunciation is observed, or if system normal inflate and deflate cycling is not observed: The system shall be considered inoperative. Prior to further flight, the detailed visual and tactile inspections required by paragraph (b) of AD 95-04-51 must be accomplished.
If no discrepancy with the de-icing boots is found during these inspections, the de-icing system may be inoperative for a period of time not to exceed that specified in the DO-328 Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL). Flight into known or forecast icing conditions is prohibited.”
(b) For airplanes equipped with air intake duct assemblies having de-icing boots with part numbers (P/N) 29S-5D5240-21, -23, and -25: Accomplish paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD at the times specified in those paragraphs.
(1) Within 24 hours after April 6, 1995: Perform a detailed inspection and a tactile inspection of the de-icing boots in the air intake ducts on the engines to find flat spots, softness, or other discrepancies, and to ensure that the edges of the de-icing boots are sealed properly, in accordance with Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-30-020, dated March 17, 1994.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate.
(i) If no discrepancies are found and the edges of the de-icing boots are sealed properly (no debonding between the boot and the intake duct), repeat the detailed and tactile inspections required by paragraph (b)(1) of this AD thereafter at daily intervals until accomplishment of the modification required by paragraph (f) of this AD.
(ii) If any discrepancy is found, or if any edge of a de-icing boot is sealed improperly (debonding between the boots and the intake duct), prior to further flight, replace all three de-icing boots having P/Ns 29S-5D5240-21, -23, and -25, with three new units having P/Ns 29S-5D5240-211, -231, and -251, in accordance with the procedures specified in Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB-328-71-006, Revision 1, dated February 16, 1995.
(2) Within 5 days after April 6, 1995, replace all three de-icing boots having P/Ns 29S-5D5240-21, -23, and -25, with three new units having P/Ns 29S-5D5240-211, -231, and -251, in accordance with Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB-328-71-006, Revision 1, dated February 16, 1995. Following such replacement, perform the detailed and tactile inspections and the functional tests required by paragraphs (c) and (e) of this AD, respectively, in accordance with the times and procedures specified in those paragraphs.
(c) For airplanes equipped with air intake duct assemblies having de-icing boots with P/Ns 29S-5D5240-211, -231, and -251: Within 7 days after April 6, 1995, perform a detailed inspection and a tactile inspection of the de-icing boots in the air intake ducts on the engines to find flat spots, softness, or other discrepancies, and to ensure that the edges of the de-icing boots are sealed properly, in accordance with the procedures specified in Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-30-020, dated March 17, 1994.
(1) If no discrepancies are found and the edges of the de-icing boots are sealed properly (no debonding between the boot and the intake duct): Repeat the detailed and tactile inspections required by paragraph (c) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7 days until accomplishment of the modification required by paragraph (f) of this AD.
(2) If any discrepancy is found, or if any edge of a de-icing boot is sealed improperly (debonding between the boots and the intake duct): Prior to further flight, replace all three de-icing boots with three new units having P/Ns 29S-5D5240-211, -231, and -251, in accordance with Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB-328-71-006, Revision 1, dated February 16, 1995.
(d) As of April 6, 1995, no de-icing boot having P/N 29S-5D5240-21, -23, or -25 shall be installed on any airplane.
(e) Within 24 hours after the effective date of this AD: Revise the Limitations Section of the AFM to include the following functional test. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. Accomplishment of this paragraph ends the requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this AD, and the AFM revision required by that paragraph may be removed from the AFM.
“Accomplish the following test within 24 hours after the effective date of this AD. Repeat the test thereafter at daily intervals.
Perform a functional test of the de-icing system of the air intake ducts of the left and right engines to determine the condition of the system, in accordance with the procedures specified below. Flight crew or maintenance personnel shall perform this test.
With engines running at idle power, display and monitor the ‘ICE PROTECT’ system page of the electronic indication and caution advisory system (EICAS), select left and right ‘ENGINE INTAKE’ pushbuttons in (‘ON’), for a minimum of 60 seconds. Monitor system page for normal indications of one complete boot inflation and deflation cycle. Monitor EICAS for normal messages, and absence of ‘ENG DEICE FAIL’ caution.
After 60 seconds and observation of one complete inflation/deflation cycle, release ‘ENGINE INTAKE’ pushbuttons to out (‘OFF’) position, confirm absence of system page and EICAS cautions, and deselect “ICE PROTECT’ system page. At completion of check, “ENGINE INTAKE’ pushbuttons may be turned back on if required for departure.
If any EICAS ‘ENG DEICE FAIL’ annunciation is observed, or if system normal inflate and deflate cycling is not observed: The system shall be considered inoperative. Prior to further flight, the detailed inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD must be accomplished.
If no discrepancy with the de-icing boots is found during these inspections, the de-icing system may be inoperative for a period of time not to exceed that specified in the DO-328 Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL). Flight into known or forecast icing conditions is prohibited.”
(f) Within 60 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Modify the engine air inlet de-icing system (including a one-time detailed inspection and a debonding/delamination and leakage inspection) by doing all the actions (including any applicable corrective action) per the Accomplishment Instructions of Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-71-125, Revision 3; and by doing all the actions per the Accomplishment Instructions of Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-71-122, Revision 1; both dated May 10, 1999. Do any applicable corrective action before further flight per the applicable service bulletin.
The de-icing boots approved for installation on the modified engine inlet assembly are specified in paragraph 3., “Material Information,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-30-432, dated April 26, 2002.
Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-71-122, Revision 1, dated May 10, 1999, references Westland Aerospace Limited Service Bulletin SB-WAL328-71-122, dated September 25, 1995, as an additional source of service information for modification of the air intake ducts; and Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-71-125, Revision 3, dated May 10, 1999, references Westland Aerospace Limited Service Bulletin SB-WAL328-71-125, Revision 1, dated September 25, 1995, as an additional source of service information for installation of the cover plate of the bypass duct outlet.
(g) Within 60 flight hours after accomplishment of paragraph (f) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the engine air inlet de-icing boots to find discrepancies (including flat or soft spots in concave sections, defects on the de-icing boots, or improper sealing), per paragraph 2.B.1. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-30-432, dated April 26, 2002. Do any applicable corrective action before further flight per the service bulletin. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 60 flight hours.
(h) Within 400 flight hours after accomplishment of paragraph (f) of this AD: Do a debonding/delamination and leakage inspection of the engine air inlet de-icing boots by doing all the applicable actions per the Accomplishment Instructions of Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-30-432, dated April 26, 2002. Do any applicable corrective action before further flight per the service bulletin. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 400 flight hours.
(i) Initiation of the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this AD.
(j) Where Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-30-432, dated April 26, 2002, describes procedures for completing a reporting sheet with inspection results, this AD does not require that action.
(k)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
(2) Alternative methods of compliance, approved previously in accordance with AD 95-04-51, amendment 39-9179, are not considered to be approved as alternative methods of compliance with this AD.
(l) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with the service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD, as applicable:
(1) The incorporation by reference of the service bulletins listed in Table 2 of this AD is approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51:
(2) The incorporation by reference of the service bulletins listed in Table 3 of this AD was approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 6, 1995 (60 FR 15037, March 22, 1995):
(3) Copies may be obtained from AvCraft Aerospace GmbH, P.O. Box 1103, D-82230 Wessling, Germany. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
The subject of this AD is addressed in German airworthiness directives 1995-156/3, dated July 1, 1999; and 2002-256, dated September 5, 2002.
(m) This amendment becomes effective on November 17, 2004.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 747-200B, -200C, -200F, -300, -400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes; and Model 747SP series airplanes, that requires repetitive functional tests of the auxiliary power unit (APU) and engine fire shutoff switches and repetitive replacements of the APU and engine fire shutoff switches. The AD also provides an optional terminating action for the repetitive functional tests and replacements. This action is necessary to prevent mineral build-up on the APU and engine fire shutoff switches, which could lead to failure of the switches to discharge fire suppressant in the affected area and could result in an uncontrolled fire that could spread to the strut, wing, or aft body of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective November 17, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 17, 2004.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Sulmo Mariano, Aerospace Engineer,
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 747-200B, -200C, -200F, -300, -400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes; and Model 747SP series airplanes, was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
Since the proposed AD was published we noticed that in the Summary of the proposed AD we referred to “inspections” instead of “functional tests.” We have corrected the Summary of this AD.
There are approximately 316 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. We estimate that 50 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, and that the average labor rate is $65 per work hour. Table 1 provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
To prevent mineral build-up on the auxiliary power unit (APU) and engine fire shutoff switches, which could lead to failure of the switches to discharge fire suppressant in the affected area and could result in an uncontrolled fire that could spread to the strut, wing, or aft body of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) The term “service bulletin,” as used in this AD, means the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-26A2274, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2003.
(b) At the later of the compliance times specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD, perform a functional test of the APU and engine fire shutoff switches, in accordance with the service bulletin. Repeat the functional test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months.
(1) Within 18 months since the date of issuance of the original Airworthiness Certificate or the original Export Certificate of Airworthiness.
(2) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
(c) If any fire shutoff switch fails during any functional test required by paragraph (b) or (f) of this AD, before further flight, replace the switch with a new or serviceable switch, in accordance with the service bulletin. Repeat the switch replacement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 36 months.
(d) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace all APU and engine fire shutoff switches that have not been previously replaced per paragraph (c) of this AD with new or serviceable switches, in accordance with the service bulletin. Repeat the switch replacement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 36 months.
(e) Operators may terminate the repetitive requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this AD by accomplishing the actions in
(1) Deactivate the Lucas humidifier, part number (P/N) M01AA0101, M01AB0101, M01AB0102, or M01AB0103, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(2) Before further flight following the deactivation specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, replace all APU and engine fire shutoff switches with new or serviceable switches in accordance with the service bulletin.
(f) For any airplanes on which Lucas humidifier, P/N M01AA0101, M01AB0101, M01AB0102, or M01AB0103 is reactivated after the effective date of this AD: Do the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD at the times specified in those paragraphs.
(1) Within 18 months after reactivating the humidifier, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months, do the functional test required by paragraph (b) of this AD.
(2) Within 36 months after reactivating the humidifier, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 36 months, replace all APU and engine fire shutoff switches that have not been previously replaced per paragraph (c) of this AD. Do the replacements per paragraph (d) of this AD.
(g) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-26A2274, dated August 29, 2002, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in this AD.
(h) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
(i) The actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-26A2274, Revision 1, dated January 9, 2003. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
(j) This amendment becomes effective on November 17, 2004.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all Airbus Model A300 B4 series airplanes and all Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes. That AD currently requires a one-time high frequency eddy current inspection to detect cracking of the splice fitting at fuselage frame (FR) 47 between stringers 24 and 25; and corrective actions if necessary. This amendment requires new repetitive inspections of an expanded area and adds airplanes to the applicability in the existing AD. The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect and correct cracking of the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective November 17, 2004.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 17, 2004.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2797; fax (425) 227-1149.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 2001-03-14, amendment 39-12118 (66 FR 10957, February 21, 2001), was published as a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
In our response to comments in the Preamble of the supplemental NPRM, we stated our intent to revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of the supplemental NPRM to refer to Revision 02 of the referenced Airbus service bulletins as the appropriate sources of service information for accomplishment of the required actions. (Revision 01 of those service bulletins was referenced in the original NPRM for accomplishment of the required actions.) However, while we revised paragraphs (a) and (c) of the supplemental NPRM, we inadvertently omitted the revision to paragraph (b). Therefore, we have revised paragraph (b) of this final rule to reference Revision 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123 as the appropriate source of service information for the required actions in that paragraph.
After careful review of the available data, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the change
There are approximately 92 airplanes of U.S. registry that will be affected by this AD.
The inspection of an expanded area that is required in this AD will take approximately 29 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $173,420, or $1,885 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
To detect and correct cracking of the splice fitting at fuselage frame (FR) 47, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) For airplanes defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 02, dated November 12, 2002: Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracking of the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47 between stringers 24 and 26 (left- and right-hand sides), at the applicable times specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the earlier of the flight-cycle/flight-hour intervals specified in the applicable column in Table 2 of Figure 1 and Sheet 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Do the inspections in accordance with the service bulletin, excluding Appendix 01.
(1) For airplanes that have accumulated 20,000 or more total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Do the initial inspection at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this AD:
(i) At the earlier of the flight-cycle/flight-hour intervals after the effective date of this AD, as specified in the applicable column in Table 1 of Figure 1 and Sheet 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(ii) Within 750 flight cycles or 1,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever is first.
(2) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 20,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Do the initial inspection at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) At the earlier of the flight-cycle/flight-hour intervals after the effective date of this AD, as specified in the applicable column in Table 1 of Figure 1 and Sheet 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(ii) Within 1,800 flight cycles or 3,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever is first.
(b) For airplanes defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 02, dated November 12, 2002: Do the HFEC inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD at the applicable times specified in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the earlier of the flight-cycle/flight-hour intervals specified in the applicable column in Table 2 of Figure 1 and Sheet 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Do the inspections in accordance with the service bulletin, excluding Appendix 01.
(1) For airplanes that have accumulated 10,000 or more total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Do the initial inspection within 750 flight cycles or 1,900 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever is first.
(2) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 10,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD: Do the initial inspection at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) At the earlier of the flight-cycle/flight-hour intervals after the effective date of this AD, as specified in the applicable column in Table 1 of Figure 1 and Sheet 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(ii) Within 1,500 flight cycles or 3,800 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever is first.
(c) Repair any cracking found during any inspection required by this AD before further flight, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350 or A300-53-6123, both Revision 02, both excluding Appendix 01, both dated November 12, 2002; as applicable. Where the service bulletins specify to contact Airbus in case of certain crack findings, this AD requires that a repair be accomplished before further flight in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; or the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) (or its delegated agent).
(d) Accomplishment of the actions before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350 or A300-53-6123, Revision 01, dated December 18, 2001; is considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD.
(e) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, is authorized to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD.
(f) Unless otherwise specified in this AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 02, excluding Appendix 01, dated November 12, 2002; as applicable. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to:
The subject of this AD is addressed in French airworthiness directive 2002-184(B), dated April 3, 2002.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on November 17, 2004.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect changes of address for Alpharma Inc.; Intervet Inc.; and Vètoquinol N.-A., Inc.
This rule is effective October 13, 2004.
David R. Newkirk, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-6967; e-mail:
Alpharma Inc., One Executive Dr., P.O. Box 1399, Fort Lee, NJ 07024, has informed FDA of a change of address to One Executive Dr., Fort Lee, NJ 07024. Intervet, Inc., P.O. Box 318, 405 State St., Millsboro, DE 19966, has informed FDA of a change of address to 29160 Intervet Lane, P.O. Box 318, Millsboro, DE 19966. Vètoquinol N.-A., Inc., 2000 chemin Georges, Lavaltrie (PQ), Canada J0K 1H0, has informed FDA of a change of address to 2000 chemin Georges, Lavaltrie (PQ), Canada J5T 3S5. Accordingly, the agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 510.600 to reflect these changes of sponsors' addresses.
This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A), because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.
a. In the table in paragraph (c)(1) in the entry for “Alpharma Inc.”, by removing “P.O. Box 1399,”;
b. In the table in paragraph (c)(1) in the entry for “Intervet, Inc.”, by removing “Intervet, Inc., P.O. Box 318, 405 State St.” and by adding in its place “Intervet Inc., P.O. Box 318, 29160 Intervet Lane”;
c. In the table in paragraph (c)(1) in the entry for “Vètoquinol N.-A., Inc.”, by removing “J0K 1H0” and by adding in its place “J5T 3S5”;
d. In the table in paragraph (c)(2) in the entry for “046573”, by removing “P.O. Box 1399”;
e. In the table in paragraph (c)(2) in the entry for “057926” by removing “Intervet, Inc., P.O. Box 318, 405 State St.” and by adding in its place “Intervet Inc., P.O. Box 318, 29160 Intervet Lane”; and
f. In the table in paragraph (c)(2) in the entry for “059320”, by removing “J0K 1H0” and by adding in its place “J5T 3S5”.
State Department.
Interim rule.
This interim rule amends the regulation implementing the statutory requirement that both parents consent to issuance of a passport for children under 14 years to require that a statement of consent submitted in support of a minor's application be notarized. The rule will ensure that the individual providing the signature is properly identified.
The effective date is November 1. The Department will accept comments from the public up to 30 days from November 12, 2004.
Written comments should be addressed to: Chief, Legal Division, Office of Passport Policy, Planning and Advisory Services, 2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20037. E-mail for comments:
Persons with access to the internet may also view this notice and provide comment by going to the regulations.gov Web site at:
Sharon Palmer-Royston, Office of Passport Policy, Planning and Advisory Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State 202-663-2662; Fax 202-663-2654.
22 U.S.C. 213 provides that before a U.S. passport can be issued the applicant “shall subscribe to and submit a written application which shall contain a true recital of each and every matter of fact which may be required by law or by any rules authorized by law.” Section 236 of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-420 (22 U.S.C. 213n) (“2-Parent Consent Statute”) provides that the Secretary shall require documentary proof of both parents' or
Since the 2000 implementation of the 2-Parent Consent Statute by 22 CFR 51.27, there have been public comments and expressions of concern regarding the lack of independent verification of the identity of the individual signing the statement of consent.
It has become evident that some parental applicants are providing affidavits that are signed by individuals other than the non-applying parent, despite the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1544, 1101 and 22 CFR 51.1(g) which provide that individuals providing false information as part of a passport application, whether contemporaneously with the application form or at any other time, are subject to prosecution for passport fraud or perjury under all applicable criminal statutes, including but not limited to 18 U.S.C. 1001, 1541,
This Interim Rule amends Subsection 51.27(b)(2)(ii)(B) to require that the written statement of consent of the non-applying parent be notarized. The purpose of this change is to prevent forgery and to ensure that the individual signing the consent statement submitted with the passport application has been properly identified. This change will substantially reduce the possibility of the submission of false statements of consent. This rule needs to be implemented immediately to strengthen fraud prevention to avoid further instances of the applying parent submitting a false statement of consent and to reduce the possibility of a U.S passport being used in an effort to interfere with the custodial rights of the non-applying parent.
The Department is publishing this rule as an interim rule, with a 30-day provision for post-promulgation public comments, based on the “good cause” exceptions set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3). It is dictated by the necessity of establishing additional controls over the documentation of U.S. citizens who are ages 14 and under, to help prevent the possible misuse of a passport in facilitating international child abduction.
These changes to the regulations are hereby certified as not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4; 109 Stat. 48; 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule does not result in any such expenditure nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The Department finds that this regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order No. 12372 and No. 13132.
This rule is exempt from E.O. 12866, but the Department has reviewed the rule to ensure consistency with the objectives of the Executive Order and has determined that the regulations do not constitute a significant regulatory action within the meaning of the Executive Order.
The Department has reviewed the regulation in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
In light of the nature of these regulations and section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998), the Department has assessed the impact of these proposed regulations on family well being in accordance with section 654(c) of that Act. This rule is intended to promote child and family safety by helping prevent child abduction and international child trafficking.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Passports and visas.
22 U.S.C. 211a, 213, 2651a, 2671(d)(3), 2714 and 3926; 31 U.S.C. 9701;
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) A notarized written statement or notarized affidavit from the non-applying parent or guardian, if applicable, consenting to the issuance of the passport.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule; amendments.
On April 14, 2003, pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA issued national emission standards to control hazardous air pollutants emitted from pushing, quenching, and battery stacks at new and existing coke oven batteries. This action amends the parametric operating limits and associated compliance provisions for capture systems used to control emissions from pushing. This action also amends the requirements for mobile scrubber cars that capture emissions which occur during pushing and travel.
The direct final rule amendments will be effective on January 11, 2005, unless we receive significant adverse comments by November 12, 2004, or by November 29, 2004 if a public hearing is requested. If such comments are received, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OGC-2004-0004, by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Agency Website:
• E-mail:
• Fax: (202) 566-1741.
• Mail: Proposed Settlement Agreement in
• Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B102, Washington, DC. 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Ms. Lula Melton, Emission Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C439-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2910, fax number (919) 541-3207, e-mail address:
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.7281 of the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for coke ovens: Pushing, quenching, and battery stacks. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding
Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through EDOCKET, regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. OGC-2004-0004. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 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 public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's final amendments is also available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the final amendments will be placed on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the final amendments is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by December 13, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to the final amendments that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by the final amendments may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
We are publishing the amendments as a direct final rule without prior proposal because we view the amendments as noncontroversial and do not anticipate adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
On April 14, 2003 (68 FR 18008), we issued national emission standards for the control of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from pushing, quenching, and battery stacks at new and existing coke oven batteries (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC). The NESHAP implements section 112(d) of the CAA by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT).
After publication of the final rule, the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)/American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute (ACCCI) Coke Oven Environmental Task Force (COETF) filed a petition for review challenging the final standards (
• The provisions requiring owners or operators of coke plants having a pushing emission control device to install, operate and maintain devices to monitor daily average fan motor amps, (or volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the control device and maintain daily average volumetric flow rate) at or above minimum levels established during initial performance tests. These provisions are included in 40 CFR 63.7290, 63.7323(c), 63.7326(a)(4),
• The provisions requiring monthly inspections of pressure sensors, dampers, damper switches and other equipment important to the performance of the total emissions capture system which also require that a facility's operation and maintenance plan include requirements to repair any defect or deficiency in the capture system before the next scheduled inspection. These provisions are included in 40 CFR 63.7300(c)(1).
The EPA and the petitioners anticipate that certain amendments to the final rule will resolve COETF's concerns. These amendments are set out in attachment A to a proposed settlement agreement between EPA and COETF. In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, EPA published a notice of the proposed settlement agreement (69 FR 31372, June 3, 2004) and provided a 30-day comment period which ended July 6, 2004. The EPA received no comments on the proposed settlement agreement. Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, EPA must submit proposed amendments for publication in the
Concurrent with development of the proposed settlement agreement, a coke manufacturer constructing a new non-recovery plant noticed a gap in the promulgated rule. The new source is being constructed with a type of emission control system that is not addressed in the final rule. Therefore, the source requested EPA to develop an appropriate emission limit for that control system. In response, we are broadening the applicability of an existing emissions limit to include the control system and are adding appropriate implementation and compliance provisions.
The petitioners argued that the operating limit in 40 CFR 63.7290(3)(i) of the final rule for capture systems applied to pushing emissions (which requires the plant to maintain the daily average fan motor amperage at or above a certain level) was inappropriate for systems that did not use an electric motor to drive the fan. We agree with the petitioners because there are a few fans that are not powered by an electric motor. In response, we are amending the operating limit in 40 CFR 63.7290(b)(3)(i) to state that the requirement applies to capture systems that use an electric motor to drive the fan. We are adding a new operating limit in 40 CFR 63.7290(b)(3)(ii) that is appropriate for assessing the proper operation of a capture system that does not use an electric motor to drive the fan. The new operating limit requires the owner or operator to maintain the daily average static pressure at the inlet to the control device at an equal or greater vacuum than the level established during the initial performance test, or to maintain the daily average fan revolutions per minute (RPM) at or above the minimum level established during the initial performance test. We also renumbered the existing operating limit for the daily average volumetric flow rate in 40 CFR 63.7290(b)(3)(ii) as 40 CFR 63.7290(b)(3).
We also are adding requirements to the final rule for demonstrating initial and continuous compliance with the new operating limit for daily average static pressure or fan RPM. To establish the operating limit, a new procedure in 40 CFR 63.7323(c)(3) requires that the static pressure at the inlet of the control device or fan RPM during each push sampled for each particulate matter (PM) test run during the performance test be measured and recorded. The operating limit for static pressure is the minimum vacuum recorded during any of the three runs that meets the emission limit. The operating limit for fan RPM is the lowest RPM recorded during any of the three runs that meets the emission limit. To demonstrate initial compliance, a new provision in 40 CFR 63.7326(a)(4) requires that the owner or operator have a record of the static pressure at the inlet of the control device or fan RPM measured during the performance test. To demonstrate continuous compliance, 40 CFR 63.7330(d) requires the owner or operator to monitor the static pressure or the fan RPM at all times according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.7331(i), which requires a device to measure static pressure at the inlet of the control device or the fan RPM. A new provision in 40 CFR 63.7333(d) requires the owner or operator to maintain the daily average static pressure at the inlet to the control device at an equal or greater vacuum than established during the initial or subsequent performance test, or to maintain the daily average fan RPM at or above the minimum level established during the initial or subsequent performance test. The owner or operator also must check the static pressure or fan RPM at least every 8 hours to verify the daily average static pressure at the inlet to the control device, or the daily average fan RPM, is at or above the required values and to record the results of each check. We also made conforming amendments in each of the affected sections to account for changes in the regulatory citations.
The petitioners also argued that the provision in 40 CFR 63.7300(c)(1), which requires that the operation and maintenance plan include requirements to repair any defect or deficiency in the capture system before the next scheduled inspection, is unreasonable. We agree because there are a few repairs that may require more than 30 days to complete. Therefore, we are replacing the provision to complete all repairs within 30 days after the defect or deficiency is found to allow more time when necessary. If the repairs cannot be completed within 30 days, the owner or operator must estimate the number of days in which repairs can be completed. We developed provisions for two additional situations (
If repairs can be completed within 60 days from the date that the problem is discovered, the owner or operator must submit a written notice to the permitting authority within 30 days after the date that the problem is discovered. The notice must contain specific information, including a description of the defect or deficiency, the steps needed to correct the problem, the interim steps needed to mitigate the emissions impact of the defect or deficiency, and an explanation of why the repairs cannot be completed within 30 days from the date that the problem is discovered.
If the repairs cannot be completed within 60 days, the owner or operator must submit a written request to the permitting authority for an extension of time to complete the repairs. The owner or operator must submit this request to the permitting authority within 45 days after the date the defect or deficiency is discovered. The amendments require that this request include the information required for the previous notice, along with a detailed proposed schedule for completing the repairs and a request for approval of the proposed repair schedule. The permitting authority may consider all relevant factors in deciding whether to approved or deny the
A new non-recovery coke plant now under construction will use flat car pushing along with a mobile control system (closed hood capture system vented to a multicyclone) to control PM emissions during pushing and travel to the quench tower. There are no test data for the proposed control system because no such system has been built. Consequently, we cannot develop an alternative emissions limit. However, the existing emission limit of 0.04 pound per ton of coke in 40 CFR 63.7290(a)(4), which applies to mobile scrubber cars that capture emissions during travel, covers a comparable situation. Therefore, we are changing the applicability of the limit from “mobile scrubber car” to “mobile control device.” Thus, the existing limit will apply to any type of mobile control device applied to pushing emissions that also captures emissions during travel at a new or existing coke oven battery.
While the existing rule contains monitoring provisions for scrubbers, baghouse, and capture systems, it does not include requirements applicable to multicyclones. Therefore, we have added an operating limit to the final rule, along with requirements for demonstrating initial and continuous compliance. Based on information in EPA's 1998 “Compliance Assurance Monitoring Technical Guidance Document” (available at
The final rule amendments will have no effect on environmental, energy, or non-air health impacts because none of the changes affect the stringency of the existing emission limits. No costs or economic impacts are associated with the amendments.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) 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, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866, and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. The costs of the information collection requirements associated with the provisions related to the settlement agreement do not increase the existing burden estimates for the final rule. The OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
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 part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule amendments.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business having no more than 1,000 employees, as defined by the Small Business Administration for NAICS codes 331111 and 324199; (2) a government jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final amendments on small entities, the EPA has concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small
We believe there will be a positive impact on small entities because the final rule amendments add new compliance provisions to increase flexibility. These changes are voluntary and do not impose new costs. We have, therefore, concluded that today's final rule amendments will relieve regulatory burden for all small entities.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that the final amendments do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any 1 year. No new costs are attributable to the final amendments. Thus, the final rule amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. The EPA has also determined that the final rule amendments contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because they contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, the final rule amendments are not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
The final rule amendments do not have federalism implications. They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected plants are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final rule amendments.
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” The final rule amendments do not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because tribal governments do not own or operate any sources subject to the final rule amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule amendments.
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant,” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the final rule (and these amendments) are based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.
These final amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
As noted in the proposed amendments, Section 112(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through the OMB,
The EPA's compliance with section 112(d) of the NTTAA has been addressed in the preamble to the existing rule (68 FR 18025, April 14, 2003). The final rule amendments do not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) * * *
(4) 0.04 lb/ton of coke if a mobile control device that captures emissions during travel is used.
(b) You must meet each operating limit in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section that applies to you for a new or existing coke oven battery.
(3) For each capture system applied to pushing emissions, you must maintain the daily average volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the control device at or above the minimum level established during the initial performance test; or
(i) For each capture system that uses an electric motor to drive the fan, you must maintain the daily average fan motor amperes at or above the minimum level established during the initial performance test; and
(ii) For each capture system that does not use a fan driven by an electric motor, you must maintain the daily average static pressure at the inlet to the control device at an equal or greater vacuum than the level established during the initial performance test or maintain the daily average fan revolutions per minute (RPM) at or above the minimum level established during the initial performance test.
(4) For each multicyclone, you must maintain the daily average pressure drop at or below the minimum level established during the initial performance test.
(c) * * *
(1) * * * In the event a defect or deficiency is found in the capture system (during a monthly inspection or between inspections), you must complete repairs within 30 days after the date that the defect or deficiency is discovered except as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) If you determine that the repairs can be completed within 60 days, you must submit a written notice that must be received by the permitting authority within 30 days after the date that the defect or deficiency is discovered. Your notice must contain a description of the defect or deficiency, the steps needed and taken to correct the problem, the interim steps being taken to mitigate the emissions impact of the defect or deficiency, and an explanation of why the repairs cannot be completed within 30 days. You must then complete the repairs within 60 days after the date that the defect or deficiency is discovered.
(ii) In those rare instances when repairs cannot be completed within 60 days, you must submit a written request for extension of time to complete the repairs. The request must be received by the permitting authority not more than 45 days after the date that the defect or deficiency is discovered. The request must contain all of the information required for the written notice described in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, along with a detailed proposed schedule for completing the repairs and a request for approval of the proposed repair schedule. The permitting authority may consider all relevant factors in deciding whether to approve or deny the request (including feasibility and safety). Each approved schedule must provide for completion of repairs as expeditiously as practicable, and the permitting authority may request modifications to the proposed schedule as part of the approval process.
(c) For a capture system applied to pushing emissions from a coke oven battery, you must establish a site-specific operating limit according to the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
(1) If you elect the operating limit in § 63.7290(b)(3) for volumetric flow rate, measure and record the total volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the control device during each push sampled for each particulate matter test run. Your operating limit is the lowest volumetric flow rate recorded during any of the three runs that meet the emission limit.
(2) If you elect the operating limit in § 63.7290(b)(3)(i) for fan motor amperes, measure and record the fan motor amperes during each push sampled for each particulate matter test run. Your operating limit is the lowest fan motor amperes recorded during any of the three runs that meet the emission limit.
(3) If you elect the operating limit in § 63.7290(b)(3)(ii) for static pressure or fan RPM, measure and record the static pressure at the inlet of the control device or fan RPM during each push sampled for each particulate matter test
(d) For a multicyclone applied to pushing emissions from a coke oven battery, you must establish a site-specific operating limit for pressure drop according to the procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Using the CPMS required in § 63.7330(f), measure and record the pressure drop for each particulate matter test run during periods of pushing. A minimum of one pressure drop measurement must be obtained for each push.
(2) Compute and record the average pressure drop for each test run. Your operating limit is the highest average pressure drop value recorded during any of the three runs that meet the emission limit.
(e) You may change the operating limit for a venturi scrubber, capture system, or mobile control device that captures emissions during pushing if you meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable procedures in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) 0.04 lb/ton of coke if a mobile control device that captures emissions during travel is used.
(4) * * *
(i) If you elect the operating limit in § 63.7290(b)(3) for volumetric flow rate, you have a record of the total volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the control device measured during the performance test in accordance with § 63.7323(c)(1); or
(ii) If you elect the operating limit in § 63.7290(b)(3)(i) for fan motor amperes, you have a record of the fan motor amperes during the performance test in accordance with § 63.7323(c)(2); or
(iii) If you elect the operating limit in § 63.7290(b)(3)(ii) for static pressure or fan RPM, you have a record of the static pressure at the inlet of the control device or fan RPM measured during the performance test in accordance with § 63.7323(c)(3).
(5) For each multicyclone applied to pushing emissions, you have established an appropriate site-specific operating limit and have a record of the pressure drop measured during the performance test in accordance with § 63.7323(d).
(d) For each capture system applied to pushing emissions, you must at all times monitor the volumetric flow rate according to the requirements in § 63.7331(g), the fan motor amperes according to the requirements in § 63.7331(h), or the static pressure or the fan RPM according to the requirements in § 63.7331(i).
(e) For each by-product coke oven battery, you must monitor at all times the opacity of emissions exiting each stack using a COMS according to the requirements in § 63.7331(j).
(f) For each multicyclone applied to pushing emissions, you must monitor at all times the pressure drop using a CPMS according to the requirements in § 63.7331(k).
(g) If you elect the operating limit in § 63.7290(b)(3) for a capture system applied to pushing emissions, you must install, operate, and maintain a device to measure the total volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the control device.
(h) If you elect the operating limit in § 63.7290(b)(3)(i) for a capture system applied to pushing emissions, you must install, operate, and maintain a device to measure the fan motor amperes.
(i) If you elect the operating limit in § 63.7290(b)(3)(ii) for a capture system applied to pushing emissions, you must install, operate and maintain a device to measure static pressure at the inlet of the control device or the fan RPM.
(j) For each by-product coke oven battery, you must install, operate, and maintain a COMS to measure and record the opacity of emissions exiting each stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this section.
(k) For each multicyclone applied to pushing emissions, you must install, operate, and maintain CPMS to measure and record the pressure drop across each multicyclone during each push according to the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section except as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section.
(d) For each capture system applied to pushing emissions and subject to the operating limit in § 63.7290(b)(3), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraph (d)(1), (2), or (3) of this section:
(1) If you elect the operating limit for volumetric flow rate in § 63.7290(b)(3):
(i) Maintaining the daily average volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the control device at or above the minimum level established during the initial or subsequent performance test; and
(ii) Checking the volumetric flow rate at least every 8 hours to verify the daily average is at or above the minimum level established during the initial or subsequent performance test and recording the results of each check.
(2) If you elect the operating limit for fan motor amperes in § 63.7290(b)(3)(i):
(i) Maintaining the daily average fan motor amperages at or above the minimum level established during the initial or subsequent performance test; and
(ii) Checking the fan motor amperage at least every 8 hours to verify the daily average is at or above the minimum level established during the initial or subsequent performance test and recording the results of each check.
(3) If you elect the operating limit for static pressure or fan RPM in § 63.7290(b)(3)(ii):
(i) Maintaining the daily average static pressure at the inlet to the control device at an equal or greater vacuum
(ii) Checking the static pressure or fan RPM at least every 8 hours to verify the daily average static pressure at the inlet to the control device is at an equal or greater vacuum than established during the initial or subsequent performance test or the daily average fan RPM is at or above the minimum level established during the initial or subsequent performance test and recording the results of each check.
(e) * * *
(2) Operating and maintaining a COMS and collecting and reducing the COMS data according to § 63.7331(j).
(h) For each multicyclone applied to pushing emissions and subject to the operating limit in § 63.7290(b)(4), you must demonstrate compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Maintaining the daily average pressure drop at a level at or below the level established during the initial or subsequent performance test.
(2) Operating and maintaining each CPMS according to § 63.7331(k) and recording all information needed to document conformance with these requirements.
(3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for pressure drop according to § 63.7331(e)(1) through (3).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes a tolerance for combined residues of mepanipyrim, 4-methyl-N-phenyl-6-(1-propynyl)-2-pyrimidinamine, and its metabolite, 4-methyl-N-phenyl-6-(2-hydroxypropyl)-2-pyrimidinamine, both free and conjugated in or on grape; grape, raisin; strawberry; and tomato. K-I Chemical U.S.A., Inc., requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).
This regulation is effective October 13, 2004. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 13, 2004.
To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit VI. of the
Mary L. Waller, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-9354; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
• Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
In addition to using EDOCKET (
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 of FFDCA and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7).
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for tolerances for combined residues of mepanipyrim and its metabolite in or on grape at 1.5 ppm; grape, raisin at 3.0 ppm; strawberry at 1.5 ppm; and tomato at 0.5 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by mepanipyrim are discussed in Table 1 of this unit as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed.
The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences.
Three other types of safety or uncertainty factors may be used: “Traditional uncertainty factors;” the “special FQPA safety factor;” and the “default FQPA safety factor.” By the term “traditional uncertainty factor,” EPA is referring to those additional uncertainty factors used prior to FQPA passage to account for database deficiencies. These traditional uncertainty factors have been incorporated by the FQPA into the additional safety factor for the protection of infants and children. The term “special FQPA safety factor” refers to those safety factors that are deemed necessary for the protection of infants and children primarily as a result of the FQPA. The “default FQPA safety factor” is the additional 10X safety factor that is mandated by the statute unless it is decided that there are reliable data to choose a different additional factor (potentially a traditional uncertainty factor or a special FQPA safety factor).
For dietary risk assessment (other than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose (acute RfD or chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by an UF of 100 to account for interspecies and intraspecies differences and any traditional uncertainty factors deemed appropriate (RfD = NOAEL/UF). Where a special FQPA safety factor or the default FQPA safety factor is used, this additional factor is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional factor. The acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of safety factor.
For non-dietary risk assessments (other than cancer) the UF is used to determine the LOC. For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF (10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to exposures (margin of exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is calculated and compared to the LOC.
The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases (e.g., risk). An example of how such a probability risk is expressed would be to describe the risk as one in one hundred thousand (1 X 10
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for mepanipyrim used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 2 of this unit:
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if the Agency can make the following findings: Condition 1, that the data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain such pesticide residue; Condition 2, that the exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group; and Condition 3, if data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA, EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
The Agency used PCT information as follows: The percentage of imported crops from Western Europe which are consumed by the United States are as follows: Grapes, fresh - 1%; grape, juice - 1%; grape, raisin - 3.3%; strawberry, fresh - 1%; strawberry, juice - 31.5%; tomatoes, fresh - 1.3% and tomatoes, processed - 4%.
The Agency believes that the three conditions listed in Unit III. have been met. With respect to Condition 1, the PCT estimates were derived from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Service and the U.S. Census Bureau for the period of 1981-2000 to determine the imported share of U.S. consumed food. Additionally, import data from the Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States (FATUS) database which is used as the official United States source of import and export data served as the source to determine the percentage of imported grapes, strawberries, and tomatoes imported from Western Europe. Import data from the years 2000 to 2003 was analyzed and averaged in order to estimate the percentage of imports. The Agency believes this data is reliable as the import data was stable over a 3 year period, and the United States has other major sources favored for import of these commodities. As to Conditions 2 and 3, regional consumption information and consumption
2.
3.
4.
Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to mepanipyrim and any other substances and mepanipyrim does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that mepanipyrim has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's OPP concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's web site at
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromotography/nitrogen-phosphorus detector (GC/NPD) method and multi-residue method (MRM)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail address:
There are currently no established Codex, Canadian or Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) for mepanipyrim.
Therefore, the tolerances are established for combined residues of mepanipyrim, 4-methyl-N-phenyl-6-(1-propynyl)-2-pyrimidinamine, and its metabolite, 4-methyl-N-phenyl-6-(2-hydroxypropyl)-2-pyrimidinamine, both free and conjugated in or on grape at 1.5 ppm; grape, raisin at 3.0 ppm; strawberry at 1.5 ppm; and tomato at 0.5 ppm.
Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to FFDCA by FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) of FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d) of FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP-2004-0299 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before December 13, 2004.
1.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14
2.
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Modification of a closure.
NMFS is opening directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) for 48 hours. This action is necessary to fully use the 2004 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock specified for Statistical Area 630.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), October 7, 2004, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., October 9, 2004.
Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
NMFS closed the directed fishery for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on October 2, 2004 (69 FR 59834, October 6, 2004).
NMFS has determined that, approximately 2,767 mt of pollock remain in the 2004 directed fishing allowance. This amount is large enough to provide for a manageable directed pollock fishery in Statistical Area 630. Therefore, in accordance with 679.25(a)(2)(i)(C) and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the 2004 TAC of pollock specified for Statistical Area 630, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance will be reached after 48 hours. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., October 9, 2004.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of pollock in Statistical Area 630.
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
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would revise the knowledge definition in the Export Administration Regulations to incorporate a “reasonable person” standard and to replace the phrase “high probability” with the phrase “more likely than not.” It also would update the “red flags” guidance and would provide a safe harbor from liability arising from knowledge under that definition.
Comments must be received by November 12, 2004.
Send comments on this proposed rule to: the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
For further information regarding this proposed rule, contact: William Arvin, Office of Exporter Services, at
The current definition of “knowledge” in § 772.1 of the EAR encompasses “not only positive knowledge that a circumstance exists or is substantially certain to occur, but also an awareness of a high probability of its existence or future occurrence. Such awareness is inferred from evidence of the conscious disregard of facts known to a person and is also inferred from a person's willful avoidance of facts.” This proposed rule would amend the definition of knowledge in four ways, incorporating a “reasonable person” standard, replacing the phrase “high probability” with the phrase “more likely than not,” adding the phrase “
BIS believes that incorporating the reasonable person standard into the definition will facilitate public understanding of the definition, particularly as it applies to knowledge-based license requirements, and restrictions on use of License Exceptions. Under this revised definition a party would have knowledge of a fact or circumstance if a reasonable person in that party's situation would conclude, upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, that the existence or future occurrence of the fact or circumstance in question is more likely than not.
BIS believes that replacing the phrase “high probability” with the phrase “more likely than not” is not a change from current policy and practice. The phrase “more likely than not” is better understood than “high probability.” Moreover, companies with a strong compliance commitment are unlikely, even under the current definition, to proceed with transactions if they conclude that the circumstance of concern is “more likely than not.”
Adding the phrase
Removing the phrase “known to the person” from the sentence in the knowledge definition that states that knowledge may be inferred from “conscious disregard of facts known to the person” would eliminate the use of the defined term in the definition.
Other proposed changes to the definition address the scope of its application. The phrase “When referring to an actor in a transaction that is subject to the EAR” would be added to the beginning of the definition, and language would be added to specify that the definition concerns knowledge of a fact or circumstance relating to such a transaction. These changes would make clear that the definition would not apply to provisions of the EAR in which “knowledge” and related terms are used: (1) To refer to technology; (2) to “personal knowledge” or to knowledge of the EAR; (3) to describe the basis for an agency or official to take an enforcement or administrative action; (4) to indicate an alternative name (as in the phrase “also known as”); (5) in explanatory text that has no legal effect; (6) in a requirement that a party certify that a statement is true to the best of its knowledge; or (7) when referring to the requirements or prohibitions of a law other than those implemented by the EAR. Finally, language would be added excluding from the definition the use of “knowledge” terms in the description of criminal liability in Section 764.3(b). The proposed definition, like the current definition of “knowledge” in § 772.1, would also not apply to Part 760 of the EAR (Restrictive Trade Practices or Boycotts).
BIS is proposing to update and augment the “red flag” guidance and to increase from 12 to 23 the number of circumstances expressly identified as presenting a red flag. The revised guidance would reflect experience gained since the existing red flags and guidance were developed in the mid-1980s. The “red flags” would continue to provide guidance that BIS believes is useful in preventing the diversion of items that are subject to the EAR to proliferation related purposes as well as
BIS believes that many conscientious participants in export transactions are following the current “red flag” guidance. BIS anticipates that the added benefit of the safe harbor provision would encourage more parties to take these measures and thereby prevent diversions to proscribed or inappropriate end-uses.
BIS is proposing to create a safe harbor from liability arising from knowledge-based license requirements, knowledge-based restrictions on use of License Exceptions, and other knowledge provisions in the EAR that are subject to the proposed definition of knowledge described above. Under this safe harbor, parties who take steps identified in a new § 764.7 will not have knowledge imputed to them by application of the “reasonable person” standard stated in the new definition. Parties who report to BIS's Office of Enforcement Analysis, prior to shipment, all material information regarding the existence, assessment, and satisfactory resolution of the red flag(s) and who do not otherwise have “knowledge,” as defined in § 772.1, will be eligible for a safe harbor from any enforcement action arising from the red flag(s) that they have addressed.
The steps to be listed in § 764.7 are:
(1) Comply with any item and/or destination-based license requirements and other notification or review requirements;
(2) Determine whether parties in the transaction are subject to a denial order or to certain sanctions, whether they appear on the Entity List or the Unverified List, whether the transaction is governed by a general order issued by BIS; and
(3) Follow the procedures for identifying and resolving red flags set forth in Supplement No. 3 to Part 732.
If BIS concludes that a reported transaction involves unresolved red flags, it will so advise the submitting party. If a party has actual knowledge or awareness that the fact or circumstance in question is more likely than not, then even if the party receives BIS concurrence (based on a report to the Office of Enforcement Analysis) that red flags are resolved, the party will not be eligible for the safe harbor nor will BIS concurrence bind a subsequent enforcement action or prosecution, because the report would have misstated or withheld relevant information.
BIS expects to respond to most such reports within 45 days of receipt. BIS will acknowledge in writing receipt of all reports and will provide a telephone number for the reporting party to call to learn the status of the report if it has not heard from BIS by the date stated in the acknowledgment. BIS may consult with other government agencies before responding to the party submitting the report. However, until receiving written confirmation from BIS or contacting BIS after the date specified in the acknowledgment and learning that BIS will not be responding to the report, the party is not entitled to conclude that BIS concurs in the party's assessment that any red flags have been successfully resolved.
Parties who have filed such reports may not file a license application relating to the same situation while the report is under review by BIS. Such license applications will be returned without action. In addition to language in the new § 764.7, § 748.4(f) would be modified to implement this prohibition.
The proposed rule would also amend the EAR in the following ways:
The proposed rule would revise three provisions of the EAR to clarify that they refer to all requirements under part 744, not just to requirements based on knowledge. These amendments would not change the substance of any provision. The provisions to be amended in this way are:
BIS is seeking public comments on this proposed rule. BIS will consider comments about all aspects of this proposed rule, but is particularly seeking comments on whether the proposed changes to the definition of the term “knowledge” will increase the burden on small entities and whether the economic impact of the proposal will be significant and on whether the “safe harbor” provision is likely to be useful. The period for submission of comments will close November 12, 2004. BIS will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period in developing a final rule. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. BIS will not accept public comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. BIS will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them in the development of the final rule. All public comments on this proposed rule must be in writing, including fax or e-mail, and will be a matter of public record, available for public inspection and copying. The Office of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, displays these public comments on BIS's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web site at
1. This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as this term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Counsel for Advocacy that this proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
To estimate the number of small entities that would be affected by this rule, BIS evaluated its licensing database to determine the number of businesses that applied for export licenses where “knowledge” of a particular circumstance concerning the end-use or end-user triggers a license requirement. A total of 149 entities applying for such licenses in 2003 were identified. BIS then conducted an Internet search of those businesses to determine which of those businesses disclosed their sales or employment levels on Web sites. BIS compared those sales or employment levels to those found in the Small Business Administration's Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System published on its Web site at
BIS does not have data to indicate how many enforcement proceedings under the Export Administration Regulations apply to small entities. However, in its Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Report, BIS reported the criminal “conviction of 21 individuals and businesses” and “34 administrative enforcement settlements” for the fiscal year. In addition, there were three administrative proceedings that resulted in denials of export privileges. Some of these actions probably did not involve small entities and there may be some overlap in cases where a single entity received both criminal and administrative sanctions.
Assuming that all of BIS's FY 2003 enforcement actions were against small entities and that 106 of the 149 entities that applied for a license in FY 2003 were all small entities, the rule would affect a substantial number of small entities. However, although there would be a substantial number of small entities affected by this rule, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the overall economic costs associated with this rule are minimal. As discussed below, BIS does not believe that businesses will see this change as imposing a materially different standard on their compliance activities.
Although this proposal has the potential to impact a substantial number of small entities, BIS does not believe that it will have a significant economic impact on the affected small entities. Fundamentally, BIS does not believe that moving to a “more likely than not” formulation increases a company's responsibility with respect to knowledge. Rather, as stated in the rule, we see this as a clarification of the current standard and as consistent with existing BIS and industry practice.
From a practical perspective, based on BIS's experience with industry compliance with the existing standard, BIS believes that companies treat facts that are “more likely than not” as creating a “high probability” of the fact. In other words, in our experience, companies would take the position that there is a “high probability” of a given fact if the fact is “more likely than not.” Those who must comply with these regulations are in businesses engaged in exporting and reexporting and must make decisions quickly based on practical considerations. The likely scenarios are that either (1) the party has knowledge of some facts that suggest a proliferation end-use, an obligation to disclose or a possible violation of law and with that knowledge decides to either apply for a license or to forego the business, or (2) that the party has no knowledge of any such facts, and would not be required to obtain a license under either the old or the new definitions. Thus, even if there were a distinction between the terms “high probability” and “more likely than not,” the distinction would be unlikely to affect the decision making process of a business person who is deciding whether to proceed with a sale. Stated otherwise, if a party preparing to undertake an export transaction encounters a reason to believe that a fact or circumstance exists that implicates a licensing requirement under the Regulations, that party can reasonably be expected either to apply for a license or forego the transaction, regardless of whether “knowledge” is defined by reference to a “more likely than not” or “high probability” formulation.
To the extent that a business engages in this kind of legal analysis, use of the term “more likely than not,” which is a well known legal standard, will reduce uncertainty among those who make these decisions, and thereby will reduce the economic impact of the control and the necessity of legal counsel. In addition, BIS does not believe that small entities will incur additional costs due to training or legal counseling to comply with the new requirements. BIS provides a number of opportunities for counseling or training to assist businesses in their compliance efforts at no charge or at a reasonable cost. BIS maintains telephone advice lines in California and Washington to provide timely answers to people who have questions concerning its regulations. It also provides an e-mail address where such questions may be submitted. BIS gives written advisory opinions concerning its regulations. BIS provides training seminars in cooperation with trade associations and other groups around the country. The costs of this training ranges from $75 to $350 depending on the nature, length and location of the program. However, one should not attribute the entire training cost or even a significant portion of it to this proposed rule. Even if one did, BIS does not believe that $350 would constitute a significant economic impact.
In terms of the costs of the inquiry that BIS recommends companies conduct in response to red flags, BIS does not believe that the costs will significantly increase when compared to the company's responsibility under the existing rule. Companies are currently
The purpose of the rule is to clarify responsibilities and provide greater certainty to parties involved in export transactions when confronted with indications of a proliferation end-use, an obligation to disclose or a possible violation of law.
Finally, in assessing the possible economic impact of this rule, one should look at it in its entirety. The rule contains a safe harbor provision that enables a business to learn, before proceeding with the transaction, whether BIS concurs that its actions qualify for the safe harbor. This opportunity to avoid fines and penalties mitigates the impact of this rule.
Accordingly, the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel of Advocacy that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. BIS invites comment on this certification, including, but not limited to whether the proposed changes to the definition of the term “knowledge” will increase the burden on small entities and whether the economic impact of the proposal will be significant.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
Exports.
Exports, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports Law enforcement, Penalties.
Accordingly, parts 732, 736, 740, 744, 752, 764, and 772 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR 730-799) are amended as follows.
1. Revise the authority citation for part 732 to read as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
2. Revise supplement No. 3 to part 732 to read as follows:
(a) Introduction. Several provisions of the EAR are applicable if a party has knowledge (as defined in § 772.1 of the EAR) of a particular fact or circumstance. Examples include § 764.2(e), which prohibits taking certain actions regarding an item that is subject to the EAR with knowledge that a violation has occurred, is about to occur or is intended to occur with respect to that item and § 744.4, which requires a license to export or reexport any item subject to the EAR if the exporter or reexporter knows that the item will be used in the design, development, production, stockpiling, or use of chemical or biological weapons in or by any country. The following guidance is provided with respect to these knowledge standards. It is also useful with respect to other EAR requirements because a heightened awareness of the signs of potential diversion can help to prevent violations. This guidance and the red flags are also incorporated by reference in § 764.7 (Safe Harbor from Certain Knowledge-based Requirements) of the EAR. The red flags are incorporated into the system for screening customers that is part of the internal control program required of Special Comprehensive License holders and consignees and described in § 752.11(c)(13)(i) of the EAR. The “red flags” and know your customer guidance do not derogate from obligations imposed elsewhere in the EAR.
(b)
(i) Red flags point to a heightened risk of a problem with the transaction. Most commonly, red flags indicate a heightened risk that a claimed end-use, end-user or ultimate destination is not the actual one. Red flags of this type thus can point to the possibilities that the export or reexport is actually destined for an embargoed country, an end use that triggers a license requirement under part 744 of the EAR, a person denied export privileges under part 764 of the EAR, a person on the Entity List in supplement No. 4 to part 744, specially designated global terrorists (
(ii) What constitutes a red flag depends on the context. A fact or circumstance that raises a red flag for an export of one type of item, to a given destination, or a particular business model may be innocuous for an export involving a different item, a different destination, or different business model. The role that you are playing in a transaction is also relevant to what facts or circumstances you are expected to recognize as red flags. For example, a manufacturer who is exporting one of its products will be expected to be highly familiar with the configurations or specifications required for an end-use stated by a customer. Thus, a manufacturer should be able to recognize when a deviation from such parameters is indicative of an end-use
(iii) Red flags may also be raised in exports that have been licensed by BIS; for example, information you receive after obtaining an export license may suggest a risk of diversion. Parties should identify and respond to red flags in all transactions, including ones for which an export license has been obtained.
(2)
(3)
(i) In responding to red flags, you are expected to conduct an inquiry that is reasonable for a party in your circumstances. Thus, if you are exporting specially ordered equipment that you manufactured as part of a negotiated sale to an end-user in an industry with which you do a substantial part of your business, you may be expected to conduct a more thorough and better targeted inquiry than a distributor exporting off-the-shelf equipment that is used in a wide range of commercial and industrial contexts.
(ii) The following are means of inquiry that, depending on particular circumstances, you should pursue in response to a red flag:
(A) Seek further information or clarification from the customer, the ultimate consignee, and/or end-user.
(B) Conduct searches of relevant publications or public information on the Internet for additional information or to confirm representations you have received.
(C) Where appropriate for a particular industry or commercial context, consult standard references or official sources. For example, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) makes available information about what nuclear facilities are under IAEA safeguards, which is relevant to determining whether export or reexport for use at a particular nuclear facility requires a license under § 744.2.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(c)
1. The customer or purchasing agent is vague, evasive, or inconsistent in providing information about the end-use of a product.
2. The product's capabilities do not fit the buyer's line of business or level of technical sophistication. For example, a customer places an order for several advanced lasers from a facility with no use for such equipment in its manufacturing processes.
3. A request for equipment configuration is incompatible with the stated ultimate destination (
4. The product ordered is incompatible with the technical level of the country to which the product is being shipped. For example, semiconductor manufacturing equipment would be of little use in a country without an electronics industry.
5. The customer has little background in the relevant business. For example, financial information is unavailable from ordinary commercial sources and the customer's corporate principal is unknown.
6. The customer is willing to pay cash for an expensive item when the normal practice in this business would involve financing.
7. The customer is unfamiliar with the product's performance characteristics, but still wants the product.
8. Installation, testing, training, or maintenance services are declined by the customer, even though these services are included in the sales price or ordinarily requested for the item involved.
9. Terms of delivery, such as date, location, and consignee, are vague or unexpectedly changed, or delivery is planned for an out-of-the-way destination.
10. The address of the ultimate consignee, as listed on the airway bill or bill of lading, indicates that it is in a free trade zone.
11. The ultimate consignee, as listed on the airway bill or bill of lading, is a freight forwarding firm, a trading company, a shipping company or a bank, unless it is apparent that the ultimate consignee is also the end-user or the end-user is otherwise identified on the airway bill or bill of lading.
12. The shipping route is abnormal for the product and destination.
13. Packaging is inconsistent with the stated method of shipment or destination.
14. When questioned, the buyer is evasive or unclear about whether the purchased product is for domestic use, export or reexport.
15. The customer uses an address that is inconsistent with standard business practices in the area (
16. The customer does not have facilities that are appropriate for the items ordered or end-use stated.
17. The customer's order is for parts known to be inappropriate or for which the customer appears to have no legitimate need (
18. The customer is known to have or is suspected of having dealings with embargoed countries.
19. The transaction involves a party on the Unverified List published by BIS in the
20. The product into which the exported item is to be incorporated bears unique designs or marks that indicate an embargoed destination or one other than the customer has claimed.
21. The customer gives different spellings of its name for different shipments, which can suggest that the customer is disguising its identity and/or the nature and extent of its procurement activities.
22. The requested terms of sale, such as product specification and calibration, suggest a destination or end-use other than what is claimed (
23. The customer provides information or documentation related to the transaction that you suspect is false, or requests that you provide documentation that you suspect is false.
3. Revise the authority citation for part 736 to read as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
4. In § 736.2, revise paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(5)
5. Revise the authority citation for part 740 to read as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
6. In § 740.18, revise the last sentence of paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(4) * * * (Note that the fact that you have been advised that no agency has objected to the transaction does not exempt you from other license requirements under the EAR, including those based on recipient or end-use in part 744 of the EAR.)
7. Revise the authority citation for part 748 to read as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
8. In § 748.4, revise paragraph (f) to read as follows:
(f)
(1) You have already submitted a license application for that transaction and the license application is still pending before BIS; or
(2) You have submitted a safe harbor report for the transaction pursuant to § 764.7(c) of the EAR and the BIS decision is still pending.
9. Revise the authority citation for part 752 to read as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
10. In § 752.9, revise paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(H) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(H) A notice that the consignee, in addition to other requirements may not sell or otherwise dispose of any U.S. origin items under the SCL if a license is required by part 744 of the EAR.
11. In § 752.11, revise paragraph (c)(13) to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(13) A system for screening customers and transactions to identify any circumstances (“red flags”) that indicate an item might be destined for an inappropriate end-use, end-user, or destination. This system must:
(i) Be able to identify, as a minimum, the red flags in paragraph (c) of supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the EAR, and;
(ii) Function in conformance with the “know your customer” guidance provided in paragraph (b) of supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the EAR:
12. Revise the authority citation for part 764 to read as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
13. Add § 764.7 to read as follows:
Parties involved in exports, reexports or other activities subject to the EAR who meet the requirements of this section can avail themselves of a “safe harbor” against being found to have had knowledge of a fact or circumstance under the definition of
(a)
(b)
(2)
(i) Persons subject to denial of U.S. export privileges under a BIS order. Such orders are published in the
(ii) Persons appearing on the Unverified List, which is published by BIS in the
(iii) Persons appearing on the Entity List in supplement No. 4 to part 744. To the extent described in that supplement, a license is required to export or reexport items subject to the EAR to persons on the Entity List.
(iv) Specially designated global terrorists [SDGT], (
(v) The requirements of a BIS General Order. These General Orders, which are published in the
(3)
(c)
(1) Prior to proceeding with the transaction a party seeking to be eligible for the safe harbor must submit a written report by first-class mail, express mail, or overnight delivery to
(2) BIS will acknowledge receipt of all reports received and provide the reporting party with a telephone number at which to contact BIS if it does not receive a response by the date stated in the acknowledgement. BIS expects to respond to most reports within 45 days of its receipt of the report. The response shall:
(i) State that BIS concurs with the party's judgement that it has adequately addressed the concerns raised by the red flags;
(ii) State that BIS does not concur with the party's judgement that it has adequately resolved those concerns and describe additional information that would be necessary to resolve them adequately;
(iii) Issue an “is informed” notice (pursuant to §§ 744.2(b), 744.3(b), 744.4(b), 744.6(b) or 744.17(b) of the EAR) informing the party of a license requirement under §§ 744.2, 744.3, 744.4, 744.6, or 744.17(b) of the EAR; or
(iv) state that more time is needed to review the submission.
(3) The party is not entitled to conclude that BIS concurs with the party's judgement that the party has adequately resolved the concerns raised by the red flags until it either receives a response from BIS so stating or contacts BIS at the telephone number indicated in the acknowledgment and is told that BIS will not be responding to this report.
(4) A response by BIS stating that it concurs with the party's judgement that it has resolved the concerns raised by the red flags or a statement by BIS that it will not be responding to the reexport shall, provided the party submitting the report has taken the steps in paragraph (b) of this section, serve as confirmation, based on the information in the party's submission, that the party has adequately resolved the concerns raised by the red flags. However, such confirmation shall not bind a subsequent enforcement action or prosecution if the submitting party had actual knowledge or actual awareness that the fact or circumstance in question was more likely than not, or if the submission misstated or withheld relevant material information.
(5) If BIS responds as described in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section and the party proceeds without taking the additional steps to resolve the concerns, then it will not qualify for the safe harbor.
(6) In this paragraph (c), the date of BIS's receipt of the report shall be the date of receipt by the Office of Enforcement Analysis as recorded in a log maintained by that office for this purpose and the date of BIS's response shall be the postmark date of BIS's response.
14. The authority citation for part 772 continues to read as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
15. In § 772.1 revise the definition of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; amendments.
On April 14, 2003, pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA issued national emission standards to control hazardous air pollutants emitted from pushing, quenching, and battery stacks at new and existing coke oven batteries. This proposed action would amend the parametric operating limits and associated compliance provisions for capture systems used to control emissions from pushing. This action also would amend the requirements for mobile scrubber cars that capture emissions which occur during pushing and travel.
In the Rules and Regulations section of this
If we receive any significant, adverse comments on one or more distinct amendments in the direct final rule, we will publish a timely notice of withdrawal in the
The regulatory text for the proposal is identical to that for the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OGC-2004-0004, by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Agency Web site:
• E-mail:
• Fax: (202) 566-1741.
• Mail: Proposed Settlement Agreement in
• Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B102, Washington, DC. 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Ms. Lula Melton, Emission Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C439-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2910, fax number (919) 541-3207, e-mail address: melton.lula@epa.gov.
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.7281 of the national emission standards for coke ovens: Pushing, quenching, and battery stacks. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding
Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through EDOCKET, regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. OGC-2004-0004. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 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 public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's proposed amendments is also available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the proposed amendments will be placed on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at
If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by October 25, 2004, a public hearing will be held on October 27, 2004. If a public hearing is requested, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA Facility Complex in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina or at an alternate site nearby.
For information regarding other statutory and executive order reviews associated with this action, please see the direct final rule located in the Rules and Regulations section of today's
The proposed action does not impose any new information collection burden. The costs of the information collection requirements associated with the new operating limit and operation and maintenance plan provisions related to the settlement agreement do not increase the existing burden estimates for the final rule. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
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 part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to U.S. Small Business Administration size standards for NAICS codes 331111 and 324199 ranging from 500 to 1,000 employees; (2) a government jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and that is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603-604). Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if
Although the proposed rule amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of the proposed amendments on small entities. We held meetings with the petitioners to discuss the proposed amendments related to the settlement agreement and have included provisions that address their concerns. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed amendments on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
An Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory Council meeting will convene in Stayton, Oregon on Wednesday, November 3, 2004. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m., and will conclude at approximately 8:30 p.m. The meeting will be held in the South Room of the Stayton Community Center located on 400 West Virginia Street in Stayton, Oregon.
The Opal Creek Wilderness and Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Act of 1996 (Opal Creek Act) (Pub. L. 104-208) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish the Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory Council. The Advisory Council is comprised of thirteen members representing state, county and city governments, and representatives of various organizations, which include mining industry, environmental organizations, inholders in Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area, economic development, Indian tribes, adjacent landowners and recreation interests. The council provides advice to the Secretary of Agriculture on preparation of a comprehensive Opal Creek Management Plan for the SRA, and consults on a periodic and regular basis on the management of the area. Tentative agenda items include: Current project updates; finalize project ranking process, begin identifying new projects, discuss District program of work and how councils project recommendations fit in.
A direct public comment period is tentatively scheduled to begin at 8 p.m. Time allotted for individual presentations will be limited to 3 minutes. Written comments are encouraged, particularly if the material cannot be presented within the time limits of the comment period. Written comments may be submitted prior to November 3rd by sending them to Designated Federal Official Paul Matter at the address given below.
For more information regarding this meeting, contact Designated Federal Official Paul Matter; Willamette National Forest, Detroit Ranger District, HC 73 Box 320, Mill City, OR 97360; (503) 854-3366.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Black Hills National Forests' Crook County Resource Advisory Committee will meet Monday, October 18, 2004 in Sundance, Wyoming for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.
The business meeting on October 18, begins at 6:30 p.m., at the U.S. Forest Service, Bearlodge Ranger District office, 121 South 21st Street, Sundance, Wyoming. Agenda topics will include: Updates on previously funded projects and a review of new project proposals. A public forum will begin at 8:30 p.m. (MT).
Steve Kozel, Bearlodge District Ranger and Designated Federal Officer, at (307) 283-1361.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board adopts the following Order:
Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for “* * *. the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
Whereas, the Lewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council, a Maine not-for-profit corporation (the Grantee), has made application to the Board (FTZ Docket 14-2004, filed 4/5/04), requesting the establishment of a foreign-trade zone at sites in Auburn (Androscoggin County), Maine, within the Portland, Maine, Customs port of entry;
Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the
Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest;
Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants to the Grantee the privilege of establishing a foreign-trade zone, designated on the records of the Board as Foreign-Trade Zone No. 263, at the sites described in the application, and subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including § 400.28.
Attest:
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board adopts the following Order.
Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for “* * * the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
Whereas, the Northern Mississippi FTZ Inc., a Mississippi non-profit corporation (the Grantee), has made application to the Board (FTZ Docket 10-2004, filed 3/16/04), requesting the establishment of a foreign-trade zone in Southaven (DeSoto County), Mississippi, within the Memphis, Tennessee, Customs port of entry;
Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the
Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest;
Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants to the Grantee the privilege of establishing a foreign-trade zone, designated on the records of the Board as Foreign-Trade Zone No. 262, at the site described in the application, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.
Attest: Dennis Puccinelli, Executive Secretary.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Receipt of applications for amendments.
Notice is hereby given that the following entities have requested an amendment to their scientific research permits:
Permit No. 782-1702: National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML), NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, (Dr. John Bengtson, Principal Investigator); and
Permit No. 1409: Karen G. Holloway-Adkins, East Coast Biologists, Inc., P.O. Box 33715, Indialantic, FL 32903-3715.
Written, telefaxed, or e-mail comments must be received on or before November 12, 2004.
The amendment requests and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376; and
Permit 782-1702: Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206)526-6150; fax (206)526-6426; and
Permit No. 1409: Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432; phone (727)570-5312, fax (727)570-5517.
Written comments or requests for a public hearing on these requests should be submitted to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on either of these particular amendment requests would be appropriate.
Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period.
Comments may also be submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing email comments is
Ruth Johnson, Amy Sloan or Patrick Opay (301)713-2289.
The subject amendments are requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
Permit No. 782-1702 issued to the NMML authorizes the permit holder to capture harbor seals (
The permit holder has requested an amendment to the permit to increase the number of accidental mortalities of California sea lions from five to seven for the year spanning July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005. The Permit expires June 30, 2008. During the 2004 summer field season California sea lions captured on a floating trap in the East Mooring Basin at Astoria, Oregon, were left unattended in the trap. When researchers returned to the capture site, five of the seven captured animals were dead or dying. The two remaining live animals were released. Apparently fighting among the animals caught in the trap resulted in the five deaths. The researchers maintain that this was unusual behavior, but to prevent this type of accident from occurring in the future the following mitigation measures will be included in the permit amendment,
Permit 1409 issued to Karen G. Holloway-Adkins authorizes take of 100 green sea turtles (
The permit holder has requested a modification to the permit to allow sonic tags to be attached to 15 green sea turtles, a subset of the turtles already authorized to be taken, to determine distribution and seasonal movements of turtles in nearshore reefs in Brevard County.
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Consideration will be given to all comments received by November 12, 2004.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Zeiher at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/ESCD/Information Management Division, 1225 South Clark Street, Suite 504, Arlington, VA 22202-4326.
Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices.
Notice.
The DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed Special Technical Area Review (STAR) on Electronics for Reconfigurable Military Systems.
The STAR will be held at 0830, Tuesday and Wednesday, October 26th and 27th 2004.
The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research Services, 241 18th Street, Crystal Square 4, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202.
The Point of Contact for the meeting is Mr. David Cox, AGED Secretariat, 241 18th Street, Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.
The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective and economical research and development program in the area of electron devices.
The AGED meeting will be limited to review of research and development programs which the Military Departments propose to initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. The agenda for this meeting will include programs on microwave technology, microelectronics, electro-optics, and electronics materials.
In accordance with section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. 10(d)), it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., November 9, 2004.
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Board of Regents Conference Room (D3001) 4301 Jones Bride Road, Bethesda, MD 20814-4799.
Open—under “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)).
Dr. Barry Wolcott, Executive Secretary, Board of Regents, (301) 295-3681.
Notice is hereby given that the Delaware River Basin Commission will hold an informal conference followed by a public hearing on Wednesday, October 27, 2004. The hearing will be part of the Commission's regular business meeting. Both the conference session and business meeting are open to the public and will be held at the National Constitution Center, Kirby Auditorium, 525 Arch Street, Independence Mall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The conference among the commissioners and staff will begin at 9:30 a.m. Topics of discussion will include: an update on the Water Resources Plan for the Delaware River Basin (“Basin Plan”) including a summary of the Watershed Summit of September 13-15 and the transition from planning to implementation; a summary and report on informational meetings on a proposed resolution to amend the Water Quality Regulations, Water Code and Comprehensive Plan to designate the Lower Delaware River as Special Protection Waters; a proposal to amend the Commission's fee schedule for the review of projects under Section 3.8 and Article 10 of the Delaware River Basin Compact by the addition of a late application fee; and a presentation on the structural reorganization of the Delaware Estuary Program.
The business meeting will begin at 11 a.m. The portion of the meeting running from 11 a.m. until 12:15 p.m. will consist of the public hearing on a proposal to amend the Water Quality Regulations, Water Code and Comprehensive Plan by establishing pollutant minimization plan requirements for point and non-point source discharges following issuance of a TMDL or assimilative capacity determination.
The business meeting will resume at 1:30 p.m. Public hearings on the following project review applications will be held during this afternoon portion of the meeting:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
• A multi-year demonstration period during the remainder of the 2004 season through the 2007 season associated with flow and temperature restrictions in accordance with an approved operating and monitoring plan.
• Withdrawals not to exceed 24 million gallons per day (mgd) of LGS' consumptive cooling water needs during times when the Schuylkill River 24-hour average river ambient water temperature exceeds 59 °F and when the 24-hour average river flow is at or below 1,791 cubic feet per second (cfs) (but above 560 cfs) at the gaging station at Pottstown.
• Withdrawals of LGS' entire consumptive cooling water needs during times when the Schuylkill River 24-hour average river ambient water temperature exceeds 59 °F and when the 24-hour average river flow exceeds 1,791 cfs.
• Maintenance of minimum flow of at least 10 cfs in the East Branch Perkiomen Creek at all times in accordance with the draft Demonstration Operation and Monitoring Plan for the Joint Limerick Generating Station Water Supply Modification Demonstration and Wadesville Mine Pool Withdrawal & Stream Flow Augmentation Project that was submitted by Exelon.
• Development of recreational flow management plans to increase flows in the East Branch Perkiomen Creek above 10 cfs to support specific short-term recreational events.
• Establishment of a restoration and monitoring fund based on $0.06/1,000 gallons of makeup water that is not required for LGS consumptive cooling water needs due to lifting the 59 °F temperature requirement. Flows pumped to the EBPC during periods when the 59 °F restriction would have been in effect, but not used for consumptive cooling water needs at the LGS, will be credited against this fund.
• Working with stakeholders regarding the design and implementation of the demonstration and restoration projects during 2005 and future years.
• Test periods with no augmentation/makeup waters supplied for LGS consumptive cooling water needs (beyond the minimum 10 cfs flows in the East Branch Perkiomen Creek).
• The continuation of the Wadesville Mine Pool withdrawal and Stream Flow Augmentation Demonstration Project that was approved under Docket No. D-69-210 CP (Final) (Revision 11) and extended for one year by Commission Resolution No. 2003-25 adopted December 3, 2003.
In addition to the items listed above, the afternoon portion of the Commission's business meeting will include the public hearing on a resolution to amend the Water Quality Regulations, Water Code and Comprehensive Plan to designate the Lower Delaware River as Special Protection Waters. In addition, the meeting will include: Adoption of the Minutes of the September 1, 2004 business meeting; announcements; a report on Basin hydrologic conditions; a report by the executive director; a report by the Commission's general counsel; and an opportunity for public dialogue.
Draft dockets and materials relating to the other items scheduled for public hearing on October 27, 2004 will be posted on the Commission's Web site,
Please contact the office of the Commission secretary, Pamela M. Bush, by phoning 609-883-9500 ext. 224, if you wish to offer comment on any of the items scheduled for public hearing.
Individuals in need of an accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act who wish to attend the informational meeting, conference session or hearings should contact the office of the Commission secretary at 609-883-9500 ext. 224 or through the Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) at 711, to discuss how the Commission may accommodate your needs.
Take notice that on September 28, 2004, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (Dominion), 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee), 9 Greenway Plaza, Houston, Texas 77046; and National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221 (collectively, the Applicants) filed a joint abbreviated application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and part 157 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. The Applicants request authorization to modify operations of the jointly-owned Ellisburg Storage Pool in Potter County, Pennsylvania. The application is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
The current certificated capacity at Ellisburg Storage Pool is 98.43 Bcf, comprised of 52.53 Bcf of top gas
Any questions regarding the application are to be directed to Anne E. Bomar, Managing Director Transmission Rates and Regulation, 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; phone number (804) 819-2134.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission may issue a preliminary determination on non-environmental issues prior to the completion of its review of the environmental aspects of the project. This preliminary determination typically considers such issues as the need for the project and its economic effect on existing customers of the applicant, on other pipelines in the area, and on landowners and communities. For example, the Commission considers the extent to which the applicant may need to exercise eminent domain to obtain rights-of-way for the proposed project and balances that against the non-environmental benefits to be provided by the project. Therefore, if a person has comments on community and landowner impacts from this proposal, it is important either to file comments or to intervene as early in the process as possible.
Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper;
Take notice that on September 29, 2004, Enogex Inc. (Enogex) tendered for filing a revised lower fuel factor for its Enogex System for the last quarter of Fuel Year 2004 as calculated pursuant to the formulas in Enogex's filed fuel tracker. Enogex seeks an effective date of October 1, 2004.
Enogex states that it is serving notice of the filing and the revised fuel percentage on all current shippers.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). 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 notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on September 28, 2004, High Island Offshore System, L.L.C. (HIOS) tendered for filing and approval a negotiated rate arrangement between HIOS and Hunt Petroleum (AEC), Inc.
HIOS requests that the Commission accept and approve the negotiated rate arrangement to be effective September 1, 2004.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). 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 notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on September 28, 2004, Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective October 29, 2004.
Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to update its tariff to reflect the information required by Order No. 2004. Northwest states that a copy of this filing has been served upon Northwest's customers and interested state regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). 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 notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on September 29, 2004, Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C. (Ozark) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets to be effective October 29, 2004:
Ozark states that the purpose of its filing is to replace obsolete references to the repealed Order Nos. 497,
Ozark further states that it has served copies of this filing upon the company's jurisdictional customers and interested State commissions. Questions concerning this filing may be directed to counsel for Ozark, James F. Bowe, Jr., Dewey Ballantine LLP, at (202) 429-1444, fax (202) 429-1579, or
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). 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 notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on September 24, 2004, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, (Texas Gas) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, to become effective October 25, 2004:
Texas Gas states that the purpose of this filing is to propose a revision to the General Terms and Conditions (GT&C) of Texas Gas's tariff in section 31.2, types of discounts, so that Texas Gas may offer an additional type of transportation discount based on published index prices for specific receipt or delivery points or other agreed upon pricing reference points for price determination. The proposed tariff change will not affect Texas Gas's overall revenue requirement.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). 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 notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on September 29, 2004, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco or Applicant) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised Sheet No. 312 to become effective October 29, 2004.
Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to update the Delivery Point Entitlement (DPE) tariff sheet for Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.1(f) of the General Terms and Conditions of Transco's Third Revised Volume No. 1 Tariff.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). 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 notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on September 27, 2004, Transwestern Pipeline Company (Transwestern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1 (Tariff), the following tariff sheet to become effective November 1, 2004:
Transwestern states that pursuant to Section 25 of the General Terms and Conditions of Transwestern's FERC Tariff, Transwestern is filing a tariff sheet, setting forth the new TCR II reservation surcharges that Transwestern proposes to put into effect on November 1, 2004.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). 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 notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on October 4, 2004, Union Partners, L.P. (Union) filed a Complaint against the Entergy Operating Companies and Entergy Services, Inc. (collectively, Entergy) pursuant to Rule 206 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.206). Union asserts that Entergy, in violation of its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) and Commission pricing policy, has unjustly and unreasonably failed to provide transmission credits, with interest, associated with network facilities paid for by Complainant. Union requests a Commission order directing Entergy to amend certain interconnection agreements to provide transferability of transmission credits.
Union states that it has served by e-mail, messenger, or overnight delivery on Entergy.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 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 notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line 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 September 30, 2004, Pasco Cogen, Ltd. (Pasco) submitted a request for a temporary waiver of the operating standards for its qualifying cogeneration facility located in Dade City, Florida, pursuant to section 292.205(c) of the Commission's regulations in the above caption dockets. Pasco states that the waiver being requested is for calendar years 2004 and 2005.
Take notice that on October 4, 2004, Union Partners, L.P. (Union) filed a Complaint against the Entergy Operating Companies and Entergy Services, Inc. (collectively, Entergy) pursuant to Rule 206 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.206). Union asserts that Entergy, in violation of its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) and Commission pricing policy, has unjustly and unreasonably failed to provide transmission credits, with interest, associated with network facilities paid for by Complainant.
Union requests a Commission order directing Entergy to amend certain interconnection agreements to provide transferability of transmission credits.
Union states that it has served by e-mail, messenger, or overnight delivery on Entergy.
Take notice that on September 30, 2004, ISO New England Inc. (ISO) submitted a Status Report on Development of Day-Ahead Load Response Program in Docket No. ER02-2330-031 as directed by the Commission in its November 17, 2003, Order on Requests for Rehearing and Compliance Filing, 105 FERC ¶61,211.
ISO states that copies of the filing have been served on all parties to the above-captioned proceeding.
Take notice that on September 30, 2004, Tucson Electric Power Company (Tucson Electric) and UNS Electric Inc. (UNS Electric) filed an amendment to their July 14, 2004, filing submitted in compliance with the Commission(s June 4, 2004, order in Docket No. ER04-442-000,
Take notice that on September 30, 2004, Entergy Services, Inc., (Entergy), on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc., submitted an errata filing to correct the Order No. 614 designation of one tariff sheet included in Entergy's August 9, 2004, regional reliability variations compliance filing for Entergy's Large Generator Interconnection Procedures pursuant to
Take notice that on September 30, 2004, Entergy Services, Inc., (Entergy), on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc., submitted an errata filing to correct the Order No. 614 designation of several tariff sheets included in Entergy's August 9, 2004, compliance filing for Entergy's Large Generator Interconnection Procedures pursuant to
Take notice that on September 29, 2004, Illinois Power Company (Illinois Power) submitted for filing Service Agreement No. 390, pursuant to which Illinois Power takes Network Integration Transmission Service under its Open Access Transmission Tariff for the purpose of serving retail native load customers, revised in compliance with the Commission's order issued September 1, 2004, in Docket No. ER04-1092-000.
Take notice that on September 29, 2004, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) filed a supplement to its September 22, 2004, report in Docket No. ER03-1101-005 on the effects of PJM's credit policy for virtual bidders, to provide information on the numbers and megawatt-hours of bids by market participants engaged in virtual bidding.
PJM states that copies of this filing have been served on all persons listed on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.
Take notice that on September 29, 2004, Oregon Electric Utility Company (OEUC), Portland General Electric Company and Portland General Term Power Procurement Company submitted for filing import capability data in support of the application filed September 8, 2004, in Docket No. ER04-1206-000.
Take notice that on September 29, 2004, as amended September 30, 2004, ISO New England Inc. (ISO) submitted an application to revise provisions of Appendix E to Market Rule 1 regarding the Day-Ahead Load Response Program.
ISO states that copies of the filing have been served on all NEPOOL Participants, and the Governors and utility regulatory agencies of the New England States.
Take notice that on September 30, 2004, The Dayton Power and Light Company (Dayton) tendered for filing a Local Delivery Service Agreement with Buckeye Power, Inc.
Take notice that on September 30, 2004, Alabama Power Company (APC),
Take notice that on September 30, 2004, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO), the Midwest ISO Transmission Owners, and the Midwest Stand Alone Transmission Companies (Filing Parties) submitted for filing proposed revisions to Midwest's ISO Open Access Transmission Tariff to accommodate Illinois Power Company becoming a new transmission owner member of the Midwest ISO. The Filing Parties request an effective date of October 1, 2004.
The Filing Parties have also requested waiver of the service requirements set forth in 18 CFR 385.2010. Midwest ISO states that it has electronically served a copy of this filing, with attachments, upon all Midwest ISO Members, Member representatives of Transmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, as well as all State commissions within the region. In addition, the filing has been electronically posted on the Midwest ISO's Web site at
Take notice that on September 30, 2004, Illinois Power Company (Illinois Power) tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation for certain service agreements under its Open Access Transmission Tariff. Illinois Power requests and effective date of October 1, 2004.
Take notice that on September 30, 2004, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) submitted proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission Tariff to enable the NYISO to recover or return the net of any financial settlements that may result pursuant to a limited testing program of virtual regional dispatch concepts with a neighboring control area.
NYISO states that it has electronically served a copy of this filing on the official representative of each of its Market Participants, on each participant in its stakeholder governance committees, and on the New York Public Service Commission and New Jersey Board of Public Utilities. The NYISO has also served the electric utility regulatory agency of Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on September 30, 2004, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO), the Midwest ISO Transmission Owners, and the Midwest Stand Alone Transmission Companies (collectively, Filing Parties) submitted for filing proposed revisions to the Agreement of Transmission Facilities Owners to Organize the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., a Delaware Non-Stock Corporation to accommodate Illinois Power Company becoming a new transmission owner member of the Midwest ISO. The Filing Parties request an effective date of October 1, 2004.
The Filing Parties state that they have also requested waiver of the service requirements set forth in 18 CFR 385.2010. Midwest ISO states that it has electronically served a copy of this filing, with attachments, upon all Midwest ISO Members, Member representatives of Transmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, as well as all state commissions within the region. In addition, the filing has been electronically posted on the Midwest ISO's Web site at
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). 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 notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all parties to this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line 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 September 30, 2004, Panda Gila River I, LLC, Panda Gila River II, LLC, Union Power I, LLC, Union Power II, LLC (collectively, the TECO Applicants) and LenderCo (together with the TECO Applicants,
Take notice that on September 30, 2004, LSP-Kendall Energy, LLC (LSP-Kendall), Granite II Holding, LLC (Granite II) and LSP Kendall Holding LLC (Holding) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization for the disposition of jurisdictional facilities in connection with the sale by Granite II to Holding of all of the issued and outstanding membership interests in LSP-Kendall, which owns an approximately 1,160 MW combined cycle electric generation facility located in Kendall County, Illinois.
On September 30, 2004, Northern Iowa Windpower LLC (Northern Iowa) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an Application for Redetermination of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Northern Iowa owns and operates a wind-powered eligible facility with a capacity of 80 megawatts, powered by eighty-nine wind turbine generators, which is located in Worth County, Iowa.
Take notice that, on September 27, 2004, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC), WPS Energy Services, Inc. and WPS Power Development, Inc. (and its subsidiaries) (collectively, the WPSR Companies), submitted a three-year update of the justification for their authorization to sell power at market-based rates.
WPSR Companies state that copies of this filing have been served on the Public Service Commissions of Wisconsin, Michigan and Maine.
Take notice that on September 27, 2004, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) and its affiliates listed above (jointly Exelon), submitted for filing generation market power screens and other analyses performed for Exelon in compliance with the Commission's orders issued April 14, 2004 and July 8, 2004 107 FERC ¶ 61,018 (2004) and 61,026 (2004).
Take notice that on September 28, 2004, the Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (PWCC), the Arizona Public Service Company, the Pinnacle West Energy Corporation and APS Energy Services, Company, Inc. (collectively the Pinnacle West Companies), filed a supplement to its market update for authorization to sell at market-based rates and various tariff amendments filed on August 11, 2004, pursuant to the request of Commission staff.
Take notice that on September 29, 2004, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's order issued August 3, 2004 in Docket No. ER04-13-000 and 001.
PG&E states that copies of this filing have been served upon the parties of record in FERC Docket No. ER04-13-000 and ER04-13-001, Duke Energy Moss Landing, LLC, the California Independent System Operator Corporation, and the California Public Utilities Commission.
As announced in a Notice of Technical Conference, issued September 27, 2004, in the above referenced proceedings, a technical conference will be held on October 8, 2004, in Jackson, Mississippi. The conference will be held from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (Central Time) at the Mississippi Department of Education Building, 359 N. West Street, Jackson, Mississippi (parking for this meeting is available in the Robert E. Lee Building, directly across the street from the Department of Education Building, on the 7th and 8th floors of the garage). Members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are expected to participate, along with Entergy Services, Inc's (Entergy) state and local utility regulators.
Following is a description of how the conference will be organized. To encourage dialog and discussion, the Commission is not expecting presentations or prepared remarks from market participants. Rather, the Commission intends this to be a working session.
The morning session will address Entergy's Weekly Procurement Process (WPP) proposal. Issues we would like to explore include: Transparency of information; refinement of the types of products to be offered through the WPP; the interplay of the WPP and the Available Flowgate Capability (AFC); the respective roles and responsibilities of the Independent Coordinator of Transmission (ICT), Entergy Management Organization (EMO), and Entergy Transmission in the WPP; to what extent do customers benefit from better economic dispatch; and any additional issues or concerns that participants wish to discuss related to the WPP.
We note that Entergy and the market participants have had two meetings in our offices intended as a follow-up to address certain questions and concerns expressed during the July 28 and 29, 2004 Technical Conference held in New Orleans. We will first provide Entergy
The afternoon session will discuss the ICT proposal. Specifically, issues we would like to explore include: how could the ICT proposal be changed to be more independent; what additional roles or functionalities should the ICT assume; and what stakeholder processes, if any, would be appropriate for the ICT, in its formation and on-going operations.
Parties will have the opportunity to file supplemental comments following the conclusion of the conference.
The conference is open for the public to attend and preregistration is not required; however, attendees are asked to register for the conference on-line by close of business on Wednesday, October 6, 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 e-Library seven calendar days after FERC receives the transcript.
For additional information, please contact Anna Cochrane at (202) 502-6357;
Take notice that on September 29, 2004, Xcel Energy Services Inc. (XES) on behalf of Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy (NSP) filed an amendment to its August 10, 2004 filing in Docket No. ER04-1107-000, a signed Contract for Interconnection, Load Control Boundary and Maintenance between NSP and the United States Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration (Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Eastern Division) (WAPA) dated July 12, 2004. XES proposes that the Interconnection Agreement be designated as Rate Schedule 446-NSP to the Xcel Energy Operating Companies FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 3. XES requests an effective date of August 10, 2004.
Take notice that on September 28, 2004, PPL University Park, LLC (PPL University Park) submitted a corrected revised sheet to its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1 to replace a sheet submitted with its August 11, 2004 filing, as amended on August 13, 2004, in Docket No. ER04-1111-000.
PPL University Park states that copies of the filing were served upon PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., New York Independent System Operator, Inc. and ISO New England Inc., and parties on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
Take notice that on September 28, 2004, Westar Energy, Inc. (Westar) submitted an amendment to its August 25, 2004 filing in Docket No. ER04-1150-000. Westar states that the amendment removes the request for the deletion of Westar's need to submit a revised Exhibit II when delivery points are added or changed.
Westar states that a copy of this filing was served upon the Kansas Corporation Commission, Kaw Valley Electric Cooperative, Nemaha-Marshall Electric Cooperative Association, Inc. and Doniphan Electric Cooperative.
Take notice that on September 28, 2004, Styrka Energy Master Fund LLC (Applicant) tendered for filing an application for waivers and blanket approvals under various regulations of the Commission and for an order accepting Styrka Energy Master Fund LLC's FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1. Applicant states that it is seeking authority to make sales of electrical capacity, energy, ancillary services, and Firm Transmission Rights, Congestion Credits, Fixed Transmission Rights, and Auction Revenue Rights (collectively, FTRs), as well as reassignments of transmission capacity, to wholesale customers at market-based rates. Applicant requests and effective date of October 1, 2004.
Take notice that on September 28, 2004, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., (Midwest ISO) and Ameren Services Company (Ameren) (collectively, Applicants) filed with the Commission a Joint Application Under section 205 of the Federal Power Act for Approval of Transition to Formulae Rate. Applicants requests an effective date of October 1, 2004.
Take notice that on September 29, 2004, Central Maine Power Company (CMP) submitted an Executed Continuing Site/Interconnection Agreement (CSIA) between CMP and FPL Energy Maine, Inc., which replaces an unexecuted CSIA filed with the Commission on March 19, 2004 in Docket No. ER04-425-000 and accepted for filing by the Commission on June 16, 2004. CMP states that this executed CSIA, which is intended to replace the unexecuted CSIA without changing any terms and conditions, is designated as FERC Electric Tariff, Fifth Revised, Volume No. 3, Third Revised Service Agreement No. 158, effective December 23, 2003.
Take notice that on September 30, 2004, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) submitted for filing with the Commission pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824d (2000), a First Revised Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement (NITSA) and First Revised Network Operating Agreement (NOA) between PNM and The Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New Mexico (LAC) under PNM's Open Access Transmission Tariff. PNM states that the NITSA and NOA have been modified to reflect current business arrangements between PNM and LAC, including updates to the billing credit mechanism under the NITSA. PNM requests an effective date of October 1, 2004.
PNM states that a copy of the filing was served upon LAC, and informational copies were served upon the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission and the New Mexico Attorney General.
Take notice that on September 30, 2004, Public Service Company of New
PNM states that a copy of the filing was served upon Tri-State, and informational copies were served upon the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission and the New Mexico Attorney General.
Take notice that on September 29, 2004, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) tendered for filing the Large Facilities Authorization Letter No. 3, the Small Facilities Authorization Letter No. 7, and the Other Facilities Authorization Letter, submitted pursuant to the procedures for implementation (Procedures) of section 3.3 of the 1987 Agreement between PG&E and the City and County of San Francisco (City). PG&E states that this is PG&E's sixth quarterly filing submitted pursuant to section 4 of the Procedures, which provides for the quarterly filing of Facilities Authorization Letters.
PG&E states that copies of this filing have been served upon City, the California Independent System Operator Corporation, and the California Public Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on October 1, 2004, the Unified Plan Proponents, consisting of transmission owners, independent transmission companies, transmission-dependent utilities, municipal and cooperative entities, independent generators, power marketers, retail customers, consumer advocates, and state commissions, jointly submitted for filing, in the above-captioned dockets, a long-term transmission rate design proposal, for the combined Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) and PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) region, and related Offer of Settlement, pursuant to
The Unified Plan Proponents propose to make their submittal effective as a single integrated package on December 1, 2004.
The Unified Plan Proponents also have requested waiver of the service requirements set forth in 18 CFR 385.2010. The Unified Plan Proponents have electronically served a copy of this filing, with attachments, upon the official LISTSERVE in Docket No. EL02-111-000,
Also take notice that on October 1, 2004, Allegheny Power, Ameren Services Corporation, American Electric Power Service Corporation, Exelon Corporation, Illinois Power Company and LG&E Energy, L.L.C., jointly submitted for filing, in Docket Nos. EL02-111-019, EL03-212-016 and EL04-135-000, a long-term transmission pricing proposal. They state that copies of this filing were served on parties on the official service list in Docket Nos. EL02-111-000 and EL03-212-000.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). 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 notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all parties to this proceeding.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations (18 CFR part 380), Commission staff have reviewed an application for amendment of license for the Gross Reservoir Project, filed April 22, 2004, to: (1) Change the location of the project powerhouse and install two turbines with synchronous generators, (2) install approximately 580 feet of new penstock, (3) modify the alignment of the transmission lines, (4) construct a parking lot at the proposed powerhouse; and (5) increase project generation capacity. The project is located on South Boulder Creek, near the city of Boulder, in Boulder County, Colorado. The project occupies Federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Roosevelt National Forest, and the Bureau of Land Management.
In the EA, Commission staff has analyzed the probable environmental
A copy of the EA is attached to a Commission order titled “Order Amending License,” which was issued October 1, 2004, and is available for review and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of Empire State Pipeline's (Empire) proposed Empire Connector Project (project) in New York. The proposed facilities would consist of about 80 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline extending from Empire's existing pipeline in Victor, New York, to an interconnection with the Millennium Pipeline near Corning, New York; and about 22,000 horsepower (hp) of compression at a new compressor station on Empire's exiting pipeline in Oakfield, New York. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether or not the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
The project is currently in the preliminary design stage. At this time no formal application has been filed with the FERC. For this project, the FERC staff is initiating its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review prior to receiving the application. This will allow interested stakeholders to be involved early in project planning and to identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with the FERC. A docket number (PF04-16-000) has been established to place information filed by Empire and related documents issued by the Commission, into the public record.
This notice is being sent to landowners along the various pipeline routes under consideration; Federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; and local libraries and newspapers.
With this notice, we
Some affected landowners may be contacted by a project representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed pipeline. If so, the company should seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. In the event that the project is certificated by the Commission, that approval conveys the right of eminent domain for securing easements for the pipeline. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law.
Empire proposes to construct and operate about 80 miles of 24-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline and related facilities to deliver up to 250,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of natural gas from TransCanada Pipelines, Ltd. to the Millennium Pipeline. The pipeline would be constructed in Ontario, Yates, Schuyler, and Chemung Counties, New York. Empire would construct the new 22,000 hp compressor station on its existing pipeline in Genesee County, New York.
At this time, KeySpan Gas East Corporation (KeySpan) has executed a precedent agreement for 150,000 Dth/d of the proposed transportation capacity on Empire's system. KeySpan has requested that the proposed facilities be available to provide the requested service by November 1, 2006. Therefore, Empire plans to file its certificate application in March 2005 and states that it would need to receive authority for the project by January 2006 in order to meet the requested in-service date.
A map depicting the preliminary pipeline route is provided in appendix 1.
Construction of the proposed facilities would require a total of about 900 acres of land. Typically, pipeline construction would occur within a nominal 75-foot-wide right-of-way. This width would be reduced in forested areas to 65 feet and would be increased up to 100 feet in agricultural areas where segregated topsoil would be stored and in areas with rugged terrain which would require additional right-of-way width for tiered construction or for extra workspace for spoil storage or safety. The pipeline construction right-of-way would require about 815 acres of land plus about 5 acres of land for additional temporary workspaces at road, railroad, waterbody and wetland crossings for staging the crossing of these features. About 20 acres would be required for construction of the compressor station and other aboveground facilities. Empire anticipates needing to use about 15 miles of access roads during construction, affecting about 30 acres of land. Most of these roads would be existing roads, but they may be widened and/or lengthened and some may be new roads. Also, Empire would need about 30 acres for use as contractor or pipe yards.
Following construction, about 500 acres would be maintained for operation of the new facilities. About 480 acres would be required along the permanent, 50-foot-wide pipeline right-of-way. About 10 acres would be permanently required for the new compressor station and other aboveground facility sites. Empire anticipates needing to use about 5 miles of the access roads used during construction as permanent access road affecting about 10 acres. The remaining 400 acres of land would be restored and allowed to revert to its former use.
NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address issues and concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues and reasonable alternatives. By this notice, we are requesting agency and public comments on the scope of the issues to be analyzed and presented in the EA. All scoping comments received will be considered during the preparation of the EA. To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the public participation section of this notice.
The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:
• Geology and soils.
• Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands.
• Vegetation and wildlife.
• Endangered and threatened species.
• Land use.
• Cultural resources.
• Air quality and noise.
• Public safety.
Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be published and mailed to Federal, state, and local agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners, newspapers, libraries, and the Commission(s official service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission.
To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the public participation section beginning on page 5.
We have identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental resources present in the project area. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based information obtained during the public participation period and on our continuing analysis:
Our evaluation will also include possible alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and we will make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas of concern.
You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative locations and routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. Empire has established a preliminary pipeline route for the project; however, if minor reroutes or variations are required to avoid or minimize impacts to certain features on your property, this is your opportunity to assist us and Empire in identifying your specific areas of concern. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received and properly recorded:
• Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
• Label one copy of your comments for the attention of Gas Branch 2; and
• Reference Docket No. PF04-16-000 on the original and both copies.
Please note that we are continuing to experience delays in mail deliveries from the U.S. Postal Service. As a result, we will include all comments that we receive within a reasonable time frame in our environmental analysis of this project. However, the Commission encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to remain on our mailing list, please return the Mailing List Retention Form included in Appendix 3.
The environmental staff of the FERC will conduct a site visit of the proposed facility locations. Anyone interested in participating in the field trip may attend, but they must provide their own transportation. We will meet at the following locations at the indicated dates and times:
Please contact Empire's representative Vince Dick at (585) 321-4207 for directions to the locations of the beginning of the site visit.
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208 FERC (3372) or on the FERC Internet Web site
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of its staff may participate in the October 7, 2004 stakeholder meeting of the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) to discuss current proposals for the market power mitigation under the Market Design and Technology Upgrade Program in light of the California Public Utilities Commission's Draft Order on Resource Adequacy.
The discussion may address matters at issue in the following proceeding:
Docket Nos. ER02-1656-000 and ER02-1656-019,
The meeting will take place on October 7, 2004 and is expected to begin at approximately 10 a.m. (PDT). The meeting will take place at the CAISO's facilities in Folsom, CA. The meeting is open to the public.
For more information, contact Olga Kolotushkina, Office of General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-6024 or
On August 20, 2004, in the “Order Providing Additional Time to Conduct Settlement Discussions,”
Subsequent to the submission of the first status reports, the California Power Exchange Corporation contacted the Commission's Dispute Resolution Service to see if a process could be implemented to assist the parties in their negotiations.
On October 8, 2004, the Director of the Commission's Dispute Resolution Service will hold a settlement conference in the above-captioned docket. The settlement conference will begin at 9:30 a.m. (EST) in Room 3M-3, 888 1st St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. To insure that the room is adequately sized, all parties that plan to attend the settlement conference are requested to contact the Director of the Commission's Dispute Resolution Service before noon on Thursday, October 7, 2004. If additional room is needed, the session will be held in Hearing Room 1 at the same location.
All parties in the above-referenced dockets are requested to attend the settlement conference. Any questions regarding this conference, please call Richard Miles, the Director of the Dispute Resolution Service at (202) 502-8702 or
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend a meeting of the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO) stakeholders noted below, where the MISO stakeholders are expected to discuss the implementation of the Commission's recent Grandfathered Agreements Order, 108 FERC ¶ 61,236 (2004). The staff's attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.
MISO Stakeholder Meeting—
October 6, 2004, 9 a.m.-2 p.m. (e.s.t.)
Lakeside Conference Center (directly across from MISO's headquarters), 630 West Carmel Drive, Carmel, IN 46032.
The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
The meeting is open to the public.
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Markets, Tariffs and Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or
Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will host a technical conference on Wednesday, December 1, 2004 to assess the state of wind energy in wholesale electricity markets. The workshop will be held at the Adams Mark Denver Hotel, 1550 Court Place, Denver, Colorado 80202. The workshop is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. and end at approximately 5 p.m. (Mountain Standard Time). The Commissioners will attend and participate.
The goal of the technical conference is to explore possible policy changes that would better accommodate the participation of wind energy in wholesale markets. Topics may include:
• The interest in and need for reform to the transmission service options under open-access transmission tariffs to better accommodate intermittent resources like wind;
• Whether the current methodology for determining imbalance charges unduly penalizes intermittent resources;
• The role of regional transmission planning processes;
• The inclusion of wind energy in State resource adequacy plans and installed capacity markets; and
• Experiences of transmission providers that currently transmit wind energy.
An agenda will be made available at a later time.
The 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 Monday, November 29, 2004 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 system seven calendar days after FERC receives the transcript. Additionally, Capitol Connection offers the opportunity for remote listening of 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,
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of final power allocations.
The Western Area Power Administration's (Western) Upper Great Plains Customer Service Region, a Federal power marketing agency of the Department of Energy, announces the Post-2005 Resource Pool Power Allocations (Power Allocations) to fulfill the requirements of the Energy Planning and Management Program (Program). The Power Allocations come from a Federal power resource pool of the long-term marketable resource of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division (P-SMBP—ED) that will become available January 1, 2006. This notice also includes Western's responses to public comments on proposed allocations published March 29, 2004.
Final Power Allocations are published to show Western's decisions prior to beginning the contractual phase of the process. Firm electric service contracts, between Western and the allottees in this notice, will provide for allocations of power from the January 2006 billing period through the December 2020 billing period.
The Power Allocations are effective November 12, 2004.
Information about these Power Allocations, including comments, letters, and other supporting documents made or kept by Western in developing the final allocations, are available for public inspection and copying at the Upper Great Plains Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, located at 2900 4th Avenue North, P.O. Box 35800, Billings, MT 59107-5800. Public comments are available online at
Nancy Senitte, Public Utilities Specialist, Upper Great Plains Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, 2900 4th Avenue North, Billings, MT 59107-1266, telephone (406) 247-7429, e-mail
Western published the final Post-2005 Resource Pool Allocation Procedures (Procedures) in the
Western published its proposed allocations in the
The Procedures, in conjunction with the Post-1985 Marketing Plan (45 FR 71860, October 30, 1980), establish the framework for allocating power from the P-SMBP—ED.
The comments and responses regarding the allocations of power, paraphrased for brevity when not
The Power Allocations for new customers were calculated using the Procedures. As defined in the Post-1985 Marketing Plan criteria under the Procedures, the summer allocations are 24.84413 percent of total summer load; the winter allocations are 35.98853 percent of total winter load. The final Power Allocations for new eligible customers and the loads these allocations are based upon are as follows:
The final Power Allocations for new customers listed in the table above are based on the P-SMBP—ED marketable resource available at this time. Firm Electric Service Contracts will be offered to the customers listed in the table above. If the P-SMBP—ED marketable resource is adjusted in the future, Power Allocations may be adjusted accordingly.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601,
Western has determined that this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure.
Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 12, 2004.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID Number OPPT-2004-0077, to (1) EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by email to
Barbara Cunningham, Acting Director, Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 7408, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-554-1404; e-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On March 19, 2004, EPA sought comments on this renewal ICR (69 FR 13032). EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the comment period.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OPPT-2004-0077, which is available for public viewing at the OPPT 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 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 Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is 202-566-0280. 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 and OMB within 30 days of this notice. 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, 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, see EPA's
Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40 CFR part 763, subpart E). Respondents may claim all or part of a notice as CBI. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a CBI claim only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in 40 CFR part 2.
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 and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before November 12, 2004.
Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OAR-2004-0093, to (1) EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by email to
Darrel Harmon, Immediate Office, Office of Air and Radiation, Mail Code 6101A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7416; fax number (202) 501-0394, E-mail address:
EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On July 13, 2004 (69 FR 42052), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OAR-2004-0093, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 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 and Information Center Docket is: (202) 566-1741. 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 and OMB within 30 days of this notice. 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, see EPA's
The program regulation provides for Indian Tribes, if they so choose, to assume responsibility for the development and implementation of CAA programs. The regulation, Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management (Tribal Authority Rule [TAR] 40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50 and 81), sets forth how Tribes may seek authority to implement their own air quality planning and management programs. The rule establishes: (1) Which CAA provisions Indian Tribes may seek authority to implement, (2) what requirements the Tribes must meet when seeking such authorization, and (3) what Federal financial assistance may be available to help Tribes establish and manage their air quality programs. The TAR provides Tribes the authority to administer air quality programs over all air resources, including non-Indian owned fee lands, within the exterior boundaries of a reservation and other areas over which the tribe can demonstrate jurisdiction. An Indian Tribe that takes responsibility for a CAA program would essentially be treated in the same way as a State would be treated for that program. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation (OPEI) is giving a preliminary notice of its intention to solicit proposals for a 2004/2005 grant program to support innovation by state environmental regulatory agencies—the “State Innovation Grant Program.” The Agency is also seeking input from State Environmental Regulatory Agencies on the topic areas for the solicitation. In addition, EPA is asking each State Environmental Regulatory Agency to designate a point of contact at the management level (in addition to the Commissioner or Cabinet Secretary level) who should receive further communication about the upcoming solicitation. EPA anticipates publication of a
State Environmental Regulatory Agencies will have 30 days from the date of this pre-announcement notice in the
Information should be sent to: State Innovation Grant Program; Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1807T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Responses may also be sent by fax to (202-566-2220), addressed to the “State Innovation Grant Program,” or by e-mail to:
(1) Strengthen EPA's innovation partnerships with States;
(2) Focus on priority environmental issues;
(3) Diversify environmental protection tools and approaches;
(4) Foster a more “innovation-friendly” organizational culture and systems. This assistance program strengthens EPA's partnership with the States by supporting State innovation compatible with the
In 2002, EPA initiated the State Innovation Grants Program with a competition that asked for State project proposals that would create innovation in environmental permitting programs related to one of the Innovation Strategy's four priority environmental issues: reducing greenhouse gases, reducing smog, improving water quality, and ensuring the long-term integrity of the nations's water infrastructure. In addition, the solicitation encouraged projects that test incentives that motivate “beyond-compliance” environmental performance, or move whole sectors toward improved environmental performance. The 2002 competition resulted in six state innovation project awards. In October 2003, the EPA National Center for Environmental Innovation (NCEI) opened the 2003/2004 competition for projects to be funded in 2004. On April 16, 2004, EPA announced the ten projects that have been selected from this new competition. EPA is currently completing awards to States selected in that competition. For more information on last year's solicitation, the proposals received, and the 2003-04 award decisions, please see the Web site at:
EPA proposes to retain “innovation in permitting” as the general subject area of the upcoming solicitation as well as
These grants will not be applied to the development or demonstration of new environmental technologies, nor will NCEI be looking to fund projects that have as a primary focus the upgrading of information technology systems. Projects would be much less likely to be funded through this State Innovation Grant if agency resources are already available through another agency program.
For courier delivery only: Sherri Walker, U.S. EPA, EPA West Building, room 4214D, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO)/State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG) Working Committee on Pesticide Operations & Management (PO&M) will hold a 2-day meeting, beginning on November 8, 2004, and ending November 9, 2004. This notice announces the location and times for the meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics.
The meeting will be held on Monday, November 8, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on Tuesday, November 9, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. to noon.
The meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency, Crystal City Hotel, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Georgia A. McDuffie, Field and External Affairs Division, (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 605-0195; fax number: (703) 308-1850; e-mail address:
Philip H. Gray, SFIREG Executive Secretary, P.O. Box 1249, Hardwick, VT 05843-1249; telephone number: (802) 472-6956; fax number: (802) 472-6957; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are interested in SFIREG information exchange relationship with EPA regarding important issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process. All interested parties are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 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
1. Atrazine relabeling.
2. E-labeling.
3. Mold issues and product registration.
4. Automatic mister applications of mosquito adulticides.
5. Phosphide fumigants, proposed Q & A documents.
6. Reconciling label directions and waste requirements.
7. Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) issues, plant-incorporated pesticides and genetically altered resistance.
8. Liability waivers.
9. Performance measures.
10. Risk mitigation label statements.
11. Endangered species program implementation status.
12. Container/containment rules and implementation issues.
13. Office of Pesticide Programs, and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance updates.
14. Issue papers and wrap up.
Environmental protection.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of meeting.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency is announcing the 2004 Fall Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). This meeting will explore options available for reducing ground-level ozone precursors in a multi-pollutant context.
The meeting will be held on November 9, 2004 starting at 1 p.m. (EST), and November 10, 2004 starting at 9 a.m. (EST).
Historic Inns of Annapolis, 58 State Circle, Annapolis, Maryland 21401; (410) 263-2641.
Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director, Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103; (215) 814-2100.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain at Section 184 provisions for the “Control of Interstate Ozone Air Pollution.” Section 184(a) establishes an “Ozone Transport Region” (OTR) comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Northern Virginia and the District of Columbia. The purpose of the Ozone Transport Commission is to deal with ground level ozone formation, transport, and control within the OTR. The purpose of this notice is to announce that the OTC will meet on November 9-10, 2004, at the address noted earlier in this notice. This meeting will explore options available for reducing ground-level ozone precursors in a multi-pollutant context. Section 176A(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 specifies that the meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission is not subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This meeting will be open to the public as space permits.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office is announcing a public face-to-face meeting of the SAB Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) Advisory Panel. The purpose of this meeting is to provide advice to EPA on the ReVA Methods for Multi-Scale Decision-Making.
The SAB ReVA Advisory Panel will meet starting Tuesday October 26, 2004 at 9 a.m., and adjourn at approximately 4 p.m. (eastern time) Wednesday October 27, 2004.
The public meeting of the Panel will be held at the Science Advisory Board Conference Center located at 1025 F Street, NW., Suite 3705, Washington, DC 20004.
Any member of the public wishing further information regarding the public meeting may contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board by telephone/voice mail at (202) 343-9995, fax at (202) 233-0643, by e-mail at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces Agency approval of an application to register the pesticide products California Red Scale Technical Pheromone and Red Scale Down containing an active ingredient not included in any previously registered product pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c)(5) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended.
Denise Greenway, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8263; e-mail address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS 111)
• Animal production (NAICS 112)
• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
In accordance with section 3(c)(2) of FIFRA, a copy of the approved label, the list of data references, the data and other scientific information used to support registration, except for material specifically protected by section 10 of FIFRA, are also available for public inspection. Requests for data must be made in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and must be addressed to the Freedom of Information Office (A-101), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The request should: Identify the product name and registration number and specify the data or information desired.
A paper copy of the fact sheet, which provides more detail on this registration, may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161.
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
The Agency approved the application after considering all required data on risks associated with the proposed use of (3S, 6R)-3-methyl-6-isopropenyl-9-decen-1-yl acetate and (3S, 6S)-3-methyl-6-isopropenyl-9-decen-1-yl acetate, and information on social, economic, and environmental benefits to be derived from use. Specifically, the Agency has considered the nature of the chemical and its pattern of use, application methods and rates, and level and extent of potential exposure. Based on these reviews, the Agency was able to make basic health and safety determinations which show that use of (3S, 6R)-3-methyl-6-isopropenyl-9-decen-1-yl acetate and (3S, 6S)-3-methyl-6-isopropenyl-9-decen-1-yl acetate when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects to the environment.
1. EPA issued a notice, published in the
The application was approved on September 15, 2004, as California Red Scale Technical Pheromone (EPA Registration Number 75108-2) for use in manufacturing or formulating.
2. EPA also issued a notice, published in the
The application was approved on September 15, 2004, as Red Scale Down (EPA Registration Number 75108-1) for the control of California red scale in citrus.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Pesticides and pests.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
On October 7, 2004, the Commission released a public notice announcing the November 4, 2004 meeting and agenda of the North American Numbering Council (NANC). The intended effect of this action is to make the public aware of the NANC's next meeting and its agenda.
Thursday, November 4, 2004, 8:30 a.m.
Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, The Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Suite 5-A420, Washington, DC 20554. Requests to make an oral statement or provide written comments to the NANC should be sent to Deborah Blue.
Deborah Blue, Special Assistant to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at (202) 418-1466 or
Released: October 7, 2004.
The North American Numbering Council (NANC) has scheduled a meeting to be held Thursday, November 4, 2004, from 8:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Federal Communications Commission, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC. This meeting is open to members of the general public. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many participants as possible. The public may submit written statements to the NANC, which must be received two business days before the meeting. In addition, oral statements at the meeting by parties or entities not represented on the NANC will be permitted to the extent time permits. Such statements will be limited to five minutes in length by any one party or entity, and requests to make an oral statement must be received two business days before the meeting.
1. Announcements and recent news.
2. Approval of minutes.
3. Report from NANP B&C Agent.
4. Report of NAPM, LLC.
5. Report of the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA).
6. Report of National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator.
7. Status of Industry Numbering Committee (INC) activities.
8. Reports from Issues Management Groups (IMGs).
9. Report of Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) Working Group.
10. Report of Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG).
11. Report of Future of Numbering Working Group.
12. Special presentations.
13. Update List of NANC Accomplishments.
14. Summary of action items.
15. Public comments and participation (5 minutes per speaker).
16. Other business.
Adjourn no later than 12:30 p.m.
Next Meeting: Wednesday, January 19, 2005.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Notice.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has determined that the proceeds that can be realized from the liquidation of assets of the receivership listed in
Thomas Bolt, Counsel, Legal Division, FDIC, 550 17th Street, NW., Room H-11052, Washington, DC 20429. Telephone: (202) 736-0168.
Financial Institution in Receivership Determined To Have Insufficient Assets To Satisfy All Claims, FIN 4657, Am Trade International Bank of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, October 12, 2004, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in closed session, pursuant to section 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of Title 5, United States Code, to consider matters relating to the Corporation's corporate and liquidation activities.
The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 898-7043.
Federal Housing Finance Board.
Notice.
The Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) is announcing the Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank) members it has selected for the 2004-05 third quarter review cycle under the Finance Board's community support requirements regulation. This notice also prescribes the deadline by which Bank members selected for review must submit Community Support Statements to the Finance Board.
Bank members selected for the review cycle under the Finance Board's community support requirements regulation must submit completed Community Support Statements to the Finance Board on or before November 26, 2004.
Bank members selected for the 2004-05 third quarter review cycle under the Finance Board's community support requirements regulation must submit completed Community Support Statements to the Finance Board either by regular mail at the Federal Housing Finance Board, Office of Supervision, Community Investment and Affordable Housing, 1777 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006, or by electronic mail at
Emma J. Fitzgerald, Program Analyst, Office of Supervision, Community Investment and Affordable Housing, by telephone at 202/408-2874, by electronic mail at
Section 10(g)(1) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires the Finance Board to promulgate regulations establishing standards of community investment or service Bank members must meet in order to maintain access to long-term advances.
Under the rule, the Finance Board selects approximately one-eighth of the members in each Bank district for community support review each calendar quarter. 12 CFR 944.2(a). The Finance Board will not review an institution's community support performance until it has been a Bank member for at least one year. Selection for review is not, nor should it be construed as, any indication of either the financial condition or the community support performance of the member.
Each Bank member selected for review must complete a Community Support Statement and submit it to the Finance Board by the November 26, 2004 deadline prescribed in this notice. 12 CFR 944.2(b)(1)(ii) and (c). On or before October 29, 2004, each Bank will notify the members in its district that have been selected for the 2004-05 third quarter community support review cycle that they must complete and submit to the Finance Board by the deadline a Community Support Statement. 12 CFR 944.2(b)(2)(i). The member's Bank will provide a blank Community Support Statement Form, which also is available on the Finance Board's web site:
The Finance Board has selected the following members for the 2004-05 third quarter community support review cycle:
To encourage the submission of public comments on the community support performance of Bank members, on or before October 29, 2004, each Bank will notify its Advisory Council and nonprofit housing developers, community groups, and other interested parties in its district of the members selected for community support review in the 2004-05 third quarter review cycle. 12 CFR 944.2(b)(2)(ii). In reviewing a member for community support compliance, the Finance Board will consider any public comments it has received concerning the member. 12 CFR 944.2(d). To ensure consideration by the Finance Board, comments concerning the community support performance of members selected for the 2004-05 third quarter review cycle must be delivered to the Finance Board on or before the November 26, 2004 deadline for submission of Community Support Statements.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
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 November 8, 2004.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 6, 2004.
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).
Notice.
The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). The FTC is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend through September 30, 2007 the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in (1) the Rule Concerning Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions; (2) the Rule Governing Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms; and (3) the Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures Rule. (OMB Control Numbers 3084-0111, 3084-0112, and 3084-0113, respectively, “Warranty Rules,” collectively). These clearances were scheduled to expire on September 30, 2004. On September 14, 2004, the OMB granted the FTC's request for a short-term extension to October 31, 2004 to allow for this second opportunity to comment.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 12, 2004.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments.
All comments should additionally be submitted via facsimile to: Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, fax #: (202) 395-6974.
The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements should be addressed to Carole Danielson, Investigator, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Room H-238, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3115.
On July 14, 2004, the FTC sought comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Warranty Rules, 16 CFR Parts 701-703 (Control Numbers 3084-0111, 3084-0112, and 3084-0113). See 69 FR 42172. No comments were received. Pursuant to the OMB regulations that implement the PRA (5 CFR Part 1320), the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to extend the existing paperwork clearance for the Rule.
The Warranty Rules implement the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301
The Informal Dispute Settlement Rule contains standards for IDSMs, including requirements concerning the mechanism's structure (
This rule applies only to those firms that choose to be bound by it by requiring consumers to use an IDSM. Neither the Rule nor the Act requires warrantors to set up IDSMs. A warrantor is free to set up an IDSM that does not comply with this rule as long as the warranty does not contain a prior resort requirement.
The above estimate is derived as follows. Based on conversations with various warrantors' representatives over the years, staff has concluded that eight hours per year is a reasonable estimate of warrantors' paperwork burden attributable to the Warranty Rule. This estimate includes the task of ensuring that new warranties and changes to existing warranties comply with the Rule. Staff continues to estimate that there are 4,241 manufacturing entities, which results in a burden figure of 33,928 hours (4,241 × 8 hours annually/manufacturer), rounded to 34,000.
In 2001, FTC staff estimated that the information collection burden of including the disclosures required by the Pre-Sale Availability Rule in consumer product warranties was approximately 2,760,000 hours per year. There has been no change in the Rule's paperwork requirements since the previous clearance request in 2001, and the staff has determined, based on its knowledge of the industry, that the number of manufacturers subject to the Rule remains largely unchanged. Staff continues to estimate that there are 6,552 large retailers, 422,100 small retailers, 146 large manufacturers, and 4,095 small manufacturers. Staff estimates that large retailers spend an average of 26 hours per year and small retailers an average of 6 hours per year to comply with the Rule. This yields a total burden of 2,702,952 hours for retailers. Large manufacturers spend an average of 52 hours per year and small manufacturers spend an average of 12 hours per year, for a total burden estimate of 56,732 hours. Thus, the combined total burden is 2,760,000 hours, rounded to the nearest thousand.
Since 2001, some online retailers have begun to post warranty information on their web sites, which should reduce their cost of providing the required information. However, this method of compliance is still evolving and involves a relatively small number of firms. Furthermore, those online retailers that also operate “brick-and-mortar” operations would still have to provide paper copies of the warranty for review by those customers who do not do business online. Thus, online methods of complying with the Rule do not yet appear to be sufficiently widespread so as to significantly alter the measure of burden associated with the Rule, although it is likely to decrease that burden in the future.
Although the Rule's paperwork requirements have not changed since the FTC's PRA clearance request in 2001, the audits filed by the IDSMs indicate that fewer disputes were handled in 2002, which reduces the annual hours burden. The calculations underlying these new estimates follow.
The amount of work required will depend on the number of dispute resolution proceedings undertaken in each IDSM. The 2002 audit report for the BBB AUTO LINE states that, during calendar year 2002, it handled 22,996 warranty disputes on behalf of 14 manufacturers (including General Motors, Saturn, Honda, Volkswagen, Isuzu, Nissan, Rolls Royce and Land Rover).
Staff assumes that IDSMs use skilled clerical or technical support staff to compile and maintain the records required by the Rule at an hourly rate of $16; thus, the labor cost associated with the 21,754 recordkeeping burden hours is $348,064. Staff further assumes that IDSMs use clerical support at an hourly rate of $11 to reproduce records, and therefore that the labor costs of the 8,157 disclosure burden hours is approximately $89,727. Accordingly, the combined total labor cost for recordkeeping and disclosures is $437,791, rounded to 438,000.
The only additional cost imposed on IDSMs operating under the Rule that would not be incurred for other IDSMs is the annual audit requirement. One of the IDSMs currently operating under the Rule estimates the total annual costs of this requirement to be under $100,000. Because there are three IDSMs operating under the Rule (Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Chrysler share the same IDSM, though each company is reported separately), staff estimates the total non-labor costs associated with the Rule to be three times that amount, or $300,000.
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the
The following transactions were granted early termination of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency
Sandra M. Peay, Contact Representative or Renee Hallman, Case Management Assistant, Federal Trade Commission, Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room H-303, Washington, DC 20580 (202) 326-3100.
By Direction of the Commission.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Notice of renewal of computer matching program (CMP).
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, this notice announces the renewal of a CMP that CMS plans to conduct with the State of California Department of Health Services (DHS). We have provided background information about the proposed matching program in the “Supplementary Information” section below. Although the Privacy Act requires only that CMS provide an opportunity for interested persons to comment on the proposed matching program, CMS invites comments on all portions of this notice. See “Effective Dates” section below for comment period.
CMS filed a report of the CMP with the Chair of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on October 1, 2004. We will not disclose any information under a matching agreement until 40 days after filing a report to OMB and Congress or 30 days after publication. We may defer implementation of this matching program if we receive comments that persuade us to defer implementation.
The public should address comments to: Director, Division of Privacy Compliance Data Development, Enterprise Databases Group, Office of Information Services, CMS, Mail stop N2-04-27, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. Comments received will be available for review at this location, by appointment, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 9 a.m.-3 p.m., eastern daylight time.
Douglass Brown, Health Insurance Specialist, Division of Methods and Strategy, Program Integrity Group, Office of Financial Management, CMS, Mail-stop C3-02-16, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore Maryland 21244-1850. The telephone number is (410) 786-0028 and e-mail is
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) by describing the manner in which computer matching involving Federal agencies could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 100-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such individuals. The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, State, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs to:
1. Negotiate written agreements with the other agencies participating in the matching programs;
2. Obtain the Data Integrity Board approval of the match agreements;
3. Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;
4. Notify applicants and beneficiaries that the records are subject to matching; and,
5. Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying an individual's benefits or payments.
CMS has taken action to ensure that all CMPs that this Agency participates in comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.
“Computer Matching Agreement Between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the State of California Department of Health Services (DHS) for Disclosure of Medicare and Medicaid Information”.
Level Three Privacy Act Sensitive.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and State of California Department of Health Services.
This Computer Matching Program (CMP) is executed to comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 (Title 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) section 552a), as amended, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, titled “Management of Federal Information Resources” at 65 FR 77677 (December 12, 2000), and OMB guidelines pertaining to computer matching (54 FR 25818, June 19, 1989).
Authority for this matching program is given under the matching provisions of §§ 1816, 1842, and 1874(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395h, 1395u, and 1395kk(b)). Authority for DHS to participate in this computer-matching program is given under the provisions of §§ 10740, 10748, 10750, 14000, and 14000.3. 14000.4, 14005, 14005.4, 14100.1, 14200 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, and 42 CFR 431.300 through 431.307. DHS is charged with administration of the Medicaid program in California and is the single state agency for such purpose. DHS may act as an agent or representative of the Federal government for any purpose in furtherance of DHS's functions or administration of the Federal funds granted to the state. In California, the Medi-Cal Act provides qualifying individuals with health care and related remedial or preventive services, including both Medicaid services and services authorized under state law that are not provided under Federal law. The program to provide all such services is known as the Medi-Cal program.
The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the conditions, safeguards, and procedures under which CMS will conduct a computer matching program
This CMP will enhance the ability of CMS and DHS to detect F&A by matching claims data, eligibility, and practitioner, provider, and supplier enrollment records of Medicare beneficiaries, practitioners, providers, and suppliers in the State of California against records of Medicaid/Medi-Cal beneficiaries, practitioners, providers, and suppliers in the State of California.
Systems of Records (SOR).
The data for CMS are maintained in the following SOR: National Claims History (NCH), System No. 09-70-0005 was most recently published in the
Enrollment Database, System No. 09-70-0502 (formerly known as the Health Insurance Master Record) published at 55 FR 37547 (September 12, 1990). Matched data will be released to DHS pursuant to the routine use set forth in the system notice.
Medicare Supplier Identification File, System No. 09-70-0530 was most recently published in the
Unique Physician/Provider Identification Number (formerly known as the Medicare Physician Identification and Eligibility System), System No. 09-70-0525, was most recently published in the
Carrier Medicare Claims Record, System No. 09-70-0501 published in the
The data for DHS are maintained in the following data files: “Medi-Cal RFF035 File Paid Claims”; “Medi-Cal Combined Provider Master File”; and “Medi-Cal Eligibility Record File.”
The CMP shall become effective no sooner than 40 days after the report of the Matching Program is sent to OMB and Congress, or 30 days after publication in the
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announce the following Federal Committee meeting.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Due to programmatic issues that had to be resolved, the
The Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both the CDC and ATSDR.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Control of Communicable Diseases; Restrictions on African Rodents, Prairie Dogs, and Certain Other Animals” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
JonnaLynn P. Capezzuto, Office of Management Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659.
In the
Office of Inspector General, HHS.
Notice of program exclusions.
During the month of September 2004, the HHS Office of Inspector General imposed exclusions in the cases set forth below. When an exclusions is imposed, no program payment is made to anyone for any items or services (other than an emergency item or service not provided in a hospital emergency room) furnished, ordered or prescribed by an excluded party under the Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal Health Care programs. In addition, no program payment is made to any business or facility,
Part M of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services at 68 FR 67461-67463, December 2, 2003, is amended to reflect the new functional statement for the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (MP), Division of State and Community Systems Development (DSCSD). This amendment reflects changes to the Division title and structure within the Center. These structural changes will promote effective and efficient management of all its programs, including its new responsibility for administering the Drug-Free Communities grant program and Coalition Institute. The changes are as follows:
(A) The functional statement for the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (MP), Division of State and Community Systems Development (DSCSD) is replaced with the following:
The Division of State and Community Assistance (DSCA) is responsible for carrying out the Center's responsibilities related to development of capacity for States and communities to provide and implement effective substance abuse prevention. As such the Division (1) promotes and establishes comprehensive, long-term State and community alcohol, tobacco, and other drug abuse prevention/intervention policies, programs, practices, and support activities; (2) plans, develops and administers nationwide programs to enhance comprehensive and effective State and community substance abuse prevention systems, drug prevention coalitions and related health promotion systems; (3) administers the prevention set-aside of the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) block grant; (4) monitors the application of SAMHSA's Strategic Prevention Framework within States and communities; (5) administers national discretionary grant programs, including the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPFSIG); (6) administers the Drug-Free Communities grant program and Coalition Institute; (7) provides technical assistance to States and communities directly, through support contracts, and the Centers for the Application of Prevention Technologies; (8) engages in and promotes interagency collaboration with both the public and private sectors at the Federal, State and local levels; (9) develops and integrates needs assessment and management information system data into State and community prevention systems for the improvement of planning efforts in substance abuse prevention; (10) administers the Synar regulations governing youth access to tobacco products; and (11) develops guidelines for state-of-the-art prevention programs and systems while conducting quality assurance activities, such as the block grant performance, as well as scientific analysis of various programs, proposals and products.
These organizational changes are effective October 6, 2004.
Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of meeting.
This document announces the date, time, and location for a public meeting of the Airport and Seaport User Fee Federal Advisory Committee and the agenda for consideration by the Committee. It also invites submission of written statements. In order to be considered for discussion at the meeting, a statement must be received by the Committee at least ten days prior to the date of the meeting.
The 28th Customs and Border Protection Airport and Seaport User Fee Federal Advisory Committee meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 27, 2004, at 12 p.m.-4 p.m., in the Customs International Briefing Conference Room (B 1.5-10), Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229.
Roberto Williams, Office of Finance, Room 4.5A, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20229, telephone: (202) 344-1101; email:
The Airport and Seaport User Fee Advisory Committee was created under the authority of 8 U.S.C. 1356(k) (section 286(k) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended; see also the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.A. App. section 2)) to meet periodically and advise the Attorney General on issues related to the performance of certain inspectional services performed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Since the legacy INS inspection component has been merged with the U.S. Customs Service (along with other agencies) to form the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), effective on March 1, 2003, the function of the Committee is now under CBP and the Committee now advises the Secretary of Homeland Security.
The Committee consists of representatives of the airline and other transportation industries that are subject to fees and charges authorized by law or proposed by the governing agency (either INS prior to March 1, 2003, or CBP afterward). The responsibility of this standing Advisory Committee is to advise on issues related to the performance of Airport and Seaport agriculture, customs, and immigration inspection services. This advice should include, but need not be limited to, the time period in which such services should be performed, the proper number and deployment of inspection officers, the level of fees, and the appropriateness of any proposed fee. These responsibilities are related to the assessment of an immigration user fee pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1356(d), the assessment of a customs inspection user fee pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58c(a)(5), and the assessment of an agriculture inspection user fee pursuant to 21 U.S.C 136a.
In accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1356(k), CBP announces that the 28th meeting of the Airport and Seaport User Fee Advisory Committee will take place at 12 p.m. on October 27, 2004, at the Customs International Briefing Conference Room (B 1.5-10), Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229. The purpose of this meeting is to perform the Committee's advisory responsibilities pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.). The meeting is open to the public and advance notice of attendance is requested to ensure adequate seating. Persons planning to attend should notify the contact person identified previously in this notice at least ten days prior to the meeting, in order to be included on the list of those cleared for admittance. Members of the public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting to the contact person for consideration by this Advisory Committee. Only written statements received by the contact person at least ten days prior to the meeting will be considered for discussion at the meeting. A transcript of the meeting will be made available online for public viewing about two weeks following the meeting.
The Advisory Committee focuses its attention on those areas of most concern and benefit to the travel industry, the traveling public, and the Federal Government. At this meeting, the Committee is expected to pursue the following agenda (which may be modified prior to the meeting):
1. Introduction of the Committee members;
2. Discussion of activities since last meeting;
3. Discussion of administrative issues;
4. Discussion of future traffic trends;
5. Discussion of specific concerns and questions of Committee members;
6. Discussion of relevant written statements submitted in advance by members of the public;
7. Scheduling of next meeting.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street, SW., L'Enfant Plaza Building, Room 8003, Washington, DC 20410 or
Kimberly Munson, Housing Project Manager, @ 202-708-1320 ext 5122 (this is not a toll free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available information.
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., chapter 35, as amended.
Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to
Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, Q, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, Southwest, Washington, DC 20410; (202) 708-2374 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing-or-speech-impaired persons may access the number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
Total Burden Hours: 21,280.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer.
Corrected notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
HUD has submitted this request for reinstatement of an information collection for the application, qualification, and certification processes for participants in the Rehabilitation Mortgage Insurance program.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval Number (2502-0527) and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-6974.
Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, AYO, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-mail
This Notice informs the public that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of
This Notice also lists the following information:
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior, Montana, Billings and Miles City Field Offices.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be held November 18, 2004 in Billings, MT beginning at 8 a.m. When determined, the meeting place will be announced in a News Release. The public comment period will begin at approximately 11 a.m. and the meeting will adjourn at approximately 3:30 p.m.
Mark Jacobsen, Public Affairs Specialist, Miles City Field Office, 111 Garryowen Road, Miles City, Montana, 59301. Telephone: (406) 233-2831.
The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Montana. At this meeting, topics to discuss include:
Field Manager Updates.
The Miles City Field Office Resource Management Plan Updates.
Billings Shooting Area subcommittee update.
Public Access subcommittee update—and other topics the council may raise.
All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.
International Trade Commission.
October 18, 2004 at 11 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agenda for future meetings: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-776-779 (Review) (Certain Preserved Mushrooms From Chile, China, India, and Indonesia)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before October 28, 2004.)
5. Outstanding action jackets: (1) Document No. GC-04-114 concerning proposed rulemaking and changes in Agency procedures.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 14, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business is: Advanced Television Systems Committee, Inc., Washington, DC. The nature and scope of ATSC's standards development activities are: Coordinating television standards among different communications media, focusing on digital television, interactive systems and broadband multimedia communications; developing digital television implementation strategies; and presenting educational seminars on the ATSC standards.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 14, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: American Oil Chemists' Society, Champaign, IL. The nature and scope of ACOS's standards development activities are: The society investigates, adopts and publishes uniform methods of analysis and recommended practices in the filed of oils, fats and related materials. These methods are used in processing, trading, utilizing, and evaluating fats, oils and lipid products. The scope of the work includes but is not limited to the following subjects: Vegetable oil source material, oilseeed by-products, commercial fats and oils, soap and synthetic detergents, glycerin, sulfonated and sulfated oils, soapstocks, specifications for reagents and solvents, and method development procedures.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 15, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY. The nature and scope of ASME's standards development activities are: Activities that address a broad range of topics related to mechanical engineering and the operation of conformity assessment, including requirements for safety, health, design, production, construction, maintenance, performance or operation of equipment, and qualification of personnel.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 16, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: American Water Works Association, Denver, Co. The nature and scope of AWWA's standards development activities are: To develop, adopt, and publish voluntary consensus standards that set out the minimum requirements of products or processes used in the water profession. AWWA standards address, where appropriate, procedures of design; characteristics of materials, substances, products, equipment, systems or services; processes of manufacturing, assembly, transporting, storage or installation; techniques of analysis; testing and inspection methods and requirements; parameters of use; and such other elements essential to provide adequate reliability, life and usage in the water profession. AWWA's voluntary consensus standards are developed by AWWA members and other interested parties.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 17, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: NPES The Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing and Converting Technologies, Reston, VA. The nature and scope of NPES's standards development activities are: Coordination of the development of national and international consensus and safety standards for the printing, publishing and converting industries.
Notice is hereby given that, on August 31, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the names and principal places of business of the standards development organizations are: Canadian Standards Organization, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA and CSA America, Inc., Cleveland, OH. The nature and scope of CSA's standards development activities are: The development of voluntary consensus standards using procedures that incorporate the attributes of openness, balance of interests, due process, an appeals process, and consensus. The scope of standards developed by CSA include standards in the following subject areas: Basic Engineering, Building Products, Building Systems, Concrete, Factory Built Buildings and Mobile Homes, Masonry, Plumbing Products and Materials, Structures, Welding and Structural Metals, Wood, Electrical Installations, Electrical Consumer and Commercial Products, Electrical Industrial Products, Electrical Wiring Products, Electricity Distribution and Transmission Systems, Electrical Engineering, Electromagnetic Compatibility, Telecommunications, Information Technology, Energy Efficiency, Fuel Burning Equipment, Gas Equipment, Nuclear Power Plants, Oil and Gas Systems and Materials, Offshore Structures, Renewable Energy, Distributed Generation Technology, Environmental Management, Environmental Technology, Sustainable Forest Management, Community Safety and Well-being, Health Care, Occupational Health and Safety, Elevating Devices, Pressure Vessels, Transportation, Business Management and Quality Management.
Additional information concerning CSA's standards development activities may be obtained by contacting Mr. RJ Falconi, Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, CSA Group, 178 Rexdale Blvd., Toronto, ON M9W 1R3 Canada, Telephone (416) 747-2722.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 14, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Engine Manufacturers Association, Chicago, IL. The nature and scope of EMA's standards development activities are: To develop, establish and coordinate voluntary consensus standards applicable to engine fluids, which include lubricants, fuels and coolants. As a part of its standards setting activities, EMA develops performance criteria, consensus positions, recommended guidelines and performance specifications in order to adopt consensus positions on engine fluid issues of concern to the industry as a whole.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 14, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification, Vancouver, WA. The nature and scope of IICRC's standards development activities are: to engage in a segment of the cleaning, restoration and inspection industry, primarily involving floor coverings, upholstery, personal property, water and fire damage restoration of structures and contents, and model remediation of structures and contents.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 15, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors, Chicago, IL. The nature and scope of NAFED's standards development activities are: certification testing for individuals involved in the sale, service, maintenance, training, and testing of fire extinguishers, fire extinguishing systems, and life safety equipment.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 10, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: National Golf Car Manufacturers Association, Inc., Atlanta, GA. The nature and scope of NGCMA's standards development activities are: The development, maintenance and periodic updating of ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1 (safety specifications for the design and operation of golf cars) and ANSI/NGCMA Z135 (safety specifications for the design and operation of personal transport vehicles) through American National Standards Institute consensus group protocols and procedures.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 9, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: The Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society, Research Triangle Park, NC. The nature and scope of ISA's standards development activities are: The development and maintenance of standards, recommended practices, and technical reports for instrumentation, measurement, control, systems, and automation.
Notice is hereby given that, on September 10, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: VMEbus International Trade Association, Fountain Hills, AZ. The nature and scope of VITA's standards development activities are: Definitions, specifications, requirements, and methods of test for computer buses (specifically, but not limited to VMEbus, Futurebus+, VSBbus) and associated software. These specifications will involve Electrical, Protocol (Logical), and Physical (Mechanical) layers for Massively Parallel Architectures, IPC (Interprocessor Communications) channels, AUTOBAHN and other serial buses, Mezzanine Buses for centralized I/O models, Multichip modules, Field Buses (serial buses) for distributed I/O models, Parallel-grouped serial Sub-buses (multiport architectures) with Block Transfer Mechanisms, Reflective Memory Architectures, and other Intracrate Computer Buses.
Pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on July 8, 2004, Chattem Chemicals, Inc., 3801 St. Elmo Avenue, Building 18, Chattanooga, Tennessee, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed:
The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers.
Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative (CCD) and must be filed no later than December 13, 2004.
The Employment and Training Administration interprets Federal law requirements pertaining to the North American Free Trade Agreement—Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA—TAA). These interpretations are issued in General Administration Letters (GALs) to the State Workforce Agencies. Several GALs were inadvertently omitted from publication in the
GAL 7-94, Change 1, Change 2, and Change 3 to amend operating instructions issued in GAL 7-94 that address applicant processing procedures for workers certified as eligible to apply for benefits under both subchapters A (the regular TAA program), and D (the NAFTA-TAA program), of Chapter II, Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Changes to the TAA program operating instructions in GAL 7-94, Change 1 focus on revising operating instructions to the States pertaining to nonduplication of assistance, allowing workers eligible for both NAFTA-TAA and regular TAA programs to make a one-time change in program participation in cases where certification for a second Trade program occurs after the worker has begun to receive benefits under the other Trade program. States are also encouraged to implement applicant tracking and reporting procedures that will ensure States' compliance and allow the States to evaluate Trade program effectiveness.
Changes to the TAA program operating instructions in GAL 7-94, Change 2 focus on amended operating instructions to the State Agencies in regard to making individual eligibility determinations for Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA) benefits under the NAFTA-TAA program. These new instructions implement the United States District Court for the District of Columbia preliminary approval, pending a hearing for class members, of a settlement of
This GAL provides for States use of NAFTA-TAA program funds for dual eligible workers that opt for TAA, in order to provide training, job search and relocation services in cases where regular Trade program funds are not available (either the State does not have funds in its regular Trade account or has not received requested regular Trade funds from the National Office).
1.
2.
3.
In response to inquiries from the States, this GAL contains amended Employment and Training Administration (ETA) operating instructions for the States. It requires States to provide every dual eligible worker (that is, a worker whose separation is covered by certifications under both the regular and NAFTA-TAA programs), at the point where they become eligible under the second Trade program, with the information necessary to make a fully informed choice regarding the Trade program under which they wish to permanently participate.
4.
The intent of this section is to prevent a worker from receiving duplicate benefits under both the regular TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs.
General Administration Letter (GAL) 7-94 contains operating instructions to State agencies for implementing the amendments to the Trade Act contained in the NAFTA Implementation Act. GAL 7-94, page 16 contains instructions pertinent to the “Non-duplication of Assistance” provision of the Law. The “Administration” portion of this instruction states:
5.
6.
Section 225 (19 U.S.C. 2275) of the Trade Act requires that workers be provided with full information about benefits. Therefore, when workers become certified as eligible to apply for benefits under the second program, Trade staff are to fully explain the difference between the programs so that workers can make a completely informed choice as to the program under which the workers elect to receive benefits. States are to counsel workers who are receiving benefits under one program and later become eligible to receive benefits under a second certification. States are to determine the workers' choice of the program under which they wish to permanently participate within 15 working days from the date the second certification is signed by the National Office. Workers are also to be clearly informed about eligibility requirements for TRA under both programs. Once the worker has made a decision it may not be changed. This election will also stand in the case of a subsequent separation covered by the same two certifications.
A change from one program to the other can never result in increasing the amount of benefits for training, job search, and relocation allowances that a claimant may receive. However, some claimants may become eligible for TRA by changing from the NAFTA-TAA program to the regular program. The reason for this is that the regular program does not require, as a condition of eligibility for TRA, that a worker enter a training program within a fixed period. In any event, such claimants would never be entitled to more than one full round of TRA benefits on the basis of the two certifications.
In order to minimize the administrative burden on the States, when a worker receiving benefits under one program elects to switch after becoming eligible for the second program, the State may, as is current practice with Trade eligible workers who are dual enrolled under the JTPA Title III program, allow the workers' benefits to continue to be paid by the first program until the first convenient break (
Since the Trade program will often depend upon the local Job Service office staff to “counsel” a claimant to choose between NAFTA and regular Trade benefits, written instructions are to be provided by the State to all local Office staff who counsel trade applicants. The instructions provided by the State must continue to encourage workers to enter training as quickly as possible after they are initially certified as eligible to receive benefits, regardless of which program they are certified under.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
Pursuant to the Court decision and order issued on June 11, 1996, the settlement approved on September 9, 1996 bars the use of the current NAFTA-TAA definition, as set forth in GAL 7-94, of “initial unemployment compensation benefit period” currently employed by State Agencies in determining applicants' eligibility for TRA benefits under the NAFTA-TAA program.
In accordance with this settlement, this GAL also contains Employment and Training Administration (ETA) operating instructions for the States for providing relief for workers who were incorrectly denied, or who otherwise incorrectly did not receive, TRA benefits under the prior definition.
4.
To qualify for TRA payments, an eligible worker must be enrolled in a training program approved by the later of—
i. The last day of the 16th week of such worker's initial unemployment compensation benefit period, or
ii. The last day of the 6th week after the week in which the Secretary of Labor issues a certification covering such worker.
Application of time periods. The 16-week time requirement for enrolling in training in order to qualify for TRA will be applied literally. In order to be eligible to receive TRA under a NAFTA-TAA certification, the worker must be enrolled in an approved training program by the end of the 16th week of that worker's initial unemployment compensation benefit period.
This fixed 16-week period begins with the effective date of the claim and ends with the last day of the 16th week thereafter. Included in this 16-week fixed period are weeks of waiting period credit, weeks of disqualification, weeks of employment, and weeks of unemployment.
Initial unemployment compensation benefit period means the same as the term “first benefit period” defined at 20 CFR 617.3(r). “First benefit period” means the benefit period established after the individual's first qualifying separation or in which such separation occurs.
5.
To qualify for TRA payments, an eligible worker must be enrolled in a training program approved by the later of—
i. The last day of the 16th week of such worker's initial unemployment compensation benefit period, or
ii. The last day of the 6th week after the week in which the Secretary of Labor issues a certification covering such worker.
Section 250(d)(3)(B) of the Trade Act provides for a 30-day extension of these deadlines in case of extenuating circumstances.
Application of time periods. The 16-week time requirement for enrolling in training in order to qualify for TRA will be applied as set forth below. In order to be eligible to receive TRA benefits under a NAFTA-TAA certification, the worker must be enrolled in an approved training program by the end of the 16th week of that worker's “initial unemployment compensation benefit period”.
This 16-week period begins with the first day of the first calendar week following the worker's most recent qualifying separation and ends with the last day of the 15th consecutive calendar week thereafter. Included in this 16-week period are weeks of waiting period credit, weeks of disqualification, weeks of employment, and weeks of unemployment.
Initial unemployment compensation benefit period means the period beginning with the first week following a worker's most recent qualifying separation due to import competition from or production shift to Canada or Mexico. This term is not the same as the term “first benefit period” defined at 20 CFR 617.3(r).
6.
a. Each State NAFTA-TAA coordinator must compile a list of all workers who, since the inception of the NAFTA-TAA program, had qualifying separations from employment for NAFTA-related reasons and who were denied or otherwise did not receive TRA benefits under either the NAFTA-TAA program or the regular TAA program (
b. State NAFTA—TAA coordinators must then notify, no later than November 22, 1996, all the workers on the list (at their last known address), that as a result of the U.S. District Court's action, they may now be eligible to receive TRA benefits under the NAFTA-TAA program if they enroll in TAA-approved training, or receive basic TRA if they have already completed training that is TAA approved.
c. The notification sent to the workers must include the attached Court documents which include instructions for claimants to contact their local Employment Service office by April 15, 1997, for a determination or redetermination of their individual eligibility for training assistance and TRA benefits under the NAFTA-TAA program. Upon request, the worker notifications, including the Court
d. States must also inform affected local labor unions and State and local central labor bodies of the settlement and of their members' rights to pursue a claim for TRA benefits.
e. Finally, the States must publish, in the same manner as notices of Certification under the NAFTA-TAA program are published, the attached (or similar) press notice about the settlement in newspapers of general circulation. In order to inform as many eligible workers as possible of the right to receive a determination or redetermination of individual eligibility for training and TRA under the NAFTA-TAA program, States must also make this information available to television and post it on the Internet (where available).
7.
The 210-day rule under 19 U.S.C. 2293(b) is not applicable to individuals seeking retroactive relief under this settlement. A worker may receive basic and additional TRA benefits only during periods of participation in a TAA-approved training program or may continue to receive only basic TRA after completion of a TAA-approved training program.
Retroactive relief is intended to cover all individuals affected between the time the NAFTA-TAA program was implemented and the time the settlement was approved by the Court on September 9, 1996.
8.
a. States must provide to the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, by December 31, 1996, either by phone, electronic mail, or in writing, a summary of the number of workers notified of the proposed settlement and the number of workers who have contacted the State agency for eligibility determinations.
b. Beginning with the quarterly reporting period ending December 31, 1996, the States will provide the National Office with quarterly written reports on: The number of people requesting determination or redetermination of entitlement; the number of people determined entitled to relief; and the number of people receiving TRA first payments under this settlement. ETA Form 563 should be used for this purpose.
c. The States are required to continue to report the data described in paragraph b above on a quarterly basis for five additional quarters.
9.
a. States may use or apply unspent or surplus NAFTA-TAA administration funds to cover the costs of notifying, processing and making referral to training for potentially affected workers.
b. States should report redeterminations on line 5, section C of the UI-3 report. The MPU value is the same as the allocated initial claims MPU.
c. States may, using the ETA form 9023, request special NAFTA-TAA administration funds to pay the costs of upgrading or enhancing their NAFTA-TAA MIS reporting capability systems, including improving the UI interface in order to help contact workers within the stipulated timeframes or to help track and report on benefits and services provided to workers determined eligible for relief.
d. Additional NAFTA-TAA program funds will also be made available to the States through the usual ETA 9023 request form to help States provide NAFTA-TAA training to workers determined eligible for retroactive relief.
10.
a. States are required to implement the revised instructions for making individual eligibility determinations for TRA benefits under the NAFTA-TAA program as set forth in these operating instructions and the settlement agreement.
b. States must provide retroactive relief under the settlement to workers who were previously denied, or who would not have qualified for, TRA benefits under the NAFTA-TAA program through the States' use of the previous interpretation of “initial unemployment compensation benefit period” prohibited by the settlement and the Court's decision and order.
c. States should inform all appropriate State staff of the contents of this document and ensure that staff have the necessary resources available to comply with the settlement.
11.
12.
The U.S. Department of Labor and the United Autoworkers Union recently reached agreement on the conditions under which workers may receive benefits under the North American Free Trade Agreement Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) program. The new, broader definition means that more workers will be eligible for income-support payments while they train for new jobs.
The settlement provides that a worker separated from employment for reasons related to trade with Mexico or Canada, or a shift of production to Mexico or Canada, may now be eligible to receive income-support benefits, known as Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRA), if the worker has been certified by the Labor Department and is participating in an approved training program within 16 weeks of the worker's most recent qualifying separation (layoff).
The issue was resolved September 9, 1996, when the United States District
The settlement applies to individuals who had been certified for NAFTA-TAA but who were denied TRA benefits because they did not meet an earlier definition of eligibility, which was rejected by the court in June.
State Employment Security Agencies have begun to notify workers certified for NAFTA-TAA that, as a result of the court's action, they may now be eligible to receive TRA benefits if they enroll in vocational training or have completed appropriate training.
Workers who have been certified for NAFTA-TAA have until April 15, 1997, to contact their local Employment Service office for a redetermination of their eligibility for assistance. If a worker is determined to be eligible for benefits under NAFTA, the worker may then receive TRA benefits if he or she is participating in, or has completed, a TAA-approved training program. A worker may have up to 104 weeks from the date of redetermination to collect up to 52 weeks of TRA benefits.
Employment Service offices are listed in the blue pages of the telephone directory under State government. Depending on the State, these offices may also be called the “Job Service” or the “Employment Security Commission.”
1.
2.
3.
This GAL amends the applicant processing procedures for States for implementing the amended Employment and Training operating instructions contained in GAL 7-94, Change 1.
4.
5.
States have recently noted that with the increasing number of workers certified under both programs there may, at some point, be insufficient funding available to provide services to all workers requesting assistance under the regular Trade program. It is estimated that 65-70% of workers certified as eligible for NAFTA-TAA program assistance are also certified eligible for regular Trade program assistance and that a significant number of these NAFTA-TAA eligible workers currently elect to receive services under the regular Trade program.
Therefore, to keep up with this increased demand for regular Trade program related services, States may, where regular Trade program funds are not available (either the State does not have funds in its regular Trade account or has not received requested regular Trade funds from the National Office), use NAFTA-TAA program funds to provide training, job search and relocation services to dual eligible workers. The State may fund such services for dual eligible workers from NAFTA-TAA program funds until regular Trade program funds are available, at the first convenient break in training as determined by the State. For purposes of participant tracking on the 563 report, workers should be counted as a participant in the program from which the funding for their training, job search or relocation services is sourced.
The intent is to allow the States to effectively process the increasing number of NAFTA-impacted workers applying for assistance under the regular TAA program. This will ensure that a worker receives rapid assistance, including placement in training, regardless of the program from which the worker formally elects to receive services.
6.
a. Convey the information in this directive to appropriate staff.
b. Request that Trade program staff review the information and ensure that appropriate arrangements are made with both program and resource allocation staff to implement these revised applicant processing procedures.
c. Encourage appropriate officials to review the present State TAA program funding and benefits delivery system to identify potential problem areas and ensure that regular Trade and NAFTA-TAA program funds are tracked and monitored in accordance with the information provided in this transmittal.
7.
The Employment and Training Administration interprets federal law requirements pertaining to Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). These interpretations are issued in Training and Employment Guidance Letters (TEGLs) to the State Workforce Agencies. The TEGL described below is published in the
TEGL 11-02, Change 1 advises states of the federal law requirements applicable to implementing reforms of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program enacted by the TAA Reform Act of 2002.
The operating instructions in TEGL 11-02, Change 1 are issued to the states and the cooperating state workforce agencies (SWAs) as guidance provided by the Department of Labor (DOL) in its role as the principal in the TAA program. As agents of the Secretary of Labor, the states and cooperating SWAs may not vary from the operating instructions in TEGL 11-02, Change 1 without prior approval from DOL.
Pending the issuance of regulations implementing the provisions of the TAA Reform Act of 2002, the operating instructions in TEGL 11-02 and TEGL 11-02, Change 1 constitute the controlling guidance for the states and the cooperating SWAs in implementing and administering the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, pursuant to the agreements between the states and the Secretary of Labor under Section 239 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Changes to the TAA program operating instructions in TEGL 11-02, Change 1 focus on further explanation of requirements relating to eligibility deadlines and to the issuance of training waivers, and supplement the guidance issued in TEGL 11-02.
1.
2.
3.
• “8/16 week deadline” for enrolling in training.
• 45-day extension of the 8/16 week deadline for extenuating circumstances.
• 210-day time limit for applying for training.
Section 114 of the 2002 amendments, which amended section 231(a)(5)(A) of the Trade Act, imposed a deadline by which a worker must be enrolled in approved training, or have a waiver of this requirement, in order to be eligible for TRA.
This deadline is either the last day of the 8th week after the week of issuance of the certification of eligibility covering the worker or the last day of the 16th week after the worker's most recent total qualifying separation, whichever is later (commonly referred to as the 8/16 week deadline). The “8/16 week deadline” applies to eligibility for all TRA, both basic and additional TRA. If a worker fails to meet the applicable 8/16 week deadline, then the worker is not eligible for any TRA (basic TRA or additional TRA, including TRA for remedial training) under the relevant certification. In many cases, the 8/16 week deadline for a worker will be reached while the worker is still receiving unemployment insurance (UI). Some workers are not aware that this deadline may apply before they exhaust their UI. The SWA is responsible for informing workers of these requirements. The SWA must also assist such workers in enrolling in an approved training program prior to the 8/16 week deadline, or issue the workers waivers prior to the 8/16 week deadline, if appropriate.
Under certain extenuating circumstances, the 8/16 week deadline for enrollment may be extended for up to 45 days. TEGL No. 11-02 explained the definition of “extenuating circumstances.” That definition applies and includes situations that could arise, such as when a worker has been enrolled in a training program that is abruptly cancelled, where a worker suffers injury or illness that adversely affects the worker's ability to enroll in a training program, or other events where the states can justify and document that the application of extenuating circumstances is warranted.
The 2002 amendments did not change the 210-day time limit applicable to additional TRA. Additional TRA, beyond basic TRA, may be paid to workers participating in approved training who meet all TRA eligibility requirements, including the 210-day deadline. This means, in order to be eligible for additional TRA, a worker must have filed a
SWAs should be mindful that the 210-day deadline may pass if a worker has a long-term waiver of the training requirement. This could happen if a worker (who lacks marketable skills) receives a waiver due to lack of training funds. For example, if a worker receives a waiver 16 weeks after the worker's most recent qualifying separation and that waiver remains in effect for the maximum 26 weeks, then a total of 42 weeks (294 days) might pass without the worker being required to be enrolled in approved training. If the worker does not file a
Issuance of a waiver before the 8/16 week deadline might occur while the worker is still receiving UI. In these instances, workers must meet the Extended Benefit work test requirement (except as provided in 20 CFR 617.11 (a)(2)(vi)(B)) as a condition of TRA.
4.
If a worker is still on UI and seeking the HCTC, actions must be taken to ensure that all criteria for TRA eligibility are met as described in TEGL No. 11-02, including that the worker is enrolled in an approved training program, has completed an approved training program, or has received a written waiver of the training requirement.
A preliminary assessment of each trade affected worker's skills must be carried out to identify workers for whom immediate enrollment in training is appropriate. Except where such an assessment of a worker clearly indicates a need to enroll in training immediately, the Department of Labor believes it would generally be appropriate to approve a waiver request under the marketable skills condition if such a determination is made shortly after separation and the worker qualifies for such a waiver. This waiver would allow some period of job search and avoid removing some workers prematurely from the labor force and investing training resources that may not be necessary to helping a worker obtain reemployment. All waivers must be reevaluated every 30 days for the duration of the waiver period. If the waiver is issued on the basis of marketable skills, the reevaluation will take into account the reasons the individual has been unable to obtain employment during the job search. If the difficulty finding work is attributed to skill deficiencies, it may be appropriate to revoke the waiver and immediately enroll the worker in training.
It should be emphasized that waivers are not permitted under the NAFTA-TAA program. Therefore, workers covered by a NAFTA-TAA certification may only qualify for HCTC if the worker is receiving TRA or if the worker is enrolled in an approved training program, or has completed an approved training program, while still receiving UI and while satisfying the other TRA eligibility criteria found at 20 CFR 617.11.
5.
The Department interprets the wording of section 231(c)(2)(A) to cover cases in which it may be necessary to issue a waiver to a worker before the worker actually begins to receive basic TRA. Therefore, the Department has determined that a state may extend a worker's waiver beyond six months in any case where it is necessary to cover the worker's full entitlement to basic TRA.
6.
7.
The Employment and Training Administration interprets federal law requirements pertaining to Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). These interpretations are issued in Training and Employment Guidance Letters (TEGLs) to the state workforce agencies. The TEGL described below is published in the
TEGL 2-03 TEGL 2-03 advises states of the federal law requirements applicable to implementing the Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) program enacted by the TAA Reform Act of 2002.
The operating instructions in TEGL 2-03 are issued to the states and the cooperating state workforce agencies (SWAs) as guidance provided by the Department of Labor (DOL) in its role as the principal in the ATAA program. As agents of the Secretary of Labor, the states and cooperating SWAs may not vary from the operating instructions in TEGL 2-03 without prior approval from DOL.
Pending the issuance of regulations implementing the provisions of the TAA Reform Act of 2002, the operating instructions in TEGL 2-03 constitute the controlling guidance for the states and the cooperating SWAs in implementing and administering the ATAA program, pursuant to the agreements between the states and the Secretary of Labor under Section 239 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
1. Purpose. To transmit interim operating instructions for implementing the Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for Older Workers Program established by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002.
2. References. The Trade Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-619, as amended), the Trade Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-210); the Workforce Investment Act of 1998; 20 CFR part 617; 29 CFR part 90; TEGL No. 11-02; UIPL No. 24-03. The amendments to the Trade Adjustment Assistance (“TAA”) program may also be referred to as the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002 (“the Act” or “the Trade Act”). These amendments were included in Title I of the Trade Act of 2002.
3. Background. The Act establishes ATAA as an alternative assistance program for older workers certified eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance. This program is effective for petitions filed on or after August 6, 2003. The Act requires that petitioners who request that workers be certified for the ATAA program must do so at the time the petition is filed. ATAA is designed to allow TAA eligible workers for whom retraining may not be appropriate and who find reemployment to receive a wage subsidy to help bridge the salary gap between
Under the ATAA program, workers in an eligible worker group who are at least 50 years of age and who obtain different, full-time employment within 26 weeks of separation from adversely-affected employment at wages less than those earned in the adversely-affected employment, may receive up to half of the difference between the worker's old wage and the new wage. The wage subsidy may be paid up to a maximum of $10,000 during a two-year eligibility period. To be eligible for the ATAA program, workers may not earn more than $50,000 per year in the new employment. In addition, the worker group must be certified as eligible to apply for TAA benefits and meet other ATAA eligibility criteria listed below. Workers who begin receiving payments under the ATAA program cannot receive other TAA benefits and services except for relocation allowances and the Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC).
4. Guiding Principle for ATAA Implementation. It is essential that the Department of Labor (“DOL”), State Workforce Agencies (“SWA”), local One-Stop Career Center partners and other mission critical partners work together to move trade-affected workers into new jobs as quickly and effectively as possible. To this end, the primary focus of ATAA reemployment benefits and services will be toward rapid, suitable and long-term employment for adversely affected older workers served by the program.
5. Operating Instructions. The operating instructions are being issued by DOL as the administrator of the TAA program. As agents of the Secretary of Labor, the states and cooperating state agencies may not vary from the operating instructions in this document without prior approval from DOL.
Pending the issuance of regulations implementing the provisions of the Act, these operating instructions constitute the controlling guidance to the states and the cooperating state agencies for implementing and administering the ATAA program, under the agreements between the states and the Secretary of Labor under Section 239 of the Act.
For purposes of these operating instructions, the following definitions will apply:
1. The “Act” or the “Trade Act” means the Trade Act of 1974, including the 2002 Amendments set forth in P.L. 107-210.
2. “DOL” means the U.S. Department of Labor.
3. “ETA” means the Employment and Training Administration.
4. “Secretary” means the Secretary of Labor.
5. “TAA” means the Trade Adjustment Assistance program for workers.
6. “TRA” means Trade Readjustment Allowances.
7. “ATAA” means Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance program.
8. “HCTC” means Health Coverage Tax Credit.
9. “WIA” means the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
10. “SWA” means State Workforce Agency.
11. “DTAA” means the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Workers who seek the benefits and services available under the ATAA program must file a regular TAA petition which includes a request that the worker group be considered for eligibility to apply for the ATAA program. Section 246(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Trade Act states, “The Secretary shall provide the opportunity for a group of workers on whose behalf a petition is filed under section [221] to request that the group of workers be certified for the alternative trade adjustment assistance program under this section at the time the petition is filed.” Petition forms that are currently available do not provide for such a request. Until revised petition forms are approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and become available for use, we have developed a supplemental form (attachment A) which may be used in the interim by petitioners seeking certification to apply for the ATAA program. This supplement may be provided by the states or may be accessed online at
In all other respects, the petition for TAA, together with the supplemental form for the ATAA program, must meet all of the requirements for all TAA petitions. These requirements are set forth in regulations at 29 CFR part 90. Additional requirements are set forth in Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 11-02, “Operating Instructions for Implementing the Amendments to the Trade Act of 1974 Enacted by the Trade Act of 2002,” issued on October 10, 2002, and published in the
In order to establish that petitioning workers are eligible to apply for the ATAA program, DOL must first determine that all of the criteria for a regular TAA certification, as described in TEGL 11-02, are met. In addition, DOL must find that three additional criteria are met for ATAA certification. These additional criteria are:
1. A significant number of adversely affected workers in the petitioning workers' firm are 50 years of age or older;
2. The adversely affected workers in the petitioning workers' firm possess job skills that are not easily transferable to other employment; and
3. The competitive conditions within the affected workers' industry are adverse.
Obtaining data and other information necessary to determine that all three of these criteria are satisfied will be part of the normal petition investigation process conducted by the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance (DTAA). Workers may transmit data with their petition for any or all of these criteria, which will be considered by DTAA in making its determination.
For criterion 1, information will be obtained by telephone communication with the appropriate company official from the subject firm as part of DTAA's investigation. For this purpose, the term “significant number” means five percent of the adversely affected workforce or 50 workers, whichever is less, or at least three workers in a firm with less than 50 adversely affected workers.
For criterion 2, the necessary information will also be obtained through telephone communication with the appropriate company official at the subject firm. Specifically, the company official will be asked to confirm that the worker group for whom a petition has been filed possesses job skills that are not easily transferable to other employment, with a focus on what skills the worker possesses. Should the company official be unable to provide information as to whether the skills are easily transferable, the state (
For criterion 3, information will be collected from government and industry association sources as part of DTAA's investigation process. Specifically, the information collected will be used to determine if: (a) The number of firms in the industry is declining; or (b) the conditions (such as declining production and/or employment) in the industry are such that the affected workers are not likely to find new employment within the industry; or (c) aggregate U.S. imports of products like or directly competitive with those produced in the industry are increasing.
Whenever petitioners seek a determination of eligibility to apply for the ATAA program, the determination document issued at the conclusion of the investigation will clearly state whether or not the petitioning workers are eligible to apply for the ATAA program. This statement shall appear directly after the statement of eligibility to apply for regular TAA. Determinations of eligibility to apply for the ATAA program and for regular TAA, reached under the same petition, will be issued together in the same determination document. Determinations of eligibility to apply for regular TAA and for the ATAA program, issued under the same petition, will apply to the same identifiable worker group.
Certifications issued based upon TAA petitions filed before August 6, 2003, can only be for eligibility to apply for regular TAA. No active certification of eligibility to apply for regular TAA will be amended to include certification of eligibility to apply for the ATAA program. However, if DTAA has not yet issued a determination of eligibility for TAA, the petitioner may withdraw the TAA petition and submit a new petition requesting both TAA and ATAA (which will create a new impact date, and, thus, may jeopardize the eligibility of certain workers who may have been included in the withdrawn petition). The date of issuance is considered the date on the determination document.
Requests for reconsiderations and/or judicial review of ATAA determinations are the same as under the regular petition process for TAA.
The implementation of the ATAA program provides additional opportunities for Trade Act coordinators and other local One-Stop Career Center partners to work more closely with state and local Rapid Response teams to enhance the provision of information and services to workers who have been or will be impacted by increased imports or shifts in production to other countries. The ATAA program provides an opportunity for adversely affected older workers who may not be interested in retraining to take full advantage of comprehensive reemployment services and assistance available through TAA, WIA and the One-Stop system.
The ATAA program is an integral part of an enhanced menu of reemployment services and assistance available to eligible individuals through the Act. State and local trade program staff should be working closely with Rapid Response teams and other local One-Stop Career Center system partners to ensure the dissemination of information regarding all aspects of the Trade Act program, including HCTC and ATAA, both prior to and following the notification of layoffs, petition filings and certifications. It is essential that timely and accurate information about the Trade Act program be provided to affected workers to facilitate more informed decision-making and to expedite their return to employment.
Rapid Response activities for potentially trade affected workers within the local One-Stop Career Center should include:
• Immediate and ongoing dissemination of information on TAA, HCTC, and ATAA, including early intervention measures prior to and following notices of layoff.
• Distribution of available TAA, HCTC, and ATAA posters, brochures, Web sites, fact sheets, desk aids, videos, and public service announcements.
• Presentations regarding TAA, HCTC, and ATAA to Chambers of Commerce and other employer organizations, organized labor, economic development agencies, state and local elected officials, community-based organizations, and faith-based organizations.
• Upon request, provision of information to DTAA investigators with respect to the transferability of worker job skills to other employment for determination of ATAA group eligibility.
After the issuance of a certification of eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA and when the adversely affected worker is fully informed of the benefits and services available under the TAA and ATAA programs, the worker will need to consider the choice of benefits and services under one program or the other. If the worker's preferred option is the ATAA program, the worker should be encouraged to take advantage of reemployment services and assistance available to him/her with the goal of returning to work within 26 weeks of their qualifying separation in order to be eligible for ATAA. In making this choice, workers should avail themselves of assistance from local Trade Act coordinators and WIA employment managers.
While an adversely affected worker is seeking employment to qualify for the ATAA program, actions must be taken to ensure regular TAA deadlines are met and options are preserved. Section 231 of the Act imposed a deadline by which a worker must be enrolled in approved training, or have a waiver of this requirement, in order to be eligible for TRA. This deadline is either 8 weeks after the issuance of the relevant certification of eligibility to apply for TAA benefits or services or 16 weeks after the worker's most recent qualifying separation, whichever is later (commonly referred to as the 8/16 deadline). This 8/16 deadline applies to eligibility for all TRA, both basic and additional.
The state should assess whether a worker is entitled to a training waiver, prior to the 8/16 week deadline for applying for training, based on one of the waiver criteria described below, as appropriate, which preserves the worker's TRA eligibility if a job is not obtained within 26 weeks of the worker's qualifying separation. The waiver criteria are:
1. Recall.—The worker has been notified that the he/she will be recalled by the firm from which the separation occurred.
2. Marketable Skills.—The worker possesses marketable skills for suitable employment (as determined pursuant to an assessment of the worker, which may include the profiling system under section 303(j) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 503(j)), carried out in accordance with guidelines issued by the Secretary) and there is a reasonable expectation of employment at equivalent wages in the foreseeable future.
3. Retirement.—The worker is within 2 years of meeting all requirements for entitlement to either—
a. O ld-age insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et. seq.) (except for application therefore); or
b. A private pension sponsored by an employer or labor organization.
4. Health.—The worker is unable to participate in training due to the health of the worker, except that a waiver under this subparagraph shall not be construed to exempt a worker from requirements relating to the availability
5. Enrollment Unavailable.—The first available enrollment date for the approved training of the worker is within 60 days after the date of the determination made under this paragraph, or, if later, there are extenuating circumstances for the delay in enrollment, as determined pursuant to guidelines issued by the Secretary.
6. Training Not Available.—Training approved by the Secretary is not reasonably available to the worker from either governmental agencies or private sources (which may include area vocational education schools, as defined in section 3 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 2302), and employers), no training that is suitable for the worker is available at reasonable cost, or no training funds are available.
All workers should be informed that, if they anticipate not being able to obtain a job within 26 weeks of their qualifying separation, they should contact their local One-Stop Career Center immediately, and consider seeking the TAA benefits, including training to which they are entitled. While ATAA participants are eligible for HCTC, they are only eligible once they are participating in the ATAA program and receiving a benefit under the program. Thus, if workers considering ATAA have not become reemployed and are in need of HCTC, the Trade Act coordinator should assess whether a training waiver might be appropriate under one of the enumerated criteria. As with all training waivers, any waivers issued should be reviewed every 30 days to determine their continued applicability. In cases where the waiver is no longer appropriate, it should be revoked.
To be eligible for ATAA, an individual must meet the following conditions at the time of reemployment:
1. Be at least age 50 at time of reemployment. The individual's age can be verified with a driver's license or other appropriate documentation.
2. Obtain reemployment by the last day of the 26th week after the worker's qualifying separation from the TAA/ATAA certified employment. This reemployment may be verified with a copy of the job offer letter or a check stub.
3. Must not be expected to earn more than $50,000 annually in gross wages (excluding overtime pay) from the reemployment. If a paycheck has not been issued at the time of application, the employer must submit a supporting statement indicating that annual wages will not exceed $50,000.
4. Be reemployed full-time as defined by the state law where the worker is employed. The verification will be conducted in the same manner as is used for determining UI benefits.
5. Cannot return to work to the employment from which the worker was separated. Thus, the worker cannot return to the same division/facility that he/she was separated from nor can the worker do the same or similar work for the employer that he/she was separated from in another division/facility.
The application for ATAA must be filed within two years of the first day of qualifying reemployment. For purposes of this application, and in order to establish the ATAA payment, wages at separation are defined as the annualized hourly rate at the time of the most recent separation, which is set forth in Section G of this TEGL, “ATAA Payments.” Wages at reemployment are defined as the annualized hourly rate at the time of reemployment, which is also set forth in Section G. In addition, the worker must indicate that a “choice” has been made and that she/he understands that she/he cannot subsequently switch to the TAA program once she/he begins receiving the ATAA supplement. Receipt of the initial ATAA payment represents the individual's decision with respect to choosing ATAA and voids the participant's rights to retraining, allowances and TRA. Correspondingly, once a worker has enrolled in training, he/she forfeits his/her right to ATAA participation.
The State TAA Coordinator will issue a written determination informing the ATAA applicant of eligibility for ATAA payments within 5 working days of receiving the worker's application for such benefits. If approved, the State TAA Coordinator will also notify the appropriate state payment unit and other appropriate component offices within the state. The ATAA applicant has the right to appeal a state determination which denies ATAA benefits in the same manner as provided for in state law for TRA determinations.
For purposes of the ATAA program, the eligibility determination date, which establishes the two-year period during which ATAA benefits can be paid, will be the date of the first qualifying reemployment.
Once approved for the ATAA program, individuals who continue to meet the eligibility criteria are paid ATAA benefits until a total of $10,000 in benefits has been received, or a period of two years has elapsed since their first qualifying reemployment, whichever occurs first. Nothing in the statute precludes an individual from working for different employers within this two-year period. Further, employment is not required to be consecutive. However, ATAA benefits are not payable during periods of unemployment (
In the event a worker has more than one job, the employment must, at a minimum, meet the definition of full-time work as defined by state law. If additional job(s) are obtained, the wages from this employment will be included in the calculation to determine whether the worker is expected to reach the $50,000 annual limit for reemployment wages.
Each certified worker for ATAA will need to visit a state or local office in person to provide information and determine initial individual eligibility for ATAA. If the individual is determined to be eligible for ATAA, the state will need to assess continuing eligibility for the ATAA program. The worker will need to provide verification of employment and wages that will be used to determine continuing eligibility for ATAA benefits on at least a monthly basis. The state can choose to have the worker come to the local office and provide documentation to the staff, or the state has the option to accept proof of continuing eligibility by mail, fax, or some other means to verify proof of employment and wages. However, the state may not use telephone certification in these instances.
In either alternative, the state must have documented verification of the individual worker's employment and wage status on at least a monthly basis. The information provided at the local level will need to be forwarded to the State TAA Coordinator for review and approval. Once the TAA Coordinator approves the information, the state payment unit, local office, and worker will be notified and the worker will receive equivalent payment for the preceding month on a weekly, biweekly, or other basis as determined by the state
With respect to HCTC, the SWAs are required to report ATAA recipients (workers who are receiving the ATAA wage subsidy) to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the manner described in Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) 24-03, dated April 14, 2003.
Section 246(a)(4) of the Trade Act provides that a State shall use the funds provided under section 241 to pay for a period not to exceed two years to a worker described in Section 246(a)(3)(B), 50 percent of the difference between:
(i) The wages received by the worker from reemployment; and
(ii) The wages received by the worker at the time of separation.
Section 246(a)(4) supplements an individual's wages for up to two years or $10,000, whichever occurs first, by an amount equal to 50 percent of the difference between the wages earned from the adversely affected employer and the new employment obtained after separation from adversely affected employment that is approved for ATAA payments.
An individual receiving this benefit may receive TAA relocation benefits and the HCTC, but is not eligible to receive any other benefits, including training, TRA payments, and job search allowances. The ATAA supplement shall cease in the event of one of the following:
• The individual's annualized wage, excluding the ATAA wage subsidy, is projected to exceed $50,000 a year.
• The individual has received $10,000 in ATAA benefits.
• The worker has reached the end of the two-year eligibility period.
The choice of payment unit for paying the ATAA wage subsidy is a state responsibility. However, the organizational placement of this payment by the state must meet Governmental Accounting Standards Board requirements. It is the responsibility of the SWA when calculating the ATAA payment to annualize the recipient's wages on a monthly basis to assure that the recipient's annual wages do not exceed $50,000. Annual wage calculations will include all jobs in which the worker is employed and constitute at least full-time employment as defined by the state. This may include any combination of full- and part-time work that meets or exceeds full-time employment.
Annualized wages at separation are defined as the annualized hourly rate at the time of the most recent qualifying separation. The annualized wages are computed by multiplying the worker's hourly rate received during the last full week of his/her employment by the number of hours the individual worked during the last full week of employment and multiplying that number by 52. Overtime wages and hours are excluded from the calculation. Annualized wages at reemployment are defined similarly to annualized wages at separation, except that the hourly rate and hours worked must reflect those of the first full week of reemployment.
The calculated monthly allotment will be derived as follows:
Annualized Separation Wages minus Annualized Reemployment Wages divided by 2 equals 50% of the difference between the two periods of wages.
50% of the difference between the two periods of wages divided by 12 equals the monthly ATAA wage subsidy.
If, as a result of the monthly verification exercise, the participant's hourly wage and/or hours are determined to have changed in such a way as to affect the ATAA wage subsidy, the state will repeat the above calculation and adjust the ATAA payment accordingly.
The ATAA wage subsidy will be paid on a weekly, biweekly, or other payment frequency not to exceed monthly, as established by the state, ensuring that the total payment does not exceed the $10,000 maximum over a two-year period.
SWAs will follow the current interstate arrangement for the regular UI program regarding the agent/liable state relationship for the filing of ATAA claims.
The determination of “annualized wages” is made prospectively. An individual is deemed to have met the “earns not more than $50,000 a year in wages from reemployment” requirement set forth in section 246 for a given month if the monthly determination of annualized wages is accurate and complete at the time it is made. No overpayment determinations need be made for that month based on projections for the yearly annual wage that later changed based on information that was not available at the time that the monthly determination was made. Monthly payments derived from the annualized wage projection based on complete and accurate information at the time will be considered valid payments that the individual was entitled to, and are not considered overpayments.
In instances where there are overpayments, due to error or fraud, for example, the state should adhere to the overpayment provisions of the Trade Act regulations at 20 CFR 617.55.
It is suggested that the state maintain a manual or automated benefit history for the ATAA recipient for a period of no less than three years for audit purposes. It is suggested that the benefit history include the following:
• Claimant name.
• Social Security Number.
• Certified TAA Petition Number.
• Reemployment hourly wages and hours worked per week.
• Weekly Reemployment Earnings (or biweekly or other employer payment schedule).
• Address changes including phone numbers.
• Status of full time work each week.
• Date of birth.
• Separation hourly wages and hours worked per week.
• Separation wages with the Adversely Affected Employer.
• Projected wage with the new employer.
• Weekly benefit amounts.
• Cumulative payments made under the ATAA Program.
• Individuals remaining balance under the $10,000 maximum amount time remaining under the two-year eligibility period.
ATAA benefits for FY 2003 will be paid from the FY 2003 Federal Unemployment Benefit Account (FUBA) from which TRA benefits are paid.
ATAA administrative costs, relating to payment of ATAA benefits, are paid from funds appropriated for TAA administration under the State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Services Operations (SUIESO) account which supports TRA payments. Creating the list of ATAA recipients for HCTC eligibility must be funded in the same manner as creation of the list of eligible TAA recipients.
No benefit payments may be made by a state after the date that is 5 years from
In order to monitor and manage the ATAA program for results, a quarterly activity report will be required. This report has been designed and will be provided to OMB in the near future for review and approval. Once approval is obtained, implementation instructions will be issued. Our intention is to have the report submitted via a Web-based interface.
6. Action Required. States must ensure that the state workforce investment system is able to implement the ATAA program and make payments to eligible program participants for petitions filed on or after August 6, 2003.
7. Inquiries. States should direct all inquiries to the appropriate ETA Regional Office.
Attachment A: Request for Determination of Eligibility to Apply for the Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) Program for Older Workers
In addition to a determination of eligibility to apply for regular TAA, do the petitioners seek a determination of eligibility to apply for the Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) Older Workers Program for workers 50 years of age or older? If so, check “yes” below and attach to the Petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Yes __
If you do not check “yes” above, the petitioning worker group will not be considered for eligibility certification under the ATAA program. If you do check yes, and the worker group is determined to be eligible for the ATAA program, the individual workers within the certified worker group who meet individual ATAA eligibility criteria will have the option of choosing ATAA or TAA benefits and services.
Criterion that must be met for group certification include:
1. A significant number of adversely affected workers in the petitioning workers' firm are 50 years of age or older;
2. The adversely affected workers in the petitioning workers' firm possess job skills that are not easily transferable to other employment; and
3. The competitive conditions within the adversely affected workers industry are adverse.
Additional criteria that must be met for individual eligibility include:
1. A worker must be at least 50 years of age
2. The worker must obtain different, full-time reemployment within 26 weeks of separation from adversely affected employment
3. Reemployment wages on an average annual basis must be less than wages earned in the adversely affected employment
4. The worker may not earn more than $50,000 per year in new employment
5. The worker must be certified as eligible to apply for TAA benefits
These reporting requirements are approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, OMB Control No. 1205-0442, expiring 10/31/2003. Persons are not required to respond to this collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 60 seconds per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and reviewing the collection of information. Respondent's obligation to reply is required to obtain or retain benefits. (Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Trade Act of 2002). Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden, send them to the U.S. Department of Labor, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Room c-5311, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20210 (Paperwork Reduction Project 1205-0442).
Notice is hereby given of the date and location of the next meeting of the Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health (FACOSH), established under Section 1-5 of Executive Order 12196 on February 6, 1980, published in the
FACOSH will meet on November 8, 2004 starting at 1:30 p.m., in Room N-3437 A/B/C of the Department of Labor Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. The meeting will adjourn at approximately 4:30 p.m., and will be open to the public. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must exhibit photo identification to security personnel upon entering the building.
Agenda items will include:
1. Call to Order
2. Old Business
New Business
3. Adjournment
Written data, views, or comments may be submitted, preferably with 20 copies, to the Office of Federal Agency Programs at the address provided below. All such submissions received by November 1, 2004 will be provided to the Federal Advisory Council members and included in the meeting record.
Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation should notify the Office of Federal Agency Programs by the close of business on November 3, 2004. The request should state the amount of time desired, the capacity in which the person will appear, and a brief outline of the presentation's content. Those who request the opportunity to address the Federal Advisory Council may be allowed to speak, as time permits, at the discretion of the Chairperson. Individuals with disabilities who need special accommodations and wish to attend the meeting should contact Thomas Marple at the address indicated below.
For additional information, please contact Thomas K. Marple, Acting
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of Meeting.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the NASA Space Science Advisory Committee (SScAC), Solar System Exploration Subcommittee (SSES).
Thursday, October 21, 2004, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Friday, October 22, 2004, 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
NASA Headquarters, Room 9H40, 300 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546.
Dr. Michael H. New, Science Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-1766,
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
• Status of Solar System Exploration
• Status of Mars Exploration Program
• Strategic Roadmaps Review Discussion
• Transformation and the Subcommittee Structure
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID, before receiving an access badge. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide the following information no less than 3 working days prior to the meeting: full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa/green card information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, phone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees with U.S. citizenship can provide identifying information in advance by contacting Marian Norris via email at
Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries will meet on October 19, 2004, from 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., in the Washington Conference Room, at the National Archives Building 8th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
The agenda for the meeting will be the Presidential library program and a discussion of critical issues.
The meeting will be open to the public.
Richard L. Claypoole at (301) 837-3250.
This notice is published less than 15 calendar days before the meeting because of scheduling difficulties.
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that six meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20506 as follows:
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of April 14, 2004, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c) (6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b.
Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory panels that are open to the public, and if time allows, may be permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel chairman.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506, or call 202/682-5691.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.
Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
On August 9, 2004 and September 2, 2004, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the
Scott Borg—Permit No. 2005-011.
Bruce C. Sidell—Permit No. 2005-015.
Weeks of October 11, 18, 25, November 1, 8, 15, 2004
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
Public and Closed
* 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:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-4152100, or by e-mail 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
Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council (Northwest Power and Conservation Council; Council).
Notice of availability of Draft Fifth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan.
Following the mandate set out in the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (U.S.C. 839
With the draft Fifth Power Plan, as with the First Power Plan, the Council responds to the impacts of a regional electric power crisis. The draft plan builds on the lessons of the Western electricity crisis of 2000 and 2001 and recommends actions the Council believes will help the region reduce the risks of an uncertain future and secure an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply.
The draft plan meets the requirements of the Act, which specifies the components the plan is to have. The Act requires the plan to include among other elements, an energy conservation program, a recommendation for research and development; a methodology for determining quantifiable environmental costs and benefits; a 20-year demand forecast; a forecast of power resources that the Bonneville Power Administration will need to meet its obligations; an analysis of reserve and reserve reliability requirements; and a surcharge methodology. The plan also includes the Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, developed pursuant to other procedural requirements under the Act.
The Council will give notice of opportunities for oral comment at hearings throughout the Northwest both in mailed notices and on its Web site. Close of comment for written comments is 5 p.m. Friday, November 19, 2004. The Council also may hold consultations on the draft plan during the public comment period.
If you would like a copy of the Draft Fifth Power Plan, please contact the Council's central office and ask for Council Document 2004-12. The Council's address is 851 SW., Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon 97204. The Council's telephone numbers are 503-222-5161, and 800-452-5161; the Council's FAX is 503-820-2370. The Draft Fifth Power Plan is also found on the Council's Web site:
If you are submitting comments on the draft plan, please note prominently that you are commenting on Council Document 2004-12. Comments may be submitted by mail, by facsimile transmission (FAX), or by electronic mail at:
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a currently approved information collection. RI 98-7, We Need Important Information About Your Eligibility for Social Security Disability Benefits, is used by OPM to verify receipt of Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits, to lessen or avoid overpayment to Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) disability retirees. It notifies the annuitant of the responsibility to notify OPM if SSA benefits begin and the overpayment that will occur with the receipt of both benefits.
Approximately 3,000 RI 98-7 forms will be completed annually. The form takes approximately 5 minutes to complete. The annual burden is 250 hours.
For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-8358, FAX (202) 418-3251 or via e-mail to
Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Send or deliver comments to—
and
Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, Administrative Services Branch, (202) 606-0623.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a revised information collection. RI 25-51, Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) Survivor Annuitant Express Pay Application for Death Benefits, will be used by the Civil Service Retirement System solely to pay benefits to the widow(er) of an annuitant. This application is intended for use in immediately authorizing payments to an annuitant's widow or widower, based on the report of death, when our records show the decedent elected to provide benefits for the applicant.
Approximately 34,800 RI 25-51 forms are completed annually. The form takes approximately 30 minutes to complete. The annual burden is 17,400 hours.
For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-8358, FAX (202) 418-3251 or via e-mail to
Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Send or deliver comments to—
Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, Support Group, (202) 606-0623.
Pursuant to Section 107(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”), notice is hereby given that on September 16, 2004, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “Board” or the “PCAOB”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission” or the “SEC”) the proposed rule described in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by the Board and are presented here in the form submitted by the Board. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from interested persons.
On September 15, 2004, the Board adopted
Statement on Auditing Standards (“SAS”) No. 1, “Codification of Auditing Standards and Procedures,” AU sec. 310, “Appointment of the Independent Auditor,” as amended by SAS No. 45, “Omnibus Statement on Auditing Standards-1983,” SAS No. 83, “Establishing an Understanding With the Client,” and SAS No. 89, “Audit Adjustments” (AU sec. 310, “Appointment of the Independent Auditor”), is amended as follows:
a. The first sentence of paragraph .06 is amended to read as follows: An understanding with the client generally includes the following matters.
b. The first bullet point of paragraph .06 is amended to read as follows: The objective of the audit is:
•
•
c. The third bullet point of paragraph .06 is amended to read as follows: Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting. In an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, an auditor is required to communicate, in writing, to management and the audit committee that the audit of internal control over financial reporting cannot be satisfactorily completed and that he or she is required to disclaim an opinion if management has not:
• Accepted responsibility for the effectiveness of the company's internal control over financial reporting.
• Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's internal control over financial reporting using suitable control criteria,
• Supported its evaluation with sufficient evidence, including documentation, and
• Presented a written assessment of the effectiveness of the company's internal control over financial reporting as of the end of the company's most recent fiscal year.
d. The seventh bullet point of paragraph .06 is amended to read as follows: The auditor is responsible for conducting the audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Those standards require that the auditor:
•
•
e. The eighth bullet point of paragraph .06 is amended to read as follows:
An audit includes:
•
• To the audit committee—all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses identified during the audit.
• To management—all internal control deficiencies identified during the audit and not previously communicated in writing by the auditor or by others, including internal auditors or others inside or outside the company.
• To the board of directors—any specific significant deficiency or material weakness identified because the auditor concludes that the audit committee's oversight of the company's external financial reporting and internal control over financial reporting is ineffective.
•
• To the audit committee—all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses identified during the audit.
• To the board of directors—if the auditor becomes aware that the oversight of the company's external financial reporting and internal control over financial reporting by the company's audit committee is ineffective, that specific significant deficiency or material weakness.
SAS No. 22, “Planning and Supervision,” as amended by SAS No. 47, “Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit,” SAS No. 48, “The Effects of Computer Processing on the Audit of Financial Statements,” and SAS No. 77, “Amendments to Statements on Auditing Standards No. 22, ‘Planning and Supervision,’ No. 59, ‘The Auditor's Consideration of an Entity's Ability to Continue as a Going Concern,’ No. 62, ‘Special Reports’” (AU sec. 311, “Planning and Supervision”), is amended by adding the following note after paragraph 1: Note:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraph 39 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 regarding planning considerations in addition to the planning considerations set forth in this section.
SAS No. 47, “Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit,” as amended by SAS No. 82, “Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit,” SAS No. 96, “Audit Documentation,” and SAS No. 98, “Omnibus Statement on Auditing Standards—2002” (AU sec. 312, “Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit”), is amended as follows:
a. The following note is added after paragraph 3.
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraphs 22-23 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 regarding materiality considerations.
b. The following note is added after paragraph 5.
An integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting is not designed to detect deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that, individually or in the aggregate, are less severe than a material weakness.
c. The following note is added after paragraph 7.
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraphs 24-26 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 regarding fraud considerations.
d. The following note is added after paragraph 12.
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraphs 22-23 and 39 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 regarding materiality and planning considerations, respectively.
e. The following note is added after paragraph 18.
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to Appendix B, “Additional Performance Requirements and Directions; Extent-of-Testing Examples,” of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 for considerations when a company has multiple locations or business units.
f. The following note is added after paragraph 30.
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraphs 147-149 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 regarding tests of controls.
SAS No. 45, “Omnibus Statement on Auditing Standards—1983” (AU sec. 313, “Substantive Tests Prior to the Balance-Sheet Date”), is amended by adding the following note after paragraph 1:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraphs 98-103 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 regarding timing of tests of controls.
SAS No. 99, “Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit” (AU sec. 316, “Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit”), is amended as follows:
a. The following note is added after paragraph 1:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraphs 24-26 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 regarding fraud considerations, in addition to the fraud consideration set forth in this section.
b. In paragraph 80, the phrase “the auditor should consider whether these risks represent reportable conditions relating to the entity's internal control that should be communicated to senior management and the audit committee” is replaced by “the auditor should consider whether these risks represent significant deficiencies that must be communicated to senior management and the audit committee” and the reference to section 325, “Communication of Internal Control Related Matters Noted in an Audit,” paragraph .04 is replaced by the reference to section 325, “Communications About Control Deficiencies in An Audit of Financial Statements,” paragraph 4.
SAS No. 55, “Consideration of Internal Control in a Financial Statement Audit,” as amended by SAS No. 78, “Consideration of Internal Control in a Financial Statement Audit: An Amendment of Statement on Auditing Standards No. 55,” and SAS No. 94, “The Effect of Information Technology on the Auditor's Consideration of Internal Control in a Financial Statement Audit” (AU sec. 319, “Consideration of Internal Control in a Financial Statement Audit”), is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph 2, the term “assertions” is replaced by the term “relevant assertions.”
b. The following sentence is added at the end of paragraph 2: Regardless of the assessed level of control risk, the auditor should perform substantive procedures for all relevant assertions related to all significant accounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
c. The following note is added after paragraph 2:
Refer to paragraphs 68-70 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 for discussion of identifying relevant financial statement assertions.
d. The following note is added after paragraph 9:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to Appendix B, “Additional Performance Requirements and Directions; Extent-of-Testing Examples,” of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 for discussion of considerations when a company has multiple locations or business units.
e. The following note is added after paragraph 42:
For purposes of evaluating the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, the auditor's understanding of control activities encompasses a broader range of accounts and disclosures than what is normally obtained in a financial statement audit.
f. The following note is added after paragraph 65:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, if the auditor assesses control risk as other than low for certain assertions or significant accounts, the auditor should document the reasons for that conclusion.
g. The following note is added after paragraph 83:
In an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 states, in part, that “If, however, the auditor assesses control risk as other than low for certain assertions or significant accounts, the auditor should document the reasons for that conclusion.” Accordingly, if control risk is assessed at the maximum level, the auditor should document the basis for that conclusion. Refer to paragraphs 159-161 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 for additional information regarding documentation requirements.
h. The following note is added after paragraph 97:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraphs 104-105 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 for discussion on the extent of tests of controls.
i. The last sentence of paragraph 107 is replaced with the following sentence:
Consequently, regardless of the assessed level of control risk, the auditor should perform substantive procedures for all relevant assertions related to all significant accounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
SAS No. 65, “The Auditor's Consideration of the Internal Audit Function in an Audit of Financial Statements” (AU sec. 322, “The Auditor's Consideration of the Internal Audit Function in an Audit of Financial Statements”), is amended as follows:
a. The following note is added after paragraph 1:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraphs 108-126 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 for discussion on using the work of others to alter the nature, timing, and extent of the work that otherwise would have been performed to test controls.
b. The second sentence of paragraph 16 is replaced with the following sentence:
The auditor assesses control risk for each of the relevant financial statement assertions related to all significant accounts and disclosures in the financial statements and performs tests of controls to support assessments below the maximum.
c. The following note is added after paragraph 20:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraphs 112-116 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 regarding evaluating the nature of controls subjected to the work of others.
d. The following note is added after paragraph 22:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraph 122 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 regarding assessing the interrelationship of the nature of the controls and the competence and objectivity of those who performed the work.
SAS No. 70, “Service Organizations,” as amended by SAS No. 78, “Consideration of Internal Control in a Financial Statement Audit: An Amendment to Statement on Auditing Standard No. 55,” SAS No. 88, “Service Organizations and Reporting on Consistency,” and SAS No. 98, “Omnibus Statement on Auditing Standards—2002” (AU sec. 324, “Service Organizations”), is amended as follows:
a. The following note is added after paragraph 1:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraphs B18-B29 of Appendix B, “Additional Performance Requirements and Directions; Extent-of-Testing Examples,” in PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 regarding the use of service organizations.
b. In paragraph 20, the term “reportable conditions” is replaced by the term “significant deficiencies” and the reference to section 325, “Communication of Internal Control Related Matters Noted in an Audit,” is replaced by the reference to section 325, “Communications About Control Deficiencies in An Audit of Financial Statements.”
SAS No. 60, “Communication of Internal Control Related Matters Noted in an Audit,” as amended by SAS No. 78, “Consideration of Internal Control in a Financial Statement Audit: An Amendment to Statement on Auditing Standards No. 55,” and SAS No. 87, “Restricting the Use of an Auditor's Report” (AU Sec. 325, “Communication of Internal Control Related Matters Noted in an Audit”), is superseded.
•
•
1. In an audit of financial statements, the auditor may identify deficiencies in the company's internal control over financial reporting. A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis.
• A deficiency in design exists when (a) a control necessary to meet the control objective is missing or (b) an
• A deficiency in operation exists when a properly designed control does not operate as designed or when the person performing the control does not possess the necessary authority or qualifications to perform the control effectively.
2. A
The term “remote likelihood” as used in the definitions of
When a loss contingency exists, the likelihood that the future event or events will confirm the loss or impairment of an asset or the incurrence of a liability can range from probable to remote. This Statement uses the terms probable, reasonably possible, and remote to identify three areas within that range, as follows:
a.
b.
c.
Therefore, the likelihood of an event is “more than remote” when it is either reasonably possible or probable.
A misstatement is inconsequential if a reasonable person would conclude, after considering the possibility of further undetected misstatements, that the misstatement, either individually or when aggregated with other misstatements, would clearly be immaterial to the financial statements. If a reasonable person could not reach such a conclusion regarding a particular misstatement, that misstatement is more than inconsequential.
3. A
In evaluating whether a control deficiency exists and whether control deficiencies, either individually or in combination with other control deficiencies, are significant deficiencies or material weaknesses, the auditor should consider the definitions in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, and the directions in paragraphs 130 through 137 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2. As explained in paragraph 23 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2, the evaluation of the materiality of the control deficiency should include both quantitative and qualitative considerations. Qualitative factors that might be important in this evaluation include the nature of the financial statement accounts and assertions involved and the reasonably possible future consequences of the deficiency. Furthermore, in determining whether a control deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, is a significant deficiency or a material weakness, the auditor should evaluate the effect of compensating controls and whether such compensating controls are effective.
4. The auditor must communicate in writing to management and the audit committee all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses identified during the audit. The written communication should be made prior to the issuance of the auditor's report on the financial statements. The auditor's communication should distinguish clearly between those matters considered significant deficiencies and those considered material weaknesses, as defined in paragraphs 2 and 3.
If no such committee exists with respect to the company, all references to the audit committee in this standard apply to the entire board of directors of the company.
5. If oversight of the company's external financial reporting and internal control over financial reporting by the company's audit committee is ineffective, that circumstance should be regarded as at least a significant deficiency and as a strong indicator that a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting exists. Although there is not an explicit requirement to evaluate the effectiveness of the audit committee's oversight in an audit of only the financial statements, if the auditor becomes aware that the oversight of the company's external financial reporting and internal control over financial reporting by the company's audit committee is ineffective, the auditor must communicate that specific significant deficiency or material weakness in writing to the board of directors.
6. These written communications should include:
a. The definitions of significant deficiencies and material weaknesses and should clearly distinguish to which category the deficiencies being communicated relate.
b. A statement that the objective of the audit was to report on the financial statements and not to provide assurance on internal control.
c. A statement that the communication is intended solely for the information and use of the board of directors, audit committee, management, and others within the organization. When there are requirements established by governmental authorities to furnish such written communications, specific reference to such regulatory authorities may be made.
7. The auditor might identify matters in addition to those required to be communicated by this standard. Such matters include control deficiencies identified by the auditor that are neither
8. The auditor should not report in writing that no significant deficiencies were discovered during an audit of financial statements because of the potential that the limited degree of assurance associated with such a report will be misunderstood.
9. When timely communication is important, the auditor should communicate the preceding matters during the course of the audit rather than at the end of the engagement. The decision about whether to issue an interim communication should be determined based on the relative significance of the matters noted and the urgency of corrective follow-up action required.
In an audit of financial statements only, auditing interpretation 1 to AU sec. 325, “Reporting on the Existence of Material Weaknesses,” continues to apply except that the term “reportable condition” means “significant deficiency,” as defined in paragraph 9 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2.
SAS No. 31, “Evidential Matter,” as amended by SAS No. 48, “The Effects of Computer Processing on the Audit of Financial Statements,” and SAS No. 80, “Amendment to Statement on Auditing Standards No. 31, ‘Evidential Matter’ ” (AU sec. 326, “Evidential Matter”), is amended by adding the following sentences at the end of paragraph 19:
Additionally, the auditor's substantive procedures must include reconciling the financial statements to the accounting records. The auditor's substantive procedures also should include examining material adjustments made during the course of preparing the financial statements.
SAS No. 56, “Analytical Procedures,” as amended by SAS No. 96, “Audit Documentation” (AU sec. 329, “Analytical Procedures”), is amended as follows:
a. The following sentence is added to the end of paragraph 9: For significant risks of material misstatement, it is unlikely that audit evidence obtained from substantive analytical procedures alone will be sufficient.
b. The following sentences are added to the end of paragraph 10: When designing substantive analytical procedures, the auditor also should evaluate the risk of management override of controls. As part of this process, the auditor should evaluate whether such an override might have allowed adjustments outside of the normal period-end financial reporting process to have been made to the financial statements. Such adjustments might have resulted in artificial changes to the financial statement relationships being analyzed, causing the auditor to draw erroneous conclusions. For this reason, substantive analytical procedures alone are not well suited to detecting fraud.
c. The following sentence is added to the beginning of paragraph 16: Before using the results obtained from substantive analytical procedures, the auditor should either test the design and operating effectiveness of controls over financial information used in the substantive analytical procedures or perform other procedures to support the completeness and accuracy of the underlying information.
SAS No. 92, “Auditing Derivative Instruments, Hedging Activities, and Investments in Securities” (AU sec. 332, “Auditing Derivative Instruments, Hedging Activities, and Investments in Securities”), is amended by adding the following note after paragraph 11:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 states, “the auditor must obtain sufficient competent evidence about the design and operating effectiveness of controls over all relevant financial statement assertions related to all significant accounts and disclosures in the financial statements.” Therefore, in an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, if a company's investment in derivatives and securities represents a significant account, the auditor's understanding of controls should include controls over derivatives and securities transactions from their initiation to their inclusion in the financial statements and should encompass controls placed in operation by the entity and service organizations whose services are part of the entity's information system.
SAS No. 85, “Management Representations,” as amended by SAS No. 89, “Audit Adjustments,” and SAS No. 99 “Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit” (AU sec. 333, “Management Representations”), is amended by adding the following note after paragraph 5:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraphs 142-144 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 for additional required written representations to be obtained from management.
SAS No. 57, “Auditing Accounting Estimates” (AU sec. 342, “Auditing Accounting Estimates”), is amended by adding the following note after paragraph 10:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, the auditor may use any of the three approaches. However, the work that the auditor performs as part of the audit of internal control over financial reporting should necessarily inform the auditor's decisions about the approach he or she takes to auditing an estimate because, as part of the audit of internal control over financial reporting, the auditor would be required to obtain an understanding of the process management used to develop the estimate and to test controls over all relevant assertions related to the estimate.
SAS No. 61, “Communication with Audit Committees” (AU sec. 380, “Communication with Audit Committees”), is amended by replacing the title of Section 325 in the first bullet in footnote 1 in paragraph 1 with “Communications About Control Deficiencies in An Audit of Financial Statements” and adding the following after the last bullet in footnote 1 in paragraph 1:
• PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2, An Audit of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Performed in Conjunction with an Audit of Financial Statements.
SAS No. 58, “Reports on Audited Financial Statements,” as amended by SAS No. 64, “Omnibus Statement on Auditing Standards—1990,” SAS No. 79, “Amendment to Statement on Auditing Standards No. 58, ‘Reports on Audited Financial Statements,’ ” SAS No. 85, “Management Representations,” SAS No. 93, “Omnibus Statement on Auditing Standards—2000,” and SAS No. 98, “Omnibus Statement on Auditing Standards—2002” (AU sec. 508, “Reports on Audited Financial Statements”), is amended as follows:
a. The following note is added after paragraph 1:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control
b. The following subparagraph is added to paragraph 8:
k. When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, if the auditor issues separate reports on the company's financial statements and on internal control over financial reporting, the following paragraph should be added to the auditor's report on the company's financial statements:
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the effectiveness of X Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 20X3, based on
SAS No. 1, “Codification of Auditing Standards and Procedures,” AU sec. 530, “Dating of the Independent Auditor's Report,” as amended by SAS No. 29, “Reporting on Information Accompanying the Basic Financial Statements in Auditor-Submitted Documents,” and SAS No. 98, “Omnibus Statement on Auditing Standards—2002” (AU sec. 530, “Dating of the Independent Auditor's Report”), is amended by adding the following note after paragraph .01:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, the auditor's reports on the company's financial statements and on internal control over financial reporting should be dated the same date. Refer to paragraphs 171-172 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2, which provide direction with respect to the report date in an audit of internal control over financial reporting.
SAS No. 87, “Restricting the Use of an Auditor's Report,” (AU sec. 532, “Restricting the Use of an Auditor's Report”), is amended by replacing “Section 325, Communication of Internal Control Related Matters Noted in an Audit” in the first bullet of paragraph .07 with “Section 325, Communications About Control Deficiencies in An Audit of Financial Statements.”
SAS No. 1, “Codification of Auditing Standards and Procedures,” AU sec. 543, “Part of Audit Performed by Other Independent Auditors,” as amended by SAS No. 64, “Omnibus Statement on Auditing Standards—1990” (AU sec. 543, “Part of Audit Performed by Other Independent Auditors”), is amended by adding the following note after paragraph .01:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraphs 182-185 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2, which provide direction with respect to opinions based, in part, on the report of another auditor in an audit of internal control over financial reporting.
AU sec. 9550, “Other Information in Documents Containing Audited Financial Statements: Auditing Interpretations of Section 550,” is amended by replacing the term “reportable conditions” with the term “significant deficiencies” in footnote 8 to paragraph 15 and also replaces in that footnote the reference to Section 325.17 with the reference Section 325.8.
SAS No. 1, “Codification of Auditing Standards and Procedures,” AU sec. 560, “Subsequent Events,” as amended by SAS No. 12, “Inquiry of a Client's Lawyer Concerning Litigation, Claims, and Assessments,” and SAS No. 98, “Omnibus Statement on Auditing Standards—2002” (AU sec. 560, “Subsequent Events”), is amended by adding the following note after paragraph .01:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraphs 186-189 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2, which provide direction with respect to subsequent events in an audit of internal control over financial reporting.
SAS No. 1, “Codification of Auditing Standards and Procedures,” AU sec. 561, “Subsequent Discovery of Facts Existing at the Date of the Auditor's Report,” as amended by SAS No. 98, “Omnibus Statement on Auditing Standards—2002” (AU sec. 561, “Subsequent Discovery of Facts Existing at the Date of the Auditor's Report”), is amended by adding the following note after paragraph .01:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraph 197 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2, which provides direction with respect to the subsequent discovery of information existing at the date of the auditor's report on internal control over financial reporting.
SAS No. 72, “Letters for Underwriters and Certain Other Requesting Parties,” as amended by SAS No. 76, “Amendments to Statement on Auditing Standards No. 72, Letters for Underwriters and Certain Other Requesting Parties,” and SAS No. 86, “Amendment to Statement on Auditing Standards No. 72, Letters for Underwriters and Certain Other Requesting Parties” (AU sec. 634, “Letters for Underwriters and Certain Other Requesting Parties”) is amended by replacing the reference to “Section 325, Communication of Internal Control Related Matters Noted in an Audit” with “Section 325, Communications About Control Deficiencies in An Audit of Financial Statements.”
SAS No. 37, “Filings Under Federal Securities Statutes” (AU sec. 711, “Filings Under Federal Securities Statutes”), is amended by adding the following note after paragraph 2:
When performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraphs 198-199 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2, which provide direction when an auditor's report on internal control over financial reporting is included or incorporated by reference in filings under federal securities statutes.
SAS No. 100, “Interim Financial Information” (AU sec. 722, “Interim Financial Information”), is amended as follows:
a. The following note is added after paragraph 3:
When an auditor is engaged to perform an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, refer to paragraphs 202-206 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2, which provide direction regarding the auditor's evaluation responsibilities as they relate to management's quarterly certifications on internal control over financial reporting.
a. In paragraph 9, the term “reportable conditions” is replaced by the term “significant deficiencies.”
b. In paragraph 33, the term “reportable conditions” is replaced by the term “significant deficiencies.” Also, the third sentence is replaced by the following:
A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the company's ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report external financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the company's annual or interim financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected.
c. The reference in footnote 22 to paragraph 33 to “Section 325, Communication of Internal Control Related Matters in an Audit” is replaced with “Section 325, Communications About Control Deficiencies in An Audit of Financial Statements.”
Chapter 5, “Reporting on an Entity's Internal Control Over Financial Reporting,” of Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements No. 10, “Attestation Standards: Revision and Recodification” (AT sec. 501, “Reporting on an Entity's Internal Control Over Financial Reporting”), and its related interpretation (AT sec. 9501, “Reporting on an Entity's Internal Control Over Financial Reporting: Attest Engagements Interpretations of Section 501”), are superseded by the conforming amendments and, accordingly, are no longer interim standards of the Board.
Rule 101, “Independence” (ET sec. 101.05) is amended by adding the following note after the second paragraph of interpretation 101-3, “Performance of Other Services:”
Paragraph 33 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 contains an additional requirement related to audit committee pre-approval of internal control-related services.
In its filing with the Commission, the Board included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rules and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rules. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Board has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
When the Board adopted PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2,
The purpose of the conforming amendments is to specifically identify changes to the interim standards that result from the adoption of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2. The Board believes that identification of such changes is helpful in enabling auditors to comply with the Board's standards, as well as in eliminating potential confusion and inconsistencies in interpretation with respect to the affected portions of the interim standards. Accordingly, the scope of the conforming amendments is relatively narrow and comprises amendments to the interim standards resulting only from the adoption of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2.
The statutory basis for the proposed rules is Title I of the Act.
The Board does not believe that the proposed rules will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rules identify changes to the interim standards that result from the adoption of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2.
The Board released the proposed rules for public comment in PCAOB Release No. 2004-002 (March 9, 2004). A copy of PCAOB Release No. 2004-002 and the comment letters received in response to the PCAOB's request for comment are available on the PCAOB's Web site at
The Board's interim auditing standards include the Statements on Auditing Standards promulgated by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (“AICPA”) Auditing Standards Board (“ASB”), as in existence on April 16, 2003.
References have been added to assist auditors in performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting. Auditors are cautioned that the references might not be all inclusive. If there is any conflict between the interim auditing standards and PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2, auditors should follow the provisions of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2.
In the release relating to the proposed conforming amendments, commenters were asked whether the proposed references would be useful to auditors performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting. The release also asked whether any references considered beneficial were omitted from the proposed standard.
Most commenters found the proposed references to be helpful to auditors performing both integrated audits and audits of financial statements. Several commenters voiced concerns stemming from the lack of a codification of PCAOB auditing standards. The Board believes that auditors will find the listing of conforming amendments in this rulemaking to be a useful tool for reconciling changes to the interim standards. The Board decided that no change is necessary to the conforming amendments in response to these comments regarding a codification because these comments were outside the scope of this rulemaking.
In addition, several commenters suggested additional references to include in the final conforming amendments. The Board evaluated each of these suggestions individually and included them in the final conforming amendments where deemed appropriate.
While PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 is directed primarily to an auditor performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, some provisions in that standard are relevant to situations in which an auditor is engaged solely to audit a company's financial statements, such as in an audit of financial statements presented in connection with an initial public offering, in which the company is not subject to the requirements of Section 404 of the Act and the SEC's rules implementing that provision.
In the release relating to the proposed conforming amendments, commenters were asked (a) whether the proposed amendments clearly describe the new requirements that apply either when the auditor is engaged to audit only the financial statements or when the auditor is engaged to perform an integrated audit of the financial statements and internal control over financial reporting; and (b) whether there were any additional requirements not already identified that also should apply when the auditor is engaged to audit only the financial statements.
Most commenters found the proposed amendments both clear and helpful. A few commenters suggested editorial changes to the proposed amendments, while others suggested additional amendments. The Board reviewed all such comments and, where appropriate, incorporated them into the final conforming amendments.
One commenter believed that a number of new requirements that apply when the auditor is engaged to audit only the financial statements have been obscured behind the label of “conforming changes” and that, as a result, auditors will fail to notice such new requirements. This commenter suggested that the Board appropriately highlight each new requirement for such audits to ensure that auditors are aware of and fully understand the ramifications of each new requirement. The changes described in the conforming amendments were first presented for public comment in connection with the Board's proposal of Auditing Standard No. 2 in October 2003. Because a number of commenters, when commenting on that proposal, suggested that a more detailed explanation of these changes could be helpful to practitioners, the Board decided to more clearly identify the changes in separate conforming amendments. These two notice and comment periods have served to highlight these changes, and the Board believes that the conforming amendments adopted today, together with this release describing those amendments, provide auditors adequate explanation to understand the effects of these changes on the financial statement audit.
Significant areas of amendment to the auditing standards are discussed below, including comments received and the Board's response thereto. For ease of reference, the references herein are to the interim standards as codified in AICPA
This standard has been amended to include requirements related to the auditor's understanding with the client when performing an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting. For consistency, certain related amendments also have been made to the auditor's required understanding with the client when performing an audit of financial statements. One commenter suggested that the amendments to this standard indicating that reasonable assurance is “a high level of assurance” were inappropriate and should be subject to further deliberation and discussion. The Board's clarification that reasonable assurance is “a high level of assurance” was clearly included in PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2. As indicated in the Board's release proposing the conforming amendments, the scope of this rulemaking did not include reconsidering any principles or requirements of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2. Accordingly, the Board viewed this comment regarding reasonable assurance as beyond the scope of the proposed conforming amendments rulemaking. No changes have been made based upon this comment.
This interim standard has been amended by adding a requirement that states, “Regardless of the assessed level of control risk, the auditor should perform substantive procedures for all relevant assertions related to all significant accounts and disclosures in the financial statements.” As it relates to this requirement, Auditing Standard No. 2 states, “Regardless of the assessed level of control risk or the assessed risk of material misstatement in connection with the audit of the financial statements, the auditor should perform substantive procedures for all relevant assertions for all significant accounts and disclosures. Performing procedures
This standard has been superseded in the context of an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting by paragraphs 207 through 214 of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2. By this rulemaking, the Board is also amending this interim standard, as applied to an audit only of financial statements, by substituting the paragraphs included in the appendix accompanying this release (
While commenters unanimously agreed with this provision, several commenters asked for clarification of the auditor's responsibility. In response, the Board has amended subparagraph 5 of the conforming amendments to AU sec. 325 to read as follows, proposed new language is in
This change is intended to clarify that, while an auditor does not have an explicit requirement to perform a separate and distinct evaluation of the effectiveness of the audit committee in a financial statement audit, the auditor does have a communication responsibility when he or she becomes aware of a significant deficiency or material weakness caused by the audit committee's ineffectiveness.
This standard has been amended to add a requirement stating that, “the auditor's substantive procedures must include reconciling the financial statements to the accounting records. The auditor's substantive procedures should include examining material adjustments made during the course of preparing the financial statements.” PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 is clear on the applicability of these procedures in an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting. The Board believes that it is logical and appropriate that these procedures also be performed in an audit of the financial statements. No commenters objected to this amendment.
This standard is amended to add the following directions:
• For significant risks of material misstatement, it is unlikely that audit evidence obtained from substantive analytical procedures alone will be sufficient.
• When designing substantive analytical procedures, the auditor also should evaluate the risk of management override of controls. As part of this process, the auditor should evaluate whether such an override might have allowed adjustments outside of the normal period-end financial reporting process to have been made to the financial statements. Such adjustments might have resulted in artificial changes to the financial statement relationships being analyzed, causing the auditor to draw erroneous conclusions. For this reason, substantive analytical procedures alone are not well suited to detecting fraud.
• Before using the results obtained from substantive analytical procedures, the auditor should either test the design and operating effectiveness of controls over financial information used in the substantive analytical procedures or perform other procedures to support the completeness and accuracy of the underlying information.
PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 is clear on the applicability of these procedures in an integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting. The Board also believes that it is logical and appropriate to perform these procedures in an audit of the financial statements. The Board did not receive any comments on these amendments other than comments that re-challenged their inclusion in PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2. As indicated in the Board's proposing release, these types of comments were considered to be beyond the scope of the proposed conforming amendments; therefore, no changes have been made based upon these comments.
The proposed conforming amendments would have added a subparagraph to Appendix A of this standard (“SAS No. 96”). Subsequent to the conforming amendments being issued for public comment, the Board adopted, and the Securities and Exchange Commission approved, PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 3,
Footnote one to this standard includes a list of other standards that also require audit committee communications. Because PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 also includes required audit committee communications, this standard is amended by including a reference to PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 in footnote one. The Board added this conforming amendment based on a suggestion from a commenter.
The Board's interim attestation standards include the Statements on Standards for Attestation Engagements promulgated by the ASB, as in existence on April 16, 2003.
The release to the proposed conforming amendments asked commenters whether AT sec. 501 should be amended rather than superseded in its entirety. Furthermore, it asked commenters to provide information on (a) whether there are any circumstances in which an issuer would want or need to file an AT sec. 501 report with the SEC and (b) whether there is a need for an auditor's report on internal control in addition to the auditor's report on the integrated audit of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting for purposes of complying with Section 404 of the Act. Commenters who believed such a need exists were requested to indicate in their responses the type of information that should be included in the report, the circumstances in which such a report might be issued, and the intended users of such a report.
Most commenters agreed with the deletion of AT sec. 501 from the Board's interim standards. Those commenters believed that AT sec. 501 is inferior to PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2. In addition, those commenters were unaware of any circumstances in which an issuer would be required to file an AT sec. 501 report with the SEC, or of any instances in which issuers might need an auditor's report on internal control other than the one embodied in PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2.
Other commenters, however, expressed concerns about superseding AT sec. 501 in its entirety for a number of reasons. A couple of commenters pointed out that the auditors of some asset-backed securities (“ABS”) issuers issue AT sec. 501 reports in order for those ABS issuers to comply with the SEC's annual filing requirements. ABS issuers are not required to comply with Section 404 of the Act, however. No ABS issuer is required to file an auditor's report performed pursuant to AT sec. 501; rather, ABS issuers may comply with the SEC's annual filing requirements by filing an auditor's report performed pursuant to AT sec. 601,
Other commenters expressed less specific concerns over superseding AT sec. 501 in its entirety. These commenters expressed a belief that, at some point, both issuers and nonissuers might need (or want) other reports on internal control presently not provided for under PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2. For example, these commenters suggested that issuers might need an interim report on internal control, especially when a material weakness that existed at year end is subsequently corrected. Another commenter suggested that an issuer might want an audit report on some other aspect of internal control. None of these commenters, however, provided the detailed discussion requested in the release about the type of information that should be included in such a report, the circumstances in which it might be issued, and the intended users of such a report.
The Board continues to believe that AT sec. 501 lacks the necessary specificity provided in PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2. At a minimum, if AT sec. 501 were to be retained in the Board's standards, the reporting directions in AT sec. 501 would require immediate revision to clearly distinguish for report users the difference between a report issued under AT sec. 501 and PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2. Further, it would be necessary to make extensive revisions to AT sec. 501 to conform it to the principles and requirements embodied in PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2. Because commenters were unable to describe a specific need that is currently unmet by reports issued under PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 or other professional standards, there appears to be no compelling reason at this time for the Board either to amend AT sec. 501 or to propose a new standard to replace AT sec. 501. Accordingly, the conforming amendments supersede AT sec. 501 altogether and remove it from the Board's standards effective immediately upon approval by the SEC.
Because AT sec. 501 is no longer a part of the Board's interim standards, it is not appropriate for auditors of issuers following the PCAOB's standards to use AT sec. 501 when reporting on the internal control over financial reporting of an issuer.
The Board's interim independence standards include the AICPA
Please note that a table, “Cross-References to Conforming Amendments to PCAOB Interim Standards,” which identifies all of the amendments that the conforming amendments describe, can be found in PCAOB Release 2004-008, dated September 15, 2004, which is available on the PCAOB's Web site at
In auditing standards issued by the Board, a discussion of the comments received and other factors deemed significant by the Board in reaching the conclusions embodied in the final standard is contained in an appendix to the standard titled “Background and Basis for Conclusions.” Because this rulemaking is not an auditing standard, it does not include such an appendix. The Board, however, believes this type of discussion is helpful to this rulemaking. Accordingly, in addition to describing the nature and extent of amendments made to the interim standards, the foregoing also contains, when appropriate, a discussion of the significant factors considered by the Board in developing the final conclusions reflected in the conforming amendments.
As to the effective date of the amendments, PCAOB Rule 3200T requires auditors to comply with the Board's interim auditing standards “to the extent not superseded or amended by the Board.” Similarly, the Board's interim attestation and independence standards rules require registered firms and their associated persons to comply with certain existing attestation and independence standards “to the extent not superseded or amended by the Board.”
PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2,
As discussed above, the proposed rules describe and expressly state the changes to the interim standards caused by the adoption of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2. Accordingly, pending SEC approval and subject to the two exceptions noted below, the Board intends for the conforming amendments to become effective for integrated audits of financial statements and internal control over financial reporting at the same time PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 becomes effective. Companies considered accelerated filers under Securities Exchange Act Rule 12b-2
There are two exceptions to this general statement. First, certain parts of the conforming amendments apply to an audit of financial statements of an issuer regardless of whether the issuer is required to comply with the internal control requirements of Section 404 of the Act. In order to provide for an orderly transition for issuers not required to comply with Section 404 of the Act, the Board has determined that these parts of the conforming amendments should be effective for audits of financial statements for periods ending on or after July 15, 2005, pending approval of the conforming amendments by the SEC. This means that auditors of non-accelerated filers are not required to comply with the conforming amendments in conducting audits of financial statements until performing audits of financial statements for fiscal years ending on or after July 15, 2005. The effect of these parts of the conforming amendments is discussed further below.
Second, the Board intends for the part of the conforming amendments that supersedes AT sec. 501, “Reporting on an Entity's Internal Control Over Financial Reporting,” to be effective immediately upon approval of the conforming amendments by the SEC. As discussed in greater detail above, in light of the adoption of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2, the Board does not see a compelling reason for the Board to retain AT sec. 501 in its interim standards.
The conforming amendments are effective, pending SEC approval, for audits of financial statements only for periods ending on or after July 15, 2005. For the most part, however, the Board believes the amendments represent clarifications of concepts already included in the Board's interim standards, rather than wholly new concepts or requirements. Accordingly, the Board encourages auditors to carefully consider their obligations under the Board's interim standards and not to draw a negative inference from the inclusion of a specific provision in the conforming amendments that equivalent procedures are not currently required to comply with the Board's interim standards.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(a) By order approve such proposed rule; or
(b) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule is consistent with Title I of the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File No. PCAOB-2004-07; this file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Amex Rule 903G(a)(4)(i) to extend the maximum permissible term of FLEX index options to ten years under certain circumstances. The text of the proposed rule change appears below. Proposed new language is
(a) General Terms
(1)-(3) No Change.
(4) Every FLEX Request for Quotes and every responsive FLEX Quote, as applicable, must satisfy the following contract and transaction specifications:
(i) The maximum term of any FLEX Equity Option shall be three years, provided, however, that a submitting Member may request a longer term to a maximum of five (5) years, and upon assessment by the Flex Post Supervisor that sufficient liquidity exists among Specialists and Registered Options Traders such request may be granted. The maximum term of any FLEX Index Option shall be five (5) years,
(ii)-(iv) No Change.
(b)-(c) No Change.
In its filing with the Commission, the Amex included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Currently, under Amex Rule 903G, “Terms of FLEX Options,” FLEX index options are limited to a maturity of five years. The purpose of the proposal is to allow FLEX index options traded on the Amex to have a maturity beyond five years and up to ten years in certain circumstances.
FLEX index options provide investors with the ability to customize basic option features including size, expiration date, exercise style, and certain exercise prices. Currently, FLEX index options are limited to a maximum term of five years. The Exchange recently has received requests from broker-dealers to extend the maturity of FLEX index options to ten years. Among the reasons for this request from the broker-dealers is that some of their institutional customers trade or issue securities with five-to ten-year terms and are seeking a method to hedge that long-term risk. Furthermore, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (“CBOE”) amended CBOE Rule 24A.4(a)(4)(i) to increase the maximum term of FLEX index options from five to ten years.
The proposed amendment to Amex Rule 903G would permit FLEX index options with terms up to a maximum of ten years when requested by a Submitting Member if the FLEX Post Supervisor determines that sufficient liquidity exists among FLEX index participating members. In other words, the FLEX Post Supervisor will ask FLEX index market-makers and other FLEX index traders (including the Submitting Member) whether any of them are interested in making a two-sided market in the proposed series for the size requested. If the answer is yes, the FLEX Post Supervisor will open a Request for Quotes for the proposed series and it will trade pursuant to the provisions of Amex Rule 904G, “FLEX Trading Procedures and Principles.” The liquidity requirement will help to ensure that there is not a proliferation of longer-term FLEX index options series where no interest in trading such options exists.
The Exchange margin requirements for the proposed longer term FLEX index options will be the same margin requirements that currently apply to
According to the Amex, the proposal will allow institutions to use longer-term FLEX index options to protect portfolios from long-term market moves with a known and limited cost. The Amex believes that the proposal will better serve the long-term hedging needs of institutional investors and provide those investors with an alternative to hedging their portfolios with off-exchange customized options and warrants.
By allowing for the extension of the maturity of FLEX index options to ten years in situations where there is demand for a longer-term expiration and where there is sufficient liquidity among FLEX index participating members to support the request, the Amex believes that the proposal will better serve the needs of the Amex's customers and members who make a market for such customers.
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition 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.
Because the foregoing rule change: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2004-73. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
In accordance with a notice received from the Department of Homeland Security—Federal Emergency Management Agency—effective September 30, 2004, the above numbered declaration is hereby amended to include Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, Columbia, DeSoto, Dixie, Duval, Flagler, Gilchrist, Glades, Hamilton, Hendry, Jefferson, Lafayette, Levy, Madison, Manatee, Nassau, Putnam, Sarasota, St. Johns, Suwannee, Taylor, and Union as disaster areas due to damages caused by Hurricane Jeanne occurring on September 24, 2004 and continuing.
In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses
All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for filing applications for physical damage is November 26, 2004 and for economic injury the deadline is June 27, 2005.
As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on October 1, 2004, I find that Hunterdon, Mercer, Sussex, and Warren Counties in the State of New Jersey constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by Tropical Depression Ivan occurring on September 18, 2004, and continuing. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on November 30, 2004 and for economic injury until the close of business on July 1, 2005 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 1 Office, 360 Rainbow Blvd., South 3rd Fl., Niagara Falls, NY 14303-1192.
In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed until the specified date at the above location: Burlington, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, and Somerset in the State of New Jersey; Orange County in the State of New York; and Bucks, Monroe, Northampton, and Pike Counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Mercer, Sussex, and Warren Counties in the State of New Jersey are also eligible under Public Assistance and our disaster loan program is available for private non-profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature in those counties.
The interest rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 363608. For economic injury the number is 9AD600 for New Jersey; 9AD700 for New York; and 9AD800 for Pennsylvania. The Public Assistance number assigned to New Jersey is P06108.
As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on October 1, 2004, I find that Broome, Chenango, Delaware, Orange, Sullivan, and Ulster Counties in the State of New York constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by Tropical Depression Ivan occurring on September 16-24, 2004. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on November 30, 2004 and for economic injury until the close of business on July 1, 2005 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 1 Office, 360 Rainbow Blvd., South 3rd Fl., Niagara Falls, NY 14303-1192.
In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed until the specified date at the above location: Columbia, Cortland, Dutchess, Greene, Madison, Otsego, Putnam, Rockland, Schoharie, Tioga and Westchester in the State of New York; Passaic and Sussex Counties in the State of New Jersey; and Pike, Susquehanna, and Wayne Counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The interest rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 363708. For economic injury the number is 9AD900 for New York; 9AE100 for New Jersey; and 9AE200 for Pennsylvania.
In accordance with notices received from the Department of Homeland Security “ Federal Emergency Management Agency “ effective September 27 and 29, 2004, the above numbered declaration is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning August 27, 2004, and continuing through September 27, 2004. The declaration is also amended to include Athens, Gallia, Mahoning, Meigs, and Vinton Counties as disaster areas due to severe storms and flooding.
In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the contiguous counties of Jackson, Lawrence, and Ross in the State of Ohio; and Cabell, Jackson, and Mason Counties in the State of West Virginia may be filed until the specified date at the previously designated location. All other counties contiguous to the above
All other information remains the same,
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration by the Final Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, dated September 13, 2004, in Civil Action No. 91-510 (DRD), the United States Small Business Administration hereby revokes the license of Taroco Capital Corporation, a New York corporation, to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 02/02-5318 issued to Taroco Capital Corporation on September 10, 1976 and said license is hereby declared null and void as of September 30, 2004.
As a result of Public Law 106-50, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999, this notice establishes the application filing period for the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan program. Effective October 1, 2004, small businesses employing military reservists may apply for economic injury disaster loans if those employees are called up to active duty during a period of military conflict existing on or after March 24, 1999 and those employees are essential to the success of the small business daily operations. The filing period for small businesses to apply for economic injury loan assistance under the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program begins on the date the essential employee is ordered to active duty and ends on the date 90 days after the essential employee is discharged or released from active duty.
The purpose of the Military Reservist economic injury disaster loan program (MREIDL) is to provide funds to eligible small businesses to meet its ordinary and necessary operating expenses that it could have met, but is unable to meet, because an essential employee was called-up to active duty in their role as a military reservist. These loans are intended only to provide the amount of working capital needed by a small business to pay its necessary obligations as they mature until operations return to normal after the essential employee is released from active military duty.
Applications for loans for military reservist economic injury loans may be obtained and filed at the address listed below: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 4 Office, P.O. Box 419004, Sacramento, CA 95841-9004, 1-800-488-5323.
The interest rate for eligible small businesses is 4.000 percent. The number assigned for economic injury is R40500.
As a result of Public Law 106-50, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999, this notice establishes the application filing period for the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan program. Effective October 1, 2004, small businesses employing military reservists may apply for economic injury disaster loans if those employees are called up to active duty during a period of military conflict existing on or after March 24, 1999 and those employees are essential to the success of the small business daily operations. The filing period for small businesses to apply for economic injury loan assistance under the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program begins on the date the essential employee is ordered to active duty and ends on the date 90 days after the essential employee is discharged or released from active duty.
The purpose of the Military Reservist economic injury disaster loan program (MREIDL) is to provide funds to eligible small businesses to meet its ordinary and necessary operating expenses that it could have met, but is unable to meet, because an essential employee was called-up to active duty in their role as a military reservist. These loans are intended only to provide the amount of working capital needed by a small business to pay its necessary obligations as they mature until operations return to normal after the essential employee is released from active military duty.
Applications for loans for military reservist economic injury loans may be obtained and filed at the address listed below: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 3 Office, 14925 Kingsport Rd., Ft. Worth, TX 75155-2243, 1-800-366-6303.
The interest rate for eligible small businesses is 4.000 percent. The number assigned for economic injury is R30500.
As a result of Public Law 106-50, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999, this notice establishes the application filing period for the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan program. Effective October 1, 2004, small businesses employing military reservists may apply for economic injury disaster loans if those employees are called up to active duty during a period of military conflict existing on or after March 24, 1999 and those employees are essential to the success of the small business daily operations. The filing period for small businesses to apply for economic injury loan assistance under the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program begins on the date the essential employee is ordered to active duty and ends on the date 90 days after the essential employee is discharged or released from active duty.
The purpose of the Military Reservist economic injury disaster loan program (MREIDL) is to provide funds to eligible small businesses to meet its ordinary
Applications for loans for military reservist economic injury loans may be obtained and filed at the address listed below: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308, 1-800-359-2227.
The interest rate for eligible small businesses is 4.000 percent. The number assigned for economic injury is R20500.
As a result of Public Law 106-50, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999, this notice establishes the application filing period for the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan program. Effective October 1, 2004, small businesses employing military reservists may apply for economic injury disaster loans if those employees are called up to active duty during a period of military conflict existing on or after March 24, 1999 and those employees are essential to the success of the small business daily operations. The filing period for small businesses to apply for economic injury loan assistance under the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program begins on the date the essential employee is ordered to active duty and ends on the date 90 days after the essential employee is discharged or released from active duty.
The purpose of the Military Reservist economic injury disaster loan program (MREIDL) is to provide funds to eligible small businesses to meet its ordinary and necessary operating expenses that it could have met, but is unable to meet, because an essential employee was called-up to active duty in their role as a military reservist. These loans are intended only to provide the amount of working capital needed by a small business to pay its necessary obligations as they mature until operations return to normal after the essential employee is released from active military duty.
Applications for loans for military reservist economic injury loans may be obtained and filed at the address listed below: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 1 Office, 360 Rainbow Blvd., South 3rd Fl., Niagara Falls, NY 14303, 1-800-659-2955.
The interest rate for eligible small businesses is 4.000 percent. The number assigned for economic injury is R10500.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for written submissions from the public.
Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 2242), requires the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to identify countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. Section 182 is commonly referred to as the “Special 301” provision of the Trade Act. In addition, USTR is required to determine which of those countries should be identified as Priority Foreign Countries. On May 3, 2004, USTR announced the results of the 2004 Special 301 review and stated that an Out-of-Cycle Review (OCR) would be conducted in the fall for Malaysia, Poland, and Taiwan. USTR requests written comments from the public concerning the acts, policies, and practices relevant for this review under section 182 of the Trade Act.
Submissions must be received on or before 12 noon on Friday, November 5, 2004.
Comments should be addressed to Sybia Harrison, Special Assistant to the Section 301 Committee, and sent (i) electronically, to
Brian Peck, Senior Director for Intellectual Property, (202) 395-6864; or
Pursuant to section 182 of the Trade Act, USTR must identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. Those countries that have the most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices and whose acts, policies, or practices have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on relevant U.S. products may be identified as Priority Foreign Countries. Acts, policies, or practices that are the basis of a country's designation as a Priority Foreign Country are normally the subject of an investigation under the Section 301 provisions of the Trade Act.
On May 3, 2004, USTR announced the results of the 2004 Special 301 review, including an announcement that an Out-of-Cycle Review (OCR) would be conducted in the fall for Malaysia, Poland and Taiwan. Additional countries may also be reviewed as a result of the comments received pursuant to this notice, or as warranted by events.
Comments must be in English. No submissions will be accepted via postal service mail. Documents should be submitted as either WordPerfect, MS Word, or text (.TXT) files. Supporting documentation submitted as spreadsheets are acceptable as Quattro Pro or Excel files. A submitter requesting that information contained in a comment be treated as confidential business information must certify that such information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitter. A non-confidential version of the comment must also be provided. For any document containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC-”, and the file name of the public version should begin with the character “P-”. The “P-” or “BC-” should be followed by the name of the submitter. Submissions should not include separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. To the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files.
All comments should be addressed to Sybia Harrison, Special Assistant to the Section 301 Committee, and sent (i) electronically, to
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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
comments must be received on or before December 13, 2004.
Comments may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Judy Street, Room 613, Federal Aviation Administration, Standards and Information Division, APF-100, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Ms. Judy Street at the above address or on (202) 267-9895.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 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. Therefore, the FAA solicits comments on the following current collections of information in order to evaluate the necessity of the collection, the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden, the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and possible ways to minimize the burden of the collection in preparation for submission to renew the clearances of the following information collections.
1. 2120-0005, General Operating and Flight Rules—FAR 91. Part A of Subtitle VII of the Revised Title 49 U.S.C. authorizes the issuance of regulations governing the use of navigable airspace. 14 CFR part 91 prescribes regulations governing the general operation and flight of aircraft. Information is collected to determine compliance. Respondents are individual airmen, State or local
2. 2120-0517, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning—14 CFR part 150. The respondents are those airport operators voluntarily submitting noise exposure maps and noise compatibility programs to the FAA for review and approval. FAA approval makes airport operators' noise compatibility programs eligible for discretionary grant funds set aside under the FAA Airport Improvement Program for that purpose. The current estimated annual reporting burden is 50,400 hours.
3. 2120-0675, 14 CFR part 139 Certification of Airports. This rule revises the current airport certification regulations and establishes certification requirements for airports serving scheduled air carrier operations in aircraft with 10-30 seats. The changes to 14 CFR part 139 result in additional information collections from respondents. The current estimated annual reporting burden is 52,993 hours.
Department of Transportation, FAA.
Notice of submission deadline.
This notice announces that the deadline for submitting requests for international slots at John F. Kennedy International Airport for allocation under 14 CFR 93.217 is October 25, 2004. Additionally, this notice announces that the FAA is changing the designation of Chicago O'Hare International Airport to a Schedules Facilitated Airport for all international arrivals for the Summer 2005 scheduling season.
Requests for international slots must be submitted no later than October 25, 2004.
Requests may be submitted by mail to Slot Administration Office, AGC-220 Office of the Chief Counsel, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; facsimile: 202-267-7277; ARINC: DCAYAXD; e-mail address:
Lorelei Peter, Air Traffic and Operations Law Branch, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone number: 202-267-3073.
On October 1, 1999, the FAA amended the regulations governing takeoff and landing slots and slot allocation procedures at certain high Density Traffic Airports to provide the deadline for submission of requests for international slots will be published in a
In August 2004, the FAA took steps to address the congestion and delays at O'Hare as a result of persistent overscheduling of flights at O'Hare during peak hours. The FAA established a temporary limit on the number of scheduled arrivals at O'Hare by domestic operators during the peak hours of 7 a.m. through 8:59 p.m. beginning November 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005. While the FAA order limiting these operations did not include a limit on international flights by foreign flag operators, the FAA believes that it is beneficial to work with requesting carriers to accommodate their operations but to avoid capacity problems to the greatest extent practicable. To facilitate this process, the FAA is designating O'Hare as a Schedules Facilitated Airport, Level 2 (SFA) for Air Traffic Control/runway movements, as specified under the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Worldwide Scheduling Guidelines. (We note that IATA already lists O'hare as an SFA/Level 2 airport for international passenger flights at Terminal 5.) As an SFA, carriers operating to or intending to operate to this airport should submit their proposed schedules to the FAA in advance, so that voluntary solutions to capacity issues can be addressed. The FAA could request carriers to consider scheduling operations at less congested periods, as necessary. Carriers should provide their schedules to the Slot Administration Office using one of the various addresses provided in the
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 Roanoke Regional Airport (ROA) under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158). The FAA is changing the
Comments must be received on or before November 12, 2004.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Washington Airports District Office, 23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 210, Dulles, Virginia 20166.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Ms. Jacqueline L. Shuck, Executive Director, Roanoke Regional Airport of the Roanoke Airport Commission at the following address: Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, 5202 Aviation Drive, Roanoke, Virginia 24012-1148.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the public agency full name under § 158.23 of part 158.
Mr. Terry J. Page, Manager, Washington Airports District Office, 23723 Air Freight Lane, Suite 210, Dulles, Virginia 20166; Telephone: 703-661-1354.
The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Roanoke 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 August 31, 2004, the FAA determined that the application to impose, use the revenue from, impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by Roanoke Regional Airport Commission was substantially complete within the requirements of § 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than November 29, 2004.
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 Roanoke Regional Airport Commission.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming passenger cars are eligible for importation.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 1993 Mercedes Benz 190E passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards are eligible for importation into the United States because (1) they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, and (2) they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
The closing date for comments on the petition is November 12, 2004.
Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]. 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
Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
J.K. Technologies, LLC (“JK”), of Baltimore, Maryland (Registered Importer RI-90-006) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 1993 Mercedes Benz 190E passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which JK believes are substantially similar are 1993 Mercedes Benz 190E passenger cars that were manufactured for importation into, and sale in, the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified 1993 Mercedes Benz 190E passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
JK submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 1993 Mercedes Benz 190E passenger cars, as originally manufactured, conform to many Federal motor vehicle safety standards in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 1993 Mercedes Benz 190E passenger cars are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102
In addition, the petitioner claims that the vehicles comply with the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR part 581.
The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101
Standard No. 108
Standard No. 110
Standard No. 111
Standard No. 114
Standard No. 115
Standard No. 208
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 2004 Rolls Royce Phantom passenger cars are eligible for importation.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 2004 Rolls Royce Phantom passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards are eligible for importation into the United States because (1) they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, and (2) they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
The closing date for comments on the petition is November 12, 2004.
Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]. 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
Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
Automobile Concepts, Inc. (“AMC”), of North Miami, Florida (Registered Importer 01-278) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 2004 Rolls Royce Phantom passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which AMC believes are substantially similar are 2004 Rolls Royce Phantom passenger cars that were manufactured for importation into, and sale in, the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified 2004 Rolls Royce Phantom passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
AMC submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2004 Rolls Royce Phantom passenger cars, as originally manufactured, conform to many Federal motor vehicle safety standards in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2004 Rolls Royce Phantom passenger cars are identical to
In addition, the petitioner claims that the vehicles comply with the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR part 581.
The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101
Standard No. 108
Standard No. 110
Standard No. 111
Standard No. 114
Standard No. 118
Standard No. 208
Petitioner states that the restraint systems used at the front outboard seating positions include airbags and knee bolsters as well as combination lap and shoulder belts at the front and rear designated seating positions. These seat belt systems are self-tensioning and release by means of a single red pushbutton.
Standard No. 209
Standard No. 210
Standard No. 301
The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 2004 Lamborghini Gallardo passenger cars are eligible for importation.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 2004 Lamborghini Gallardo passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards are eligible for importation into the United States because (1) they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, and (2) they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
The closing date for comments on the petition is November 12, 2004.
Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 5 pm]. 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,
Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
Automobile Concepts, Inc., (“AMC”), of North Miami, Florida (Registered Importer 01-278) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 2004 Lamborghini Gallardo passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which AMC believes are substantially similar are 2004 Lamborghini Gallardo passenger cars that were manufactured for importation into, and sale in, the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified 2004 Lamborghini Gallardo passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
AMC submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2004 Lamborghini Gallardo passenger cars, as originally manufactured, conform to many Federal motor vehicle safety standards in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2004 Lamborghini Gallardo passenger cars are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102
In addition, the petitioner claims that the vehicles comply with the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR part 581.
The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101
Standard No. 108
Standard No. 110
Standard No. 111
Standard No. 114
Standard No. 118
Standard No. 208
Petitioner states that the restraint systems used at the front outboard seating positions include airbags and knee bolsters as well as combination lap and shoulder belts. These seat belt systems are self-tensioning and release by means of a single red pushbutton.
Standard No. 209
Standard No. 210
Standard No. 225
The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Copies of the submission(s)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
The Information Reporting Program Advisory Committee (IRPAC) will hold a public meeting on Thursday, October 28, 2004.
Ms. Jacqueline Tilghman, National Public Liaison, CL:NPL:PAC, Room 7567 IR, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. Telephone: 202-622-6440 (not a toll-free number). E-mail address:
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), a public meeting of the IRPAC will be held on Thursday, October 28, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in Room 3313, main Internal Revenue Service building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. Issues to be discussed include: Federal State Cooperation; Mandatory Direct Rollovers-Section 401(a)(31)(B); Permanent Tax Reporting for Coverdell Education Savings Accounts; Tax Reporting of Retirement Accounts that are Closed due to the Customer Identification Program (CIP); Redesign and Simplification of Form 1065, K-1s, LLC and 2-D Bar Coding; Penalty Notices; Stock Option Deposits; Transcripts and Offsets. Reports from the four IRPAC sub-groups, Tax Exempt & Government Entities, Large and Mid-size Business, Small Business/Self-Employed, and Wage & Investment, will also be presented and discussed. Last minute agenda changes may preclude advance notice. The meeting room accommodates approximately 50 people, IRPAC members and Internal Revenue Service officials inclusive. Due to limited seating and security requirements, please call Jacqueline Tilghman to confirm your attendance. Ms. Tilghman can be reached at 202-622-6440. Attendees are encouraged to arrive at least 30 minutes before the meeting begins to allow sufficient time for purposes of security clearance. Please use the main entrance at 1111 Constitution Avenue to enter the building. Should you wish the IRPAC to consider a written statement, please call 202-622-6440, or write to: Internal Revenue Service, Office of National Public Liaison, CL:NPL:PAC, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 7567 IR, Washington, DC 20224 or e-mail:
In proposed rule document 04-22334 beginning on page 59562 in the issue of Tuesday, October 5, 2004, make the following correction:
On page 59562, in the third column, under the heading “
Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This Notice informs the public that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has changed the name of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
This Notice is effective October 13, 2004.
Richard A. Sloan, Director, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20529, Telephone (202) 616-7600.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established on Janurary 24, 2003, pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296 (HSA). DHS is the result of the reorganization of 22 Federal agencies, including the former Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) from the Department of Justice (DOJ). Pursuant to section 451 of the HSA, the functions of the former INS were transferred from DOJ to DHS effective March 1, 2003, establishing among other DHS immigration components the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS).
DHS has decided to change the name of this component from BCIS to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Pursuant to section 872 (a)(2) of the HSA (6 U.S.C. 452(a)(2)), DHS is required to provide notice of the name change to appropriate congresional committees 60 days before the change will be effective. The Appropriate committees were notified of the name change on or before June 23, 2004. Therefore, pursuant to section 872 of the HSA, the change from BCIS to USCIS became official effective August 23, 2004.
This Notice informs the public that all official documents and future regulatory actions involving BCIS now will identify USCIS as the applicable DHS component, and all references to BCIS in existing documents and actions henceforth shall be construed as references to USCIS.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
Final rule.
This final rule adopts without substantive change a proposed rule that was published in the
This final rule is effective November 12, 2004.
Craig Howie, Staff Officer, Business and Trade Services Branch, Program and Regulations Development, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 425 I Street, NW., ULLICO Building, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20536, telephone (202) 514-3228.
On December 17, 1992, the United States, Canada and Mexico signed NAFTA. NAFTA entered into force on January 1, 1994, creating one of the largest trading areas in the world. Besides trade, NAFTA allows for the temporary entry of qualified business persons from each of the parties to the agreement. NAFTA is comprised of 22 chapters. Chapter 16 of NAFTA is entitled “Temporary Entry of Business Persons,” and in addition to reflecting the preferential trading relationship between the parties to the agreement, it reflects the member nations' desire to facilitate temporary entry on a reciprocal basis. It also establishes procedures for temporary entry, addresses the need to ensure border security and seeks to protect the domestic labor force in the member nations.
A TN nonimmigrant alien is a citizen of Canada or Mexico who seeks admission to the United States, under the provisions of Section D of Annex 1603 of NAFTA, to engage in business activities at a professional level as provided for in the Annex. NAFTA parties have agreed that 63 occupations qualify as professions. These occupations are listed in the Appendix 1603.D.1 to Annex 1603 to the NAFTA found in 8 CFR 214.6(c). Canadian and Mexican citizens seeking to engage in occupations not included in Appendix 1603.D.1 to Annex 1603 are not eligible for classification as TN nonimmigrants.
In the proposed rule published on December 19, 2000 at 65 FR 79320, the former Service proposed to add the occupation of actuary to the list of professions in Appendix 1603.D.1. In addition, the rule proposed to include plant pathologist to the Appendix 1603.D.1 as a footnote to the occupation of biologist. The former Service also proposed to change the licensure requirements for Canadian TN aliens applying for admission to the United States described at 8 CFR 214.6(e)(3)(ii)(F). The rule further proposed to remove 8 CFR 214.6(l), which relates to the transition period for Canadian citizens who were admitted to the United States under the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement that existed before the effective date of NAFTA. The former Service also proposed to change all references to the Northern Service Center to the Nebraska Service Center to reflect the center's current name. Finally, the former Service proposed to remove the term “diplomas, or certificates” from 8 CFR 214.6(d)(2)(ii) and at 8 CFR 214.6(e)(3)(ii) since these regulatory cites are inconsistent with the footnotes to the Appendix.
Yes, the former Service received 12 comments on the proposed rule. Seven of the comments dealt with the proposal that would add actuaries and plant pathologists to NAFTA and five comments related to the proposal to modify the licensure requirements for Canadian TN nonimmigrants. One of the comments addressing the proposed licensure requirements for Canadian TN nonimmigrants was actually a number of questions relating to the process that the former Service (now Department) uses to determine whether an alien has an appropriate license to practice in his or her occupation or profession. Since the questions posed in this comment letter do not directly relate to the proposed rule, this comment will not be discussed.
None of the comments addressed the technical changes that the former Service noted in the proposed rule. These technical changes include the removal from the regulations of the discussion of the transition period for Canadian citizens who were admitted to the United States under the former United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement, changing references to the “Northern Service Center” to “Nebraska Service Center,” and removal of the term “diplomas, or certificates” from 8 CFR 214.6(d)(2)(ii) and 8 CFR 214.6(e)(3)(ii) since these regulatory cites are inconsistent with the footnotes to the appendix. The Department published an interim final rule on March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11287) which implemented changes to the TN application process resulting from the sunset of some NAFTA requirements imposed on Mexican TN's. The changes in that interim final rule resolved the technical issues referenced above, and this rule finalizes the technical changes noted in the proposed rule.
The former Service received four comments on this proposal. The American Nursing Association (ANA) stated that it was not supportive of the provision modifying the licensure requirement because it would allow unqualified Canadian nurses into the United States. The ANA argued that the removal of the requirement that a Canadian nurse have a United States license would undermine a provision that was designed to protect the United States public from unqualified health care workers.
Another commenter, a board member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, argued that the proposal would create a distinction between the processing of Mexican and Canadian TN
The National Council of State Boards of Nursing (Council) also commented on the final rule and stated that it was opposed to the provision removing the licensure requirement for Canadian nonimmigrants. The Council asserted that the provision would allow Canadian citizens easy access to the United States labor market to work in their chosen profession as TN nonimmigrant aliens. However, the Council also suggested that employers in the United States would not employ these aliens in their profession but in similar or related occupations at a substandard salary. Finally, the Council argued that, in the case of nursing, the proposal would result in many American citizens being treated by unlicensed health care professionals.
The Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools (CGFNS) also commented. CGFNS is an international authority on the education, registration, and licensure of nurses and foreign health care workers worldwide. CGFNS asserted that the implementation of the licensure proposal would result in the admission of Canadian healthcare workers to the United States without the appropriate license. CGFNS argued that these Canadian workers will not wait until they are licensed to seek employment and will begin to work in the United States healthcare system in any capacity they can find. Under the former Service's proposal, licensure verification would become the responsibility of the employer, not the government. CGFNS also stated in its comment that the requirement that a Canadian TN present his or her license at the time of admission is consistent with the NAFTA. Finally, CGFNS represented that there is substantial evidence that some Canadian TN's will have difficulty obtaining a United States nursing license and, as a result, the proposal will create a pool of unqualified health care workers who will be providing healthcare services to American consumers.
To ensure that the former Service's regulations implementing Chapter 16 are in conformity with the obligations of the United States under the Agreement, the former Service proposed to remove 8 CFR 214.6(e)(3)(ii)(F). This provision requires the presentation of a license by a Canadian citizen as an entry requirement under the NAFTA.
The Department has reviewed the opinions expressed in the comments to the proposed rule. After careful consideration, the Department will adopt the proposal that removes the requirement that a Canadian TN must present a license at the time of application for admission to the United States.
As one of the regulatory agencies responsible for the administration of the immigration laws of the United States, the Department has a responsibility to ensure that its regulations are in agreement with existing laws, treaties, and agreements. In this instance, the requirement that a Canadian TN nonimmigrant alien present a United States license at the time of application for admission to the United is inconsistent with the NAFTA.
The Department disagrees with the CGFNS argument that requiring a state-issued license as a condition of admission is not in conflict with Chapter 16 of the NAFTA. As stated in the proposed rule, this regulatory change ensures that the Department's obligations under Chapter 16 are in conformity with the obligations of the United States under the NAFTA agreement.
The basic issue under consideration is whether a license is (1) an employment requirement, or (2) an entry plus employment requirement, for the Canadian professional desiring to work in the United States in TN status. Under the NAFTA, the requirements for entry as a professional are clearly spelled out and are noted in the list of educational credentials or alternative criteria found in Chapter 16. In select instances, a license is noted as an alternative document for entry, but not as a required primary document for entry. In no case is a license required by the prospective Canadian TN as the absolute primary documentary requirement for entry. For Canadian registered nurses, the primary group subject to comments made in response to the proposed rule, either a state-issued license or a Canadian provincial license is required as an entry document. Such documentation provide only for the entry of the prospective Canadian TN (provided that the individual is otherwise admissible).
The Department wishes to make clear that all Canadian TN nonimmigrants are subject to any individual state's licensure requirements. Granted, and in particular in the case of Canadian registered nurses, any such state licensure will most likely take place after entry. But, as we note above, the state license is not a mandatory documentary requirement for entry. States continue to maintain the ability to impose licensure requirements on any individual intending to work in the state.
The Department has taken special note of the comments that expressed concern that the change in the licensure requirement may have an adverse affect on the welfare of the United States. The Department is of the opinion that this rule will have no negative effect on the health and welfare of United States citizens. In those jurisdictions where a particular profession or occupation requires licensure, State or Federal law will continue to require the alien's employer to ensure that the alien has the proper license before the alien commences employment. In this regard, a Canadian TN alien will be treated in the same fashion as a United States worker. While this final rule will ensure that the Department will not require a Canadian TN to present a license to be admitted to the United States, the alien still will have to have a license to work in the United States consistent with Chapter 12 of NAFTA.
The change in the licensure requirement for Canadian TN nonimmigrant aliens does not result in different requirements between Mexican and Canadian TN nonimmigrant aliens. On March 10, 2004, the Department published an interim final rule in the
The former Service received seven comments on the proposal to add actuaries and plant pathologists to the NAFTA. Of these comments, six agreed with the proposal and urged its adoption as written.
One commenter urged the former Service to broaden the possible qualifications for the TN category of actuary. This particular commenter, a private law firm, asked that the government consider other academic disciplines as being essentially equivalent to a degree in actuarial science.
The Department will not include this suggested change in this final rule as it is not consistent with the criteria agreed to by the three NAFTA parties to establish that an individual qualifies as an actuary. Therefore, the Department will adopt the proposed rule's language with one modification. In lieu of inserting the profession of Actuary into the body of Appendix 1603.D.1, a new footnote to the category of Mathematician will note that actuaries are included within the meaning of the term “mathematician.” As it is generally accepted that an actuary is in fact a type of mathematician, the Department finds that inclusion of the profession of actuary within the meaning of the term mathematician is an acceptable and non-significant modification to the language of the proposed rule.
The Department also notes that no comments were received regarding the proposal to add plant pathologists as a footnote to the category of biologists in Appendix 1603.D.1 to the NAFTA and the language of the proposed rule is adopted without change.
The Department has reviewed this rule in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)) and, by approving it, the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some employers may be considered small entities, this final rule will benefit United States employers by allowing certain aliens to transfer their professional skills to the United States and to work in their chosen occupation in the United States in a more expeditious fashion.
This final rule 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, and it will not significantly or uniquely effect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This final rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or 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.
This final rule is considered by the Department to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Accordingly, this regulation has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review.
This final rule is intended to benefit various United States employers by amending the Department's regulations to add the professions of actuaries and plant pathologists to the list of viable NAFTA professional occupations. Indirectly, this final rule will benefit Canadian and Mexican actuaries and plant pathologists destined for employment in the United States, and, reciprocally, United States actuaries and plant pathologists destined for employment in either Canada or Mexico. The final rule imposes no new costs to the pre-existing filing fees for NAFTA professionals. Since this final rule provides a benefit to the public without producing any additional costs, the Department feels it is justified in issuing this final rule.
This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This final rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting or recordkeeping requirements inherent in a rule. This final rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Employment, Foreign officials, Health professions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Students.
8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301-1305 and 1372; sec. 643, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901, note, and 1931 note, respectively; 8 CFR part 2.
The revision and additions read as follows:
(c)* * *